|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
Indoor Pool Disaster – Weißenfels Swimming Hall – Open Letter to the State Audit Office of Saxony-Anhalt by Robby Risch, former Lord MayorThe former Lord Mayor of the city of Weißenfels, Robby Risch, wrote an open letter to the State Audit Office of Saxony-Anhalt regarding the swimming hall  Weißenfels swimming hall, source: City of Weißenfels, Katharina Vokoun Open Letter to the State Audit Office of Saxony-Anhalt via email State Audit Office of the State of Saxony-Anhalt P.O. Box 4040 Attn.: President of the State Audit Office, Mr. Barthel 39015 Magdeburg Weißenfels, 08/12/2025 Subject: Report on the supra-local focused audit of the municipal enterprise Sports and Leisure Services of the City of Weißenfels Dear Mr. Bartels, Please allow me, by way of introduction, to directly address your predecessor in office and current State Chairman of the Federation of Taxpayers, Mr. Ralf Seibicke, with this letter. First of all, I would like to express my astonishment at how the State Audit Office of the Land can allow itself to be instrumentalized in such a manner. My previous understanding was that a state audit office acts not only independently of the state government and ministries. I would like to explain this below: o I would like to begin with the city council meeting on 27/11/2025, which was dominated by the State Audit Office. As early as 17/11/2025, one day before the summons, Lord Mayor Mr. Papke announced the special session on the indoor pool disaster in the Mitteldeutsche Zeitung. Even then, he announced that no documents would be published. o On 18/11/2025, the public summons was issued. This involved a clear violation of the Municipal Constitution Act (KVG) § 53 (4): “The documents required for the deliberation shall generally be enclosed.” There were obviously no reasons to violate this provision, as the report was released on the internet during the presentation. Was this done in coordination with your office, and if not, why was it tolerated? This facilitated several negative circumstances: 1. Interested citizens were just as unable to inform themselves in advance as the city council members. The responsible citizen and the elected councilor apparently require assistance in classifying the report. 2. On 22/11/2025, Mr. Papke allowed himself to be quoted with the greatest possible transparency regarding the session in this hotly debated matter. I allege here that he had organized exactly the opposite. 3. In addition, questions from citizens (according to the rules of procedure) on topics of the city council meeting were not permitted. o It was very irritating to me that even the city council members did not react and did not object to this improper summons. Was this coordinated with you in advance? This leads me to the next question: Whom does the city council represent? o Are you aware that the expert opinions cited by you are being withheld from the public despite public deliberation? The website of the municipal enterprise is blocked; inquiries are answered “democratically” (appendix). o I would recommend that Mr. Papke carry out the promised residents’ assembly pursuant to KVG § 28. Ideally after an open day at the swimming pool. In your report – under IV. Conclusions (beginning on p. 37) – assertions are made that urgently require a differentiated consideration. It is incomprehensible to me why the hearing of the persons involved in the refurbishment was dispensed with. This despite the fact that you were aware that the persons providing information were employed by the city only for a few weeks during the period of refurbishment or not at all. Inquiries could have been made to persons who are now retired – such as the head of the municipal enterprise or myself. “Fortunate” circumstances led to the other employees involved each having to seek a new employer voluntarily and/or for personal reasons. These included the head of the legal department (simultaneously head of the procurement office), his deputy, and the employee of the municipal enterprise referred to by you as the clerk for construction, maintenance, and project implementation. In two out of three cases, the employment relationships ended without compliance with the customary three- or six-month notice period. None of those mentioned are deceased and all could have been questioned at any time. As the legal review demanded not only by you (court proceedings) is only now beginning, I unfortunately cannot respond comprehensively to your report. Once again, I find the quality of the report astonishing. This may of course be due to the persons providing information, but also to the probative value of the 9,641 files handed over (p. 6). In principle: o In accordance with the economic capacity of municipalities, I simply refer to the difference between needs (study) and demand (affordable swimming pool). The study used by you as evidence (elsewhere also referred to as an expert opinion) from 2017, to my recollection, had two shortcomings: First, the planning contradicted the provisions of the zoning plan at the Langendorf site and would have required the closure of the outdoor pool. Second, costs of around €20.0 million. Accordingly, the city council – which confirmed the approach over several years through the business plans – determined the following: Refurbishment in the following order (greatest need for action), with the aim of achieving a period of use of 10–15 years through refurbishment: Refurbishment of the outdoor pool in its existing state without funding. Measured against the premises of your report, certainly also an illegal structure with dozens of violations. Here, the structural refurbishment of the diving tower must be examined – no building permit! Subsequently, refurbishment of the indoor pool in its existing state: 1st construction phase: Refurbishment of changing rooms and sanitary facilities. Implemented! Construction costs, to my recollection, approx. €900,000. 2nd construction phase: Refurbishment of the swimming hall and external shell. Subject of the report and now abandoned; funding was applied for and approved only for this purpose. For your information: This was also planned without funding and denied by the municipal supervisory authority. Approved with funding. The technical construction review by the state confirmed the approaches. 