The outcome of the complaints by the mayor of Genthiner urges the city council to act. Discussions will take place at a special meeting.
Genthin l A special session on November 26th will be the answer of the Genthiner town councilors to the failure of the mayor of Genthin to obtain information before the Burg District Court. Matthias Günther (independent) had taken legal action unsuccessfully to persuade Harald Bothe and Nicole Golz, as further members of the entire board of the tourism association, to answer a questionnaire on entrepreneurial decisions made by the association’s own qualification and structural support society (QSG) (Volksstimme reported).
When asked, City Council Chairman Gerd Mangelsdorf (CDU) confirmed that the necessary requirements for a special session to come about have now been met. From his point of view, there is no time pressure to break an appointment at short notice. The fact that a special meeting would be necessary was already indicated by the announcement of the judgment on the information suit. A majority of the city council, including the CDU parliamentary group, imposed prudence at the time and wanted to wait for the reasons for the judgment in order to position itself. Although the ruling is apparently not in doubt by the parliamentary groups represented in the city council, a passage in the grounds for the ruling leaves room for various interpretations for laypeople, which leads to a heated special session.
Request with reasons for judgment
Judge Ulrike Walter gave Nicole Golz and Harald Bothe the request to organize an oral questioning of the QSG manager in the grounds of the judgment, during which Günther could ask questions. In a first reaction to the Volksstimme, Golz had rejected this interpretation by emphasizing that she did not see her duty to organize such a meeting. Because Günther had several opportunities to ask his questions at shareholders’ meetings. He did not use this.
Genthin City Attorney Dr. Joachim Natterer, did not want to comment on the current status of the proceedings against the Volksstimme. An evaluation of the processes is not one of the tasks of a press officer, says Dr. Michael Steenbuck from the Stendal Regional Court.
SPD parliamentary group on Golz line
So far, it seems, the way to an agreement, as shown in the judgment, remains blocked. All sides could save face. But for the time being, the interpretation of the grounds of the judgment further divides the groups. Their reactions range from approval and disapproval to waiting in silence. The SPD parliamentary group has so far been the only parliamentary group to take the Golz line. Udo Krause, who responded to the questioning for the biased parliamentary group leader Lars Bonitz (managing director of the QSG), sees in the grounds of the judgment “clearly” no request to provide verbal information. No official statement came from the Genthin-Parchen-Mützel community of voters. Group member Wilmut Pflaumbaum replied that the issue had not yet been discussed in the group. The Left Group signaled reluctance. “We will not position ourselves publicly before the special session,” said Gabriele Herrmann.
Despite the dismissal of the lawsuit, the statement by City Council Chairman Gerd Mangelsdorf (CDU) could be summarized in a shortened way. “The goal of Mayor Günther to get answers to his question has been achieved by the fact that the defendants have now been ordered to organize a meeting of the board in which Günther’s questions are to be answered by the managing director of the QSG,” he responded on demand. In his opinion, an appointment is superfluous. For Mangelsdorf, the city councils are now obliged to draw the necessary conclusions from the actions of those involved.
Room for interpretation
It must be clear in what form there could still be cooperation between the three communities. “In any case, not in the same form as before,” he says. The grounds for the verdict confused him, says the leader of the Greens, Lutz Nitz. The judge had done the three mayors a disservice, because this verdict leaves room for interpretation on both sides. That should actually avoid a judgment and speak clear language. From his point of view, that did not happen. Similar to Mangelsdorf, Nitz reads the defendant’s duty to convene a shareholders’ meeting at which Günther’s questions are to be answered orally from the grounds of the judgment. “The mayor wanted to achieve nothing more and nothing less,” summarizes Nitz.
Klaus Voth, parliamentary group leader of the CDU, assumes that the meeting of the entire board with the QSG managing director to answer the open questions should come about as quickly as possible in order not to burden the work of the tourism association any longer. Mangelsdorf assumes that Günther’s second complaint will also be discussed at the special meeting.
–
