(-) Lack of documentation of a preliminary process of clarification and examination of alternatives to the chosen mechanism, particularly against the background of the opinions of the legal advisory bodies, which give rise to a clear position regarding the need for a competitive process. I will note that my colleague the judge Mintz He disagreed with my position in this context, and believed that we were presented with sufficient documentation of the discussion that took place in the government. However, I did not find that the Government considered the nature of the Commissioner's role against the background of the relevant criteria; the necessary data regarding the state of the public service in Israel; the obscure "policy" that it intends to promote, and for which a person should be chosen on behalf of the prime minister; And more. This is how I discussed the matter in my judgment in the petitions (in paragraph 66; the emphases in the underline were added - 11):
"As appears from the summaries of the discussions held in the government prior to Resolution 2129 (discussions from June 30, 2024 and August 11, 2024), those present raised various objections to the proposed procedure on behalf of the legal advisory bodies. Some of the objections dealt with the manner in which the procedure was formulated and worded (such as the claim that the proposal was formulated without consultation with relevant parties and that it was not sufficiently reasoned); Some of them focused on the need to allow the government to influence the appointment of the commissioner and determine his identity; And some of them focused on the proposed composition of the search committee.
However, as stated, there is no dispute about the government's authority to appoint the next civil service commissioner [...] and therefore this argument in itself does not justify prioritizing one appointment mechanism over the alternatives. As for the objections to the formulation of the procedure and the composition of the proposed search committee, this argument may, at most, justify the selection of a search committee with a different composition than the one proposed, and not a fundamental negation of the mechanism of the search committee [...].