



	Home About Contact Deutsch

The Middle Finger of District Administrator Götz Ulrich and the Shy Representatives

It took a long time. After many months, a letter from the district administrator regarding my objection to the prohibition of video recording of the district committee meeting on 15.10.2024 finally arrived in the mailbox.

As already reported, the district administrator Götz Ulrich (CDU) forbade me from recording the district committee meeting on 15.10.2024. His reasoning at the time was that I had not registered this in advance. A registration submitted immediately after he opened the meeting was not accepted. Mind you, this was only a registration and not an application requiring approval. The district administrator stated that he must strictly adhere to legal regulations. What is allowed in satire?

On 24.10.2024, I filed an objection against the decision of district administrator Götz Ulrich and set a deadline of 14 days. The legal and regulatory office then wrote that it could not meet this deadline. Now, on 25.01.2025, a letter dated 21.01.2025 from the legal and regulatory office was in the mailbox. The full text is provided below.

No Objection Decision Regarding My Objection

Notably, the legal and regulatory office does not title the letter as a formal objection decision. In my view, this is an attempt to diminish the binding nature of the letter. Furthermore, the letter argues that the effectiveness of the administrative act – i.e., the district administrator's ruling – ended with the conclusion of the district committee meeting. This was clearly intended by the district administrator. He prohibited the recording and stated that while it could be legally clarified afterwards, that obviously does not help for this particular meeting. Isn’t that great?

The letter continues with the legal assessment from the legal and regulatory office. Since I filed an objection, a formal objection decision would have been required, but the district office obviously wants to avoid this. In a lawsuit, a likely argument would be that this letter is not an objection decision and therefore the lawsuit should be dismissed.

The Patronizing of Shy Representatives by the District Administrator

It is explained that such meetings must be free from psychological inhibitions. A "permanent media presence" could influence the behavior of the members and noticeably change those involved. Moreover, the personality rights of the members are cited, and a "last-minute request for media recording" could be surprising and have the effects described above.

This implies that the registration of a video recording is indeed understood as an application. Why is the legal and regulatory office unable to distinguish between a registration and an application? And why is recording such a meeting considered a "permanent media presence"? I can only shake my head at this reasoning.

Furthermore, the district administrator poses as a kind of protector of the district committee members. However, the district administrator does not actually hold this position. Rather, the district committee members have the task of controlling the district administrator and the administration. They are not subordinate to the district administrator; they are completely independent. When it comes to personality rights, it is therefore up to each district committee member to personally assert them if they consider it necessary. The letter written on behalf of the district administrator gives the impression that the district committee members are "timid" individuals who need the "protection" of the district administrator and are somehow afraid to express their opinions publicly if it is recorded. Is this the district administrator’s attempt to subordinate the district committee members?

These district committee members had campaigned, certainly approached the citizens, sought conversations, showed their faces publicly on election posters, and then immediately after being elected transformed into "shy little deer" suddenly afraid of the public and in need of the district administrator’s protection? Really?

On 15.10.2024, I asked the group who among the committee members had a problem with the video recording. No one responded. District administrator Götz Ulrich, however, did not ask this question to the members. Yet he obviously assumes that he had to protect the members from a video recording because it was not registered in advance.

I was clearly visible to everyone in the room with the cameras before the meeting started. There was enough time for any member to express concerns or similar to me. None did.

Assuming that the district committee members are mature personalities, I believe that the reasoning in the letter from the legal and regulatory office and from the district administrator contains a considerable amount of paternalism and disenfranchisement of the district committee members by the district administrator. Okay, it is up to each member themselves whether they accept such paternalism and disenfranchisement.

The Fight Against Press Freedom

Also interesting is the argumentation in the letter regarding press freedom. The legal and regulatory office, on behalf of the district administrator, arrogates the right to decide what form of reporting is sufficient. Here again, it must be noted that the press and media in a democratic constitutional state should be independent and act as the fourth power to observe and criticize politics. How this is done should not be within the decision-making authority of politics – especially not in public meetings – but a free choice of the media. Anything else would violate press freedom and restrict it.

