|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
District Administrator Against Press Freedom – Abysses in BurgenlandkreisOn 15.10.2024, the second meeting of the district committee took place. A public meeting, where citizens are also allowed to ask questions. And I thought to myself: Hey, this could be filmed for Bürgerstimme. Think again! 
I arrived around 4:45 pm in room 1.139 in building 1 of the district office. Two people were already in the room. I said that I wanted to film the meeting for Bürgerstimme today. There were no objections. I set up the cameras at the back in the public area and waited. The room slowly filled with committee members. Christian Thieme (Mayor of the city of Zeitz) and Jörg Freiwald greeted me. We had crossed paths a few times over the past years. District Administrator Götz Ulrich also arrived and took his seat at the presidium. He flipped through his documents. The meeting was scheduled to start at 5 pm. It was now about 5:07 pm. The district administrator opened the meeting. I switched the cameras to recording. The topics and documents for the meeting can be found at https://www.ratsinfo-online.de/blk-bi/to010.asp?SILFDNR=2050 And from now on, abysses opened upDistrict Administrator Ulrich asked me to turn off the cameras and point them away. He asked if I wanted to film the meeting. I said yes, it is a public meeting. Ulrich explained that I was not allowed to do so. According to the municipal constitution, any audio and video recording of such meetings must be registered in advance. I explained that I was submitting the registration now. He said that since the meeting had already been opened, submitting the registration afterward was not possible.Note: I once had a court case before an administrative court where the defendant was not present, only the legal counsel from the state school office represented the defendant. However, he had no power of attorney with him. The judge said it could be submitted afterward. It was indeed submitted about two weeks later, signed and dated after the court date. Formally, the defendant was therefore not present at the hearing. The judge had no problem with this. But District Administrator Götz Ulrich saw exactly this as the problem in the meeting. He had opened the meeting and now, after his opening, no registration could be submitted afterward. I asked about press freedom. Ulrich said it was a very important good, but he could not override the rules in the municipal constitution and the district council resolution. I asked where it says that submitting a registration afterward is impossible. He read the passage again that a registration must be made beforehand. However, submitting afterward was not explicitly excluded. But he was the one chairing the meeting and had to ensure that the proceedings were not disturbed. I could also have this legally reviewed. I pointed out that in case of a legal review, the meeting would already be over afterward. He confirmed this. So he was aware that a legal clarification afterward would not change his ban on recording the meeting. He claimed that the cameras had already been recording before the meeting started. I denied this and offered to prove it to him. He did not respond further. Ulrich explained that advance registration was important so that committee members could be informed that filming would take place and could then decide not to attend the meeting, according to him. As I write these lines, I ask myself whether this can really be a reason for members of such committees — who were elected by the citizens after all — to stay away from such meetings. I have my doubts, especially since this questions the transparency intentions of such members. I asked the committee members who did not want to be filmed. No one raised their hand. A voice grumbled that the committee would not vote on this issue. I asked again, not addressed to the committee but to each member personally. Again, no one responded. It was, literally, silence in the forest. So, no objections — at least not from the committee members. Jörg Riemer (known to some as the principal of the Vocational Schools Burgenlandkreis) jumped to District Administrator Ulrich’s defense and said he felt disturbed by the discussion. I replied that I did not start this discussion, the district administrator did. From my point of view, this discussion should not have taken place at all. I would have filmed quietly without saying a word. There was pressure to start the meeting now. Okay, I did not want to disturb, packed up the cameras, and listened to the further course of the meeting. How should the district administrator’s behavior be evaluated?I conclude that the district administrator wanted to prevent the recording. He had obviously seen the cameras before opening the meeting because that was his first topic after the opening. Since he claimed that the cameras had recorded before the meeting started, he can hardly deny having seen the cameras.If he had wanted to, he could have proactively approached me before the meeting, pointed out that a recording must be registered in advance. I could have registered it at that moment, especially since there is no written rule about how long before the meeting registration must be made. Instead of leafing through papers — probably including the municipal constitution and district council rules from which he quoted — he could have made the recording completely uncomplicated and bureaucratically easy — for democracy, transparency toward citizens and voters, etc. But District Administrator Ulrich obviously did not want that. The committee members had no objections. His ban was therefore unjustified. Is there a problem with public attendance at