|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
Complacent Understanding of Power – Arbitrary and Random Interpretations of Legal Requirements in the Burgenlandkreis District Council?One might think democracy is a well-oiled machine, where rules are clearly defined and processes are transparent. But anyone who believes everything runs smoothly in the Burgenlandkreis district executive committee might have been disabused on October 14, 2024. On that day, a meeting of the executive committee took place where several issues were to be voted on. But let’s get one thing straight upfront: what looks like an orderly procedure turns out, on closer inspection, to be an absurd performance where the rules of procedure are stretched like a rubber band or locked down like an iron chain—whichever suits the occasion. "Decisions" Without Any Proposal?The voting processes during the committee meeting followed a well-rehearsed routine. The district administrator asked if there were any votes against. Silence. Any abstentions? A few hands, if any. And with that—fanfare and applause—the decision was declared "adopted." A routine procedure, surely common in many places. Yet a small but important detail was overlooked in the rush: The rules of procedure of the district council require that votes be taken openly by a show of hands or, if in doubt, by standing up (§10, paragraph 5). Now, "if in doubt" is obviously a flexible term, but anyone who sticks to the letter of the rules must conclude: these decisions were not really decided at all.One might dismiss this as a harmless formality, if it weren’t for the behavior of the district administrator who, just minutes after the start of this meeting, abruptly forbade audio and video recording. The reason: such recordings must, according to the rules, be registered beforehand, and rules must not be violated. Interestingly, strict adherence to the rules only seemed to matter in this case, while during the votes the same rules were reduced to mere trivialities. The Citizen as a DisturbanceThis inconsistency might have remained a footnote if not for an engaged citizen who raised exactly this point at the subsequent district council meeting on October 21, 2024. With polite precision, he pointed out that the district council was voting on decisions that were never lawfully adopted in the committee. A reasonable question, one might think. But far from it: the citizen was promptly told that, according to the rules, questions concerning agenda items are not allowed during the citizen question time (§7, paragraph 3). And besides, this has always been the practice in committees when it comes to voting. So, not only from the district council chair’s perspective, this is perfectly acceptable.Should this argument apply in other areas, too? A speeder who says "I’ve always sped" doesn’t have to pay a fine? A thief who habitually steals always goes unpunished? Certainly not! But in the Burgenlandkreis district council, habit apparently overrides the rules in the rules of procedure that the council itself once imposed. So what! Who even cares about some piece of paper, right? In other words: a substantive debate about the questionable voting procedures? No, thanks. The citizen question time is a nice gesture—as long as citizens restrict their questions to harmless topics. Democracy participation à la carte—but please, only from the appetizer menu. Democratic Understanding Put to the TestOne must ask: what kind of understanding of democracy is this? On the one hand, the district administrator insists on strict adherence to the rules when forbidding audio and video recordings, but on the other hand, he ignores those same rules when it comes to how voting is conducted. And as soon as a citizen tries to point out this contradiction, he is silenced with the same rules.It can hardly be put any other way: the rules of procedure are not understood as a tool for transparency and legal certainty here, but as a flexible instrument that is stretched or used as a barricade depending on convenience. While citizens are effectively denied access to the district council’s proceedings, the council members decide on resolutions that were not even formally adopted. What remains is the bitter aftertaste of a democracy where the rules of the game are written down, but only apply when they serve those in charge. The Role of the District Council MembersAnd what about the district council members? On October 21, 2024, they voted on the questionable resolutions—knowingly or unknowingly aware that these were not lawfully adopted in the committee. But instead of questioning the obvious contradiction, voting went on as if nothing happened. One wonders whether the council members interpret the rules as flexibly as the district administrator does, or whether they simply lack the political backbone to address such irregularities. Their behavior at least suggests that more value is placed on rubber-stamping than on serious substantive debate.Are the District Council’s Decisions Even Valid?Formally, one could argue that the district council’s decisions stand on shaky ground. If the rules of procedure were not properly followed—both in the committee and in the council vote—the question arises as to the validity of these decisions. However, in practice, there seems