3rd construction phase: Extension with a teaching pool – depending on budgetary situation. This naturally results in a wide variety of cost scenarios. The presentation of the damage (cf. p. 6) is grossly negligent. During the on-site inspection, the refurbished rooms should have been noticed by you or your staff. These expenditures have also “disappeared.” On page 21, you quantify the costs for the planning office at €509,975 without including them in the calculation. According to reports, there is said to be an additional six-figure subsequent billing; this still needs to be verified or disclosed. Preliminary revised damage total: 1st construction phase: €900,000 (estimate) 2nd construction phase according to p. 6: €3,986,254 Interest: €257,000 Planner snp p. 21: €509,975 Supplement to planner?: to be determined if applicable Dismantling/demolition?: €500,000 + x (estimate) Pupil transportation: to be determined if applicable / payer BLK Total damage: at least €6,153,229 o No statement on overpayments with regard to the timing of payment and the stated reason for payment. My personal assumption: remaining amounts for final settlement after the construction stop ordered on 04/08/2022. o The statements regarding the commissioned planning office are particularly interesting. This involved a contract for work with deficient performance. Was the defect reported? Was a deadline set for subsequent performance? Was compensation for damages demanded? After two years of investigation by the city with two expert opinions and legal support, and one year of investigation by the State Audit Office, no statement on this is possible? Or can this be understood as a finding when you casually write on p. 30: “Despite services not being properly rendered, the municipal enterprise has settled the claims of the planning office almost in full”? Here, too, there is no statement on a possible reservation of rights. Or is it a fact that no claims for damages are (can be) asserted? o It is good that it is established that there was indeed a construction logbook and that it is now to be demanded from the planner. Bad: this is said to have taken three years. o Some statements from expert opinions adopted uncritically by you appear to correspond more to their respective predefined objectives. That, on the one hand, the termination of the project with 230 defects is preferred, while the next expert opinion advocates completion, speaks for itself. Deriving unreflected factual assertions from this seems rather unserious to me. Finally, one more note: The selection of the planner was legally compliant and, of course, also based on references. This is evident from the documents of the procurement office in the VgV procedure (Ordinance on the Award of Public Contracts, an EU-wide valid procedure for awarding large public contracts in Germany). Swimming halls of the “Anklam” type were not only built in Weißenfels and successfully refurbished elsewhere. Of course, it would have been desirable if there had been more competition. In practice, however, it is unfortunately not uncommon that the desired number of applicants is not reached. What you have also completely ignored are possible corona-related influences on coordination processes. At the same time, there was pressure from two sides: The city with its citizens and children, as well as political representatives, expected the fastest possible reopening; the state (funding authority) expected punctual completion under threat of repayment. This would of course not justify any legal violations, the veracity of which I will only address in the context of the envisaged legal proceedings. I am firmly convinced that the swimming hall can still be completed today. Missing building permits can of course be obtained retrospectively, as the refurbishment of the reinforced concrete structure was, to my knowledge, carried out professionally in accordance with expert opinions. This is a refurbishment of an existing structure that cannot be compared with a new build. Figuratively speaking: in 2022 you would not receive a building permit for a Trabant passenger car, but certainly an operating permit (technical inspection). Allegations of inadequate escape routes are due to the existing structure and are refuted by the fire protection concept that was drawn up. The current planning based on “demand,” including a sauna area, is said to cost €22.0 million as of today, of which €6.9 million is to be used from the special fund under the LuKiFG. This roughly corresponds to the amount of damage – an irony of events. It is also established that a geotechnical investigation is still pending. The city hall located approximately 100 m away stands on 92 drilled piles, and the newly planned site is also designated as a flood area (HQ100) by the State Flood Control Authority (LHW). Therefore, I expressly welcome your recommendation on page 38: “… prior to new decisions on a swimming hall project, all possible courses of action (are) to be examined by means of a current needs analysis and economic efficiency assessment.” Naturally, I am happy to be available for a discussion. Yours sincerely, signed Robby Risch Former Lord Mayor Appendix: Email regarding inspection of expert opinions Author: AI-Translation - Redaktion | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Paper War at City Hall: One Man, His Expired ID, and Bureaucracy!The digital future? Not at the Zeitz Citizens’ Office! Expired ID and no mercy: One man seeks adventure against ruthless bureaucracy.... zum Artikel |
 | They Are Breaking Their Election Promises Even Before the ElectionYou see them everywhere right now – the promises about how everything will get better once they are back in government. But it is already clear that these promises – to put it ... zum Artikel |
 | Censorship Still Exists - Democracy Is a Dangerous Organization or GroupWhen the Federal Administrative Court lifts a ban, it’s a normal procedure in a functioning constitutional state. But if that ban concerns the Compact Magazine – a medium one d... 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 |