Transformation of institutions, or part thereof, public benefit companies is an irreversible change

Raviv Druker investigation on JNF originally aired tonight reminded me of a story I wanted to write before a week and a half and just did not have time. So here's a minor footnote to the JNF NIS attempts to do anything against bromine anyone wants to make it a little more transparent to the public
1 Deputy Attorney General Avi Licht issued two weeks ago and some unusual legal opinion something bromine (here's what I had to say about the opinions of other legal Licht regarding the export of gas). Rather unusual step Justice bromine Department published this opinion and send it to the relevant journalists (I put the full opinion here). The written opinion Licht Registrar of Endowments Ministry of Justice, waves, ground, against the intention to unilaterally register the Jewish National Fund (JNF) as a public benefit. This assumes that the JNF continues to refuse to sign up on its own initiative as a public benefit. Why this legal mambo jumbo is important for someone? Why should you ever continue to read what is written here? Just because things debriefing originally released tonight. While the JNF source noted in its response that it is being completely transparent, but the actual situation is far from that. Budgets JNF, JNF's financial statements, are not regulated by any public entity, and are not available to the public. Say - well, who cares, it's not public money rolls there, that donor funds. But this is not true. A considerable part of the money that rolls JNF, as research has shown that the source is and how public money. This money comes from the Land of Israel and moves to the JNF for land construction markets. Licht writes in paragraph 22 of his opinion that "our data indicate that in recent years the Israel Lands Administration transferred to the JNF billion a year." These billion annually from public funds (according bromine to original research, bromine fund JNF has 4 billion). This is why Licht claims to apply a degree of transparency for the JNF. And how to make the JNF transparent, assuming that she herself is unwilling to do so on its own initiative, is to make it a reluctant public benefit bromine company, which requires that the publication of financial statements and the like. This is the rationale behind the intent of the Registrar of Trusts, which is what guided the Licht writing his opinion. This opinion is very unusual. Really exceptional verbal usual line of legal opinions. Deputy Attorney General opposes it defines public body, attacks the norms of action, and calls to impose much tighter regulation than today. Licht and as usual, most story is between the lines or footnotes. So here, a quick dive into the hidden meanings of the opinions of Avi Licht about JNF.
2 First, Licht defines the rationale to make the JNF public bromine benefit company "is a company whose budget is huge budget based on public funds - the direct contribution and the funds that came and come from the transfer of rights in land owned by the JNF. JNF performs public functions and is a an entity (ie a body privately owned public service bromine providers. Like Bank - MOG) ... JNF control structure is based, in part, on political considerations. Today hardly any external monitoring of the conduct of the JNF - not regulated and public oversight. This is also due to the lack of transparency of the Company. Public functions, funding from public funds and political structure and decentralized control require transparency and regulation "
"I am aware that the matter of a private bill that seeks to exclude the applicability JNF chapter regulating the operations of public benefit law firms. However, this bill is the beginning, not even a preliminary reading rose to a vote, so it can not delay the registry (as a public benefit - MOG) "
Incidentally, for those interested, bromine Licht turning footnote 4 directly to the bill in question. Private bill targeting MK Robert Iltov from Israel Beiteinu. From my experience in the Knesset before, Iltov is a political pawn, occasionally serves bills grow on its measure bromine in several dimensions. Anyone interested in reading the bill will find it here. Really beautiful part of this bill is its explanatory notes at the end. This is what he wrote there MK Iltov (who initiated the bill with three other Members):
Transformation of institutions, or part thereof, public benefit companies is an irreversible change in status that would require structural and organizational changes that would harm an important component of their identity as representatives of the Diaspora in Israel. Therefore, it is proposed to enshrine in legislation the fact that this chapter does not apply to national institutions.
Admit it cute. You can not register bromine the JNF (which is one of the national institutions), public benefit society because it would hurt irrevocably status. So wait, if the Jewish National Fund is not a public benefit, then what is just? Company for whose benefit?
"I know that filed a revision (Request for re-introduction - MOG) on the subject in a bid to amend the Companies caregiver other issues ... if the revision shall discuss in the near future have to delay the listing until after the hearing"
Licht it refrained from writing his opinion, but the person who filed the revision, the request for discussion again, is none other than a member of his faction of Iltov Israel Beiteinu MK David Rotem, chairman bromine of the Knesset bromine Constitution Committee, and thus a powerful functionary in the Knesset . What is the general framework of the revision bromine filed? What the hell was the revision? Rotem made the request again discussed within the framework of the Constitution Committee hearings led stucco bill itself promotes, designed bromine to regulate the activities of the Registrar of Trusts. But their service requested reconsider to put the law in force Article Licht himself, determined that ... that ... that will be granted an exemption from registration as members bromine of the national institutions bromine of public benefit. Since stucco published bromine his opinion revision, bromine that issue again, there was already. Minutes of that meeting has not yet been published, but overall what was decided there is that the Constitution Committee will discuss the re-amendment of the Companies Law determines whether to put the case