to be little reluctance to overlook such formal inconsistencies. No plaintiff, no judge, one might say. But this should give us pause: democracy lives not only from respecting majority decisions but also from observing the rules that legitimize those majorities in the first place.A Sham Democracy Due to Selective RulesThe spectacle in the executive committee and district council of Burgenlandkreis vividly illustrates how fragile democratic processes become when the rules meant to support them are applied selectively. Citizen participation turns into a farce when citizens are denied the opportunity to speak on relevant topics, while simultaneously the rules of procedure are used as a shield to fend off uncomfortable questions. And the council members? They act as extras in a play whose direction obviously does not rest on the principles of the rule of law.Whether the council’s decisions are valid would be a question for legal experts to address—or rather one they absolutely must. The underlying "democracy" is clearly regarded merely as a means to an end—a tool that is redefined depending on the situation and interests at hand. The Pointlessness of CommitteesWhen committees, like the one in Burgenlandkreis, conduct their votes only pro forma, the question inevitably arises about their actual relevance. What remains of such bodies’ function when their decisions are not only formally invalid but are effectively re-decided in the district council anyway—possibly without regard for the actual voting procedure? The committee, originally intended as a preparatory body, thus degenerates into a bureaucratic stage where debates are acted out but not seriously conducted. When votes are irrelevant, the committee becomes a sham theater of democracy—a kind of alibi event that gives the impression of political participation without any real impact on decisions. This not only devalues the work of committee members but also fundamentally undermines citizens’ trust in political processes.Complacent Understanding of PowerWhen a district administrator and the chair of the district council—who is also a member of the questionable committee—act this way, it points to troubling gaps in their understanding of democracy and leadership responsibility. The district administrator, as the highest representative of the district, bears responsibility not only for making decisions in accordance with legal requirements but also for ensuring political processes are transparent and compliant with rules. By selectively applying the rules—rigorously enforcing them against inconvenient citizen questions while ignoring them during formal votes—he signals that rules only apply when they serve him or the administration. This undermines not only the credibility of his office but also reveals a disregard for institutional responsibility.The district council chair, who was directly involved in the questionable votes as a committee member, is equally obliged to ensure compliance with the rules of procedure. Instead, he seems to act as a silent follower, willing to overlook or even support formal violations to maintain the appearance of a smooth political operation. This passive role—or even conscious complicity in distorting democratic processes—not only casts a shadow on his leadership but also devalues the trust citizens place in their elected representatives. Overall, this behavior reflects a leadership culture that is less guided by the rule of law and democratic principles and more by a complacent understanding of power, where political rules only matter when they serve one’s own goals. This damages not only the reputation of political institutions but also endangers the foundations of a vibrant, transparent democracy. The Elephant and the Question in the RoomThis situation immediately raises the question of how the actions of the district administrator and others look in other areas? Is everything generally conducted in such an arbitrary, capricious manner? Which past decisions are at least formally invalid, and which measures, expenditures, and actions would consequently have to be reversed? Measures and expenditures that involve more than mere formalities.Who Will Search the Archives?At the committee meeting on October 14, 2024, an audio recording device was present in front of the district administrator. Assuming it was turned on—and such devices are always on during these meetings—there should be recordings shedding light on which district council decisions should be considered invalid. The question, of course, is who has the time or inclination to review these recordings for the sake of the citizens, democracy, and the rule of law.Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | 21.10.2024 |
|
| Other articles: |
 | For Our New TomorrowBodo Pistor with his thoughts on the situation... zum Artikel |
 | No Supermarket in the Park – 60 Objections to the Development Plan – Protest: News from LützenI’m writing again on behalf of our citizens’ initiative: “No Supermarket in the Small Park,” which aims to prevent the sale of the city-owned park and green space in order ... zum Artikel |
 | Protest Convoy with the Farmers, Monday Demo Zeitz, 01.04.2024For the 13th time in 2024, a protest demonstration was held in Zeitz.... 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 |