Jerusalem Municipality Retains Enforcement Chief Amid Legal Proceedings
Overview of the Incident
The Jerusalem Municipality has faced scrutiny for its decision to retain Ilan Shasson, the head of its enforcement department, despite legal proceedings initiated against him. Following allegations of unauthorized land use near his residence in the Gstartnim neighborhood, the municipality instructed Shasson to “remove his hands from the property” he reportedly encroached upon. Notably, while the legal process unfolded, Shasson was not suspended from his position.
Background on Legal Actions
On September 25, a warning letter was sent to Shasson, indicating potential legal action due to suspected construction violations adjacent to his home. The municipality’s external legal counsel noted that Shasson allegedly encroached upon the land, utilizing it without permission through fencing, stairs, and other structures. The letter compelled Shasson to vacate the property within fourteen days and pay retroactive fees for his unauthorized use.
When Shasson failed to comply, a lawsuit was filed by the municipality, accusing him of trespassing and requesting a court order for him to relinquish control over the land. This situation is unusual, given Shasson’s role overseeing the municipal enforcement unit, which is responsible for maintaining order in residential and commercial areas.
Response from the City and Shasson
The municipality’s enforcement department, led by Shasson, has recently been engaged in monitoring protest encampments in the city, which included issuing parking fines to demonstrators. Despite the serious nature of the charges against him, city officials did not disclose the ongoing legal issues to municipal council members. Many were reportedly unaware of the situation until months after the warning letter was issued.
In correspondence with TheMarker, Shasson claimed that the municipality constructed the disputed fence 30 years ago, arguing that he inherited the property in its current condition. He asserted that some allegations regarding unlawful construction were incorrect, as he believed that certain structures were legally built.
Settlement Agreement
On May 18, just days after inquiries from TheMarker, Shasson signed a settlement agreement with the municipality that will be submitted for court approval. This agreement entailed that Shasson would not admit to any allegations against him, but he agreed to vacate the contested property within 30 days of the approval of the settlement.
In response to inquiries, the municipality commented that after sending the warning letter, they engaged in discussions with Shasson’s legal representative, which culminated in the settlement agreement.
Conclusion
As this case progresses, questions linger about the municipality’s decision to keep Shasson in his role during the legal proceedings and the lack of communication regarding these matters within the council. The settlement, while resolving the immediate issue, raises concerns about transparency and accountability within city governance