such meetings?Well, judging by how it went, that could well be the reason. It turned out that members voted on things — even if many were just proposals for the district council — about which they had no real knowledge.For example, the two points "Nomination list for honorary judges in agricultural matters at the Naumburg district court and the Higher Regional Court Naumburg" and "Nomination list for the election of honorary judges at the Halle administrative court." The committee members were supposed to vote on these name lists so that later the courts could select the honorary judges from them. None of the committee members knew who these people were. District Administrator Ulrich also stated that he did not know these persons. But the committee had to approve these lists. Another item was the "Educational mission statement of Burgenlandkreis." One committee member complained that the contents of this mission statement had not been discussed or developed with those affected — the teachers. Also, many teachers see it differently from what is written in the mission statement. There was a lengthy exchange on this. The mission statement was adopted. A bit of a sneak attack was the topic "Approval of extraordinary expenditures for the procurement of software for the road traffic office." The company that had previously provided this software was apparently bought by another company. Therefore, the company that bought the previous one had to acquire the same or new software. This costs only about 220,000 euros and was quickly approved because it was urgent. Disturbance of the meetingOh, one more thing about disturbing the meeting. The aforementioned Jörg Riemer apparently wanted or had to avoid a vote and therefore walked around the room to sit in the spectator seats. In doing so, he inevitably passed the district administrator — the room is quite tight — and mumbled something to him. After the vote, he walked back. From his and the district administrator’s perspective, this was probably not disturbing.District Administrator Ulrich took a phone call on his mobile during the meeting, albeit briefly, because he told the caller he was in a meeting. That, therefore, was not a disturbance either. Would filming have disturbed the meeting?The cameras don’t run on diesel generators or steam engines. So filming would not have disturbed anyone, unless one simply does not want the public to see how these committees actually operate.Supplement: The district administrator’s questionable voting procedureThe voting procedure at this meeting went like this: The district administrator asked if there were any votes against, then if there were abstentions. If there were none or only a few raised hands, he declared the respective resolution adopted. He did not ask for approval; there were no raised hands in favor. The district administrator just put the approval into the room. But immediately the question arises in the room whether the resolutions of 15.10.2024 can actually be considered adopted if no committee member gave their approval. Unless the district administrator’s credo is: Whoever is silent, consents.The district administrator, who fought tooth and nail to prevent video recording by hiding behind the municipal constitution because, according to him, rules must be followed and he cannot override them as chairperson, bungled the voting procedure in a way that can hardly be called proper. It is also worrying that the committee members did not object to this voting method. Does it always work like this? Besides the mayor of Zeitz, the district council chairman and mayor of Hohenmölsen, Andy Haugk, was also a committee member. One would think that they would know exactly how voting procedures are supposed to be conducted. Before the usual suspects among the Kasper-Froeschileinchen start their praises of the district administrator or post pointless comments again: Whether a democracy really works, whether elected politicians really have an interest in democracy, citizen proximity, transparency, etc., becomes clear exactly in such and other situations. And before the usual Kasper-frog spreads its typical scorn, it should ask itself whether it can really support politicians who act like this, since their actions ultimately also affect the Kasper-Froeschileinchen—and if so, what that says about their own understanding of democracy. One thing is certain for me: This is neither press freedom nor a will for transparency toward the voters! From my point of view, such behavior of the district administrator is really childish and unworthy of a district administrator. It reveals his contempt for the citizens, the media, the constitution, and so on. Maybe the municipal supervision authority should check whether the district administrator is standing with both feet on the ground of the constitution? I’m asking for a friend. Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | 15.10.2024 |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Future Dialogue Part 2 – Tangible Digitalization: How Sensors and LoRaWAN Are Making the Burgenlandkreis SmarterIn the second part of the "Zukunftsdialog – How Should Our Burgenlandkreis Develop by 2028?" the spotlight was on digitalization – with a particularly hands-on keynote by Rober... zum Artikel |
 | Why No Early Elections in Saxony-Anhalt?A political debate has erupted in Saxony-Anhalt that is drawing attention beyond the state’s borders. Minister-President Reiner Haseloff (CDU) recently stated in the state parlia... zum Artikel |
 | German flag in front of public buildings a taboo break and symbolic politics of the far right?Speech by Max Schneller in Merseburg on May 19, 2025... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |