From these excerpts, my colleague Justice learned Mintz "The legislature's desire to leave a wide margin of discretion for the government in appointing the commissioner in all its aspects and flexibility in the process, with the aim of ensuring cooperation between the government and him as the implementer of its policy" (at paragraph 63 of his opinion).
- As for myself, I do not see how the quotations quoted above indicate, in and of themselves, an intention Specific of the legislature to allow flexibility in the appointment process due to the nature of the commissioner's role as a "implementer" of the government's policy. Thus, the wording of Section 6 In the original bill, it was stated that "the government will appoint a civil service commissioner (hereinafter the service commissioner); Notice of his appointment will be published in the Official Gazette." Indeed, this initial version did not include a reference Exemption from the obligation of a tender according to Section 19 Law, and this reference was added later. However, I do not believe that this addition in itself can be attributed to the interpretive-normative significance that my colleague attributes to it. This, inter alia, is because, as noted above, the exemption from a tender according to Article 19 This is only required in view of the involvement of the Commissioner himself in the tender proceeding under this section. The words of the representative of the Ministry of Justice to which my colleague referred - according to which it was proposed "Clarify that section 19 will not apply" - but this is supported. In any case, even assuming that there is some normative-interpretive weight to add the explicit reference to an exemption from a tender obligation under Article 19, I see no reason to conclude from this an intention to promote "flexibility in the process" - all the more so flexibility that derives precisely from the Commissioner's being the "implementer" of the government's policy.
- As for Prime Minister Ben-Gurion's remarks in the Knesset plenum: As can be seen from the above quote, the Prime Minister at the time referred to the authority and responsibility of the government Give Instructions to the Civil Service Commission and its Chairman, and not to the authority of the Government Appoint the Commissioner or the manner in which he is appointed. In my opinion, it is not possible to learn from this about His position of the then Prime Minister regarding the nature of the Commissioner's role, or regarding the boundaries of the appointment process to which he was directed. Moreover, in the very same discussion, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion added that the Appointments Law that is being formulated "Intended to promise - and the Knesset did a good job of checking whether it was promising - a) Appointments to the civil service No political or partisan appeal; b) Ensuring the physical and professional fitness of the candidate for state employment; c) The honesty and fairness of the civil servant" (emphasis added - 11) (and see in this context also the quotes from my Ben Gurion quoted in paragraph 43 of the main arguments of the Brandeis Institute In the next hearing). As noted, my colleague the Vice-President criticized the reliance on The General Purposes of the Appointments Law as an Interpretive Source for the Purposes of the Section 6But as far as Prime Minister Ben-Gurion's position is concerned, it is difficult for me to detach his words from the emphasis he chose to place on the general purposes of the Appointments Law - purposes in which he explicitly mentioned the aspiration to ensure appointments "without political or partisan appeal," but did not relate at all to the aspiration to allow the government flexibility in order to assist in the realization of its policy.
- In any event, the conclusion of my colleague Justice Mintz Regarding the purposes of Section 6 - The purpose of the exemption from a tender on the one hand, and the purpose of the commissioner's role on the other - was based on the same indirect indications Due to the absence of references Directly For these purposes: not in the explanatory notes, not in the discussions in the plenum, and not in the meetings of the Labor Committee.
However, in the course of preparing my opinion at the additional stage of the discussion, I was able to locate direct and explicit references, on behalf of a number of various officials involved in the legislative process, to the purpose of the position of Civil Service Commissioner. These references did not occur to me at the time of writing the judgment in the petitions, and in my opinion they shed great light on the intention of the legislature with regard to the purpose of the role of the Commissioner - a purpose which, as stated, radiates on the nature of the relevant considerations on which the government is required to rely.
- This was the case: following an examination of the excerpts to which my colleague the judge referred Mintz, I turned to delve once again into the legislative history of the Section 6 to the law. At that time, I was struck by the words of the Chairman of the Labor Committee, MK Akiva Govrin, in a discussion in which the Appointments Bill was brought to the second and third readings (April 6, 1922). MK Govrin noted that "the proposal was discussed in eight meetings," but on a page dedicated to the Appointments Law on the Knesset website - which provided links to all the discussions and meetings held as part of the legislative process - only links were displayed to seven Meetings in the Labor Committee. As a result, I searched on the Labor Committee page on the Knesset website, and I reviewed the minutes of all the meetings that took place during the time period from the date the bill was passed to the Labor Committee, until it was returned to the plenum. In this way, I located the minutes of the meeting Extra, the eighth in number, dated January 14, 1959, in which the Labor Committee dealt with the Appointments Law. The minutes are available on the Knesset website, but it seems that for technical reasons it was not "associated" on the website for the Appointments Bill, and therefore it did not appear in the details of the meetings on the page dedicated to this law.
- An examination of the minutes of the "Lost Meeting" reveals a missing piece in the attachment of the subjective purpose, as to the purpose and essence of the role of the Civil Service Commissioner. Due to the importance of this matter, I will present below the discourse on Section 6 In full, minus one issue that is not related to our matter (should we choose the term "commissioner" or find another word to describe the position):
"Section 6:
- Riftin [Committee Member - 10]: I see it as an obligation that the entire government appoint the Service Commissioner and not one minister. I just want to ask: Was it not desirable to appoint a collective institution commissioner instead?
- Arian [Deputy Commissioner of Civil Service]: We are familiar with two methods in this matter: the English method and the method used in the United States. In England, the Service Commission is and only an examination committee. Candidates for civil service are examined and given a certificate of service, without which no one can begin to serve in the country. The service certificate has not yet determined the subscription. There are many people who received the certificate and were not accepted for service, but this is a condition that should not be waived. The Service Commission in England determines the content of the exams, administers them, and determines the results. This is a germium [a committee or body in German] whose members have the status of judges for the rest of their lives, with many privileges that only judges have. In the United States, the Service Commission is similar to ours. This is a three-person germium, and no more than two members of the germium must belong to the ruling party. They are appointed for a predetermined term, and usually determine that not all three will change during the president's term. Their independence is guaranteed by law and they have all the management of the federal apparatus.
- Riftin: I propose to establish in this section that the government appoint the Service Commissioner, and not the Service Commissioner.
[...]
- Cohen [Committee Member - 10]: I do not want to get into a debate about the linguistic problem, but I do not understand MK Riftin's enthusiasm for collective leadership. Section 7 discusses a service committee, whose chairman is the service commissioner. The very fact that the entire government appoints the Service Commissioner determines the important and responsible status of the Commissioner.
[...]
- Kalmer [Committee Member - 10]: I propose to delete clause 6 and add in clause 7 that the government appoint the chairman of the service committee.
- Shostak [Committee Member - 11]: I cannot support the opinion of MK Riftin that the government will appoint a commission. There has to be one commissioner.
- Aloni [Commissioner of Regulations and Working Conditions at the Civil Service Commission]: There is a fundamental difference between a committee of commissioners that exists abroad and the powers offered to the commissioner of service. All of these committees do not appoint the workers, while in the bill it is proposed that the service commissioner appoint the workers, i.e., the service commissioner. It has a function on behalf of the government, which cannot be carried out by a committee. On the other hand, all the functions that these committees have abroad - setting rules for exams, tenders, supervising exams, etc. - are available to the service committee.
- Rimelt [Committee Member - 11]: I oppose the Commission, because there should be one person who is responsible for the service. [...]
Chairman A. Govrin: [...] I oppose MK Riftin's proposal to appoint a commissioner and not a commissioner. There should be an address responsible for the service.