How Binding Are Laws for District Administrator Götz Ulrich?

It is further stated that the district administrator communicated his reasoning for the prohibition orally and that this was sufficient. However, the law to which the district administrator supposedly is bound states that an administrative act must be justified in writing. This was also an immediate enforcement, which requires an even more concrete justification.

Since I filed an objection, the legal and regulatory office should be aware that I expect a written justification at the latest in the form of an objection decision. But of course, this is ignored.

The Middle Finger of the District Administrator

Over the years, I have had many experiences with offices, authorities, and courts. I have often received evasive, meaningless letters like this one. I always say that a selfie with an extended middle finger amounts to the same content. Because that’s exactly what it is. With many words it is said: "Take that, citizen! Don’t bother us! Move along! And if you don’t like how you’re being brushed off, then sue!"

During the discussion on 15.10.2024 with district administrator Götz Ulrich, he had already hinted at this. The citizen, the sovereign, can file a lawsuit against the decisions of the district administrator. Of course, he knows this takes time and costs money.

Think About Who You Vote For!

The federal elections are coming up. Everyone is free to cast their votes as they wish. However, consideration should be given to whether such an "understanding of democracy," as demonstrated by district administrator Götz Ulrich (CDU), should continue to be the standard. At the federal level, it’s no different. Although the CDU claims during the campaign that it wants a political change, more transparency for citizens will hardly come with the CDU. Because this – let me say – contempt for the citizens has deeply taken root in the minds of some local politicians. They shamelessly exploit legal technicalities against citizens and the press. They don’t even hide it. So everyone must decide for themselves whether they want to continue to accept this.

PS to the Willing Subjects

I know that some of you are itching to post your joy and applause about the rebuff by the district administrator and the district administration. But what is forgotten is that when you yourselves want something from politics or administration, which you even have a right to, but politics and administration do not want to give it, you will receive exactly such a rebuff. You too will effectively be shown the middle finger.

The Content of the Letter from the Legal and Regulatory Office:

Your letter dated 24.10.2024 to the District Administrator of Burgenlandkreis Your subject: Objection to the decision of the district administrator dated 14.10.2024 prohibiting the video and audio recording of a public district committee meeting

Dear Mr. Thurm,

Your objection dated 24.10.2024 against the prohibition of video and audio recording of the public district committee meeting on 14.10.2024 is not the appropriate legal remedy to challenge this prohibition.
In meetings of the district council and its committees, the respective chairperson is responsible for maintaining order and exercises house rules.
The house-rule disciplinary measures to be taken if necessary (such as the prohibition of video and audio recording here) probably constitute an administrative act, whose effectiveness ends according to § 43 VwVfG, however, when it is completed by expiration of time, fulfillment, or other reasons.
In your case, the administrative act expired on 14.10.2024 by the end of the district committee meeting, simply by expiration of time.
The purpose of the objection procedure is to review an ongoing regulation. Such a review does not take place with a completed administrative act, as the annulment of the administrative act and any related correction that could affect the course of administration is no longer possible (Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 9 February 1967 - IC 49.64 -, BVerwGE 26, 161-168).
For this reason and independently of the completion under § 8a AG VwGO, you may file a lawsuit to establish the illegality of this administrative act before the Administrative Court Halle without an objection procedure.

Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | 26.01.2025

Jeden Tag neue Angebote bis zu 70 Prozent reduziert

Other articles:

Montagsdemo in Zeitz zum Bauernprotest am Montag, den 08. Januar 2024

Zum Auftakt der Montagsproteste in diesem Jahr starteten wir in Zeitz gemeinsam mit 65 Traktoren, LKW und Zugmaschinen sowie zahlreichen anderen Fahrzeugen eine große Montagsdemo ... zum Artikel

The Field Service Representative

The thoughts and views of a field service employee.... zum Artikel

Mandatory Vaccination for Medical Fields

A submission with thoughts on mandatory vaccination for medical fields.... 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