Following a nisi order issued by High Court President Judge
Aharon Barak in a petition filed by the Betzedek
organization, the Finance and Education Ministries were
forced to make a significant number of changes in their
inspections at yeshivas, making them fairer and moderating
the sanctions imposed if irregularities are found. The
discrimination against Torah institutions has also been
remedied.
Two years ago then-Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
released criteria and regulations for inspections at state-
supported Torah institutions. These criteria focused
primarily on the holy yeshivas and kollelim, whose
level of support is directly based on enrollment numbers. The
new criteria delivered a hard blow to Torah institutions,
leaving some unable to run smoothly. According to the
operating assumption of the new regulations, institutes were
guilty of deceit until proving themselves innocent.
If a certain percentage of students was absent during the
inspection, the yeshiva would lose its funding immediately,
pending a complete, open-ended assessment. If too many
students—even different students—were absent
during the follow-up inspection as well, the level of support
would be reduced accordingly. Furthermore, if a certain
student was found absent during both inspections, the funding
for him would be deducted retroactively for the twelve months
preceding the first inspection and the yeshiva would have to
pay a fine of double the amount deducted (i.e. the equivalent
of another 24 months) to the ministry providing the
funding.
This policy made no allowances for special circumstances
justifying the absence of the bochur or
avreich, such as illness, family gatherings, deaths in
the family, and the like. The difficulty in meeting
commitments to pay avreichim or maggidei
shiurim for whom funding had been discontinued brought
many yeshivas and kollelim to the brink of financial
collapse.
Netanyahu also determined that if the overall number of
absences at both inspections exceeded the permitted number,
in addition to all of the above fines and sanctions, the
yeshiva or kollel would receive no funding for a
period of two years.
The findings of the inspection could only be challenged
after the punishments had been imposed, and only
before a joint appeals committee representing the Finance
Ministry, the Justice Ministry and the ministry providing the
funding. This committee was very hard to reach and even
harder to persuade. The long, expensive proceedings imposed
meant further financial damage for the yeshiva or
kollel seeking to explain the reason for a student's
absence.
In carrying out these already difficult regulations, the
Education Ministry's Yeshiva Department would send inspectors
at unreasonable times of day and on inappropriate dates. In
many instances the inspectors refused to share their findings
with the yeshiva at the time of the inspection or show them a
copy of the last report entered into the TEAM system (the
computer system used to track yeshiva data). When the Yeshiva
Department of the Education Ministry suddenly stopped sending
funding months after the inspection, the data would be
provided to the yeshiva on then, and the rosh yeshiva would
have to start investigating why the students in question were
absent at the time of the inspection many months previously
and then could he turn to the appeals committee.
Numerous yeshivas brought the matter to the attention of
Betzedek, a legal defense organization founded by Agudath
Israel of America. According to a preliminary assessment, the
legal channels available for addressing the problem did not
appear very promising, for the judges would be liable to
interpret any petition to the High Court as an attempt to use
the Court to defend institutions allegedly trying to extract
funds from the state through deceitful means. As such it was
hard to imagine that the court would help moderate
punishments meted out to yeshivas and kollelim.
Betzedek Director Attorney Rabbi Mordechai Green presented
his concerns and recommendations to gedolei Torah, but
they decided he should try to petition the High Court
nonetheless.
In the petition Betzedek pointed out the genuine financial
crisis many Torah institutions faced or were liable to face,
and how an upright institution could easily have its
reputation stained unjustifiably. He also detailed various
legal problems the criteria created, and charged that they
violated the institutions' rights and stood in total
opposition to basic principles of justice.
The petition also claimed that it is illegal to impose fines
based only on criteria published by a ministry rather than an
explicit law passed by the Knesset. Betzedek also argued that
yeshivas were discriminated against compared to other
institutions, where the repercussions for unfavorable
inspections were far less severe. The disparity was so
extreme, Betzedek charged, that the criteria should be done
away with completely.
During a High Court hearing, the attorney for the state
audaciously tried to portray the yeshiva world as a sector
rife with false reporting, presenting figures showing large
numbers of institutions "caught" with incorrect reports. In
his presentation, the state's attorney repeatedly stressed
that the funding the yeshivas receive is essentially charity
which the State is not obligated to provide and therefore the
State is free to halt these funds or reduce them based on the
slightest suspicion of fraud.
Attorney Green argued that the criteria are distorted and
discriminatory and that it was the ordinances set for
inspectors which created an artificially high number of
yeshivas with discrepancies between the number of students
reported and the number of students found present. Betzedek
also totally rejected the claim that the funds are charity,
saying that from the moment the State funds a certain sector
it is obligated to support others as well, for otherwise the
principle of equality is destroyed and the concept of
criteria loses its meaning.
The presiding court, headed by High Court President Aharon
Barak, upheld the petition and one year ago issued a nisi
order requiring the State to reply to the claims lodged by
Betzedek and to present reasons why the Court should not
annul the criteria that the Finance Minister had set. At that
point the State began to gradually rectify the distortions
and it notified the High Court of the changes made. Later out-
of-court talks were held between Betzedek and the relevant
government ministries, which remained bound by the nisi
order.
Following the petition and the remarks issued by the judges
during the hearing, the Finance Minister was forced to
introduce a number of significant changes in the criteria,
the timetables and the percentage of students expected to be
present. In response to claims of discrimination, the Finance
Minister set criteria that apply equally to all funded
institutions.
The State's attorney asked to have the case dropped, but
Betzedek did not consider the changes sufficient and insisted
that the hearings continue in order to introduce additional
changes to the inspection and penalty system. Due to
Betzedek's unyielding stance, the Education Minister made
extensive further changes in the criteria in accordance with
Betzedek's objections: the vacation periods were adjusted to
match the bein hazmanim periods, special regulations
were set for foreign students, and more.
After that the State's attorney again asked to have the case
dropped and but Betzedek again pointed out serious
distortions in the regulations that remained relating to
inspections and their results. For example, Betzedek demanded
that it be made mandatory to provide the yeshiva
administration with a copy of the findings immediately at the
end of the inspection in order to allow it to respond and
correct mistakes immediately rather than months later.
Betzedek also claimed there was no orderly procedure to
document sick leaves or attending family occasions, and
similar justified absences, or to document collective absence
(e.g. to attend special shiurim, funerals or other
important events) and, most of all, that every little
question entailed an appearance before the interministerial
appeals committee.
As the date nears for the State to submit its response to the
nisi order, the Yeshiva Department, based on orders from the
Education Minister, set proper work regulations that take
Betzedek's claims into account. Now any yeshiva that faces
charges of irregularities can present its objections directly
to the inspector's accountant or to the Education Ministry's
Funding Committee, and the Appeals Committee will only be
involved in cases where institutes could not remedy the
situation through the Funding Committee.
Using the new system, which has been tested in the field
during the past two months, the number of yeshivas at which
irregularities were found has dropped sharply.
At this stage, following consultations, Betzedek has decided
that the petition has secured the maximal changes it can
effect through the High Court, although some unjustified
directives still remain. As such a detailed announcement was
sent to the High Court explaining the changes that have been
made as a result of the petition. Therefore the Court is
being asked to require the State to pay Betzedek for the
legal expenses incurred.
High Court Deputy President Judge Mishael Cheshin upheld
Betzedek's request and ordered the court recorder to make a
decision regarding the amount the State will have to pay.
Betzedek continues to keep track of the implementation of the
new guidelines and their effects on the yeshiva world, while
the yeshivas continue to notify Betzedek whenever the new
guidelines are not followed properly.
