High Court hears petition as public broadcaster KAN faces risk of having no council, executive

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara and the five serving council members support the substance of the temporary proposal.

The High Court of Justice heard arguments on Wednesday over the continued failure to complete the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation’s governing council, as KAN faces the prospect of being left without both a functioning council and a permanent chief executive.

The council currently has five serving members out of the 12 positions established by law, three of whom are serving under temporary court orders. At least seven members are required for it to convene and make decisions.

The lack of a quorum is expected to become particularly urgent when CEO Golan Yochpaz’s four-year term ends on November 6. The council is the statutory body authorized to extend his term, choose a replacement or appoint an acting chief executive. In its current composition, it cannot make any of those decisions.

Hatzlacha, the nonprofit organization behind the petitions, has asked the court to extend Yochpaz’s term temporarily until 60 days after the council returns to operation. The proposed arrangement would preserve management continuity while giving a restored council time to decide whether to retain Yochpaz or select someone else.

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara and the five serving council members support the substance of the temporary proposal, while Yochpaz has said that he would be willing to remain in office during the interim period.

Opposition to temporarily extending Yochpaz’s  term 

Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi opposes a court-ordered extension. Through his privately retained lawyer, David Peter, he argued that the court does not have the authority to appoint KAN’s chief executive or extend the serving executive’s term.

Karhi has also asked the court to dismiss the remaining petitions, arguing that developments since they were filed have changed the circumstances on which they were based.

Wednesday’s hearing concerned four petitions remaining after a partial judgment issued on May 12. They challenge Karhi’s decisions not to extend the council terms of Michal Rafaeli-Kaduri, Menachem Ben-Sasson and Amir Sabhat, all of whom were recommended for additional terms by the independent search committee, and not to appoint a fourth recommended candidate, Aliza Dayan Hamama.

The appointment of an acting council chair also remains unresolved. The court previously instructed Karhi to act on that appointment promptly after deciding the four candidacies. Resolving the four candidacies together with the acting-chair appointment could restore the seven-member quorum required for the council to operate.

Search for new council members

A separate search is underway for six additional council members and has drawn 69 applications. According to an update submitted by the state, the initial examination and scoring process is expected to continue until at least the beginning of October.

Interviews, recommendations, examination by the relevant appointments review committee and final decisions by the minister would still be required afterward. The process is also taking place with an election period in the background, when senior public appointments are generally subject to additional legal restraint.

The dispute before Supreme Court President Isaac Amit and Justices Ofer Grosskopf and Gila Canfy-Steinitz centers on the limits of Karhi’s discretion over candidates recommended through the selection process established by law.

During the hearing, the justices questioned whether the minister was withholding individual appointments until he could secure a broader council composition acceptable to him. Grosskopf stressed that the minister’s authority is to approve or reject candidates recommended by the search committee - not to choose the council’s members himself.

Karhi’s position is that he is entitled to exercise judgment over the committee’s recommendations and seeks a council that reflects the public. The petitioners argue that he has exercised that discretion in a manner that has prevented the council from functioning.

In its May judgment, the High Court invalidated Karhi’s dismissal of retired judge Nechama Munitz as chairwoman of the search committee, finding that he had acted without legal authority. The court instructed the minister to advance the candidacies then before him promptly and directed the relevant officials to work toward filling all 12 council positions, including that of a permanent chair.