Once again, the failed Happyland renovation was the focus of the last municipal council meeting. A minority motion, made by the entire opposition, demanded the disclosure of the paper that caused the prosecution to close the case. This letter was written by an expert from Graz at the request of the mayor. The minority motion was first on the agenda of the municipal council meeting, but was removed from the agenda by Mayor Stefan Schmuckenschlager shortly before the meeting. The precarious thing about it: Schmuckenschlager got the expertise for this from this lawyer from Graz, who came to the opinion that the matter did not fall within the competence of the municipal council.
Pure excitement in the Babenbergerhalle. A request from the PUK (Platform Our Klosterneuburg) on this topic was then put on the agenda and enabled a heated discussion that lasted over two hours.
“And I can tell you the prosecutor will be very interested in it. To sweep that under the table won’t be so easy. “ Peter Hofbauer, councilor
“Mr. Mayor, you played with the fact that 1.3 million euros were distributed without there being any proof of the services. And I can tell you the prosecutor will be very interested in that. To sweep that under the table will not be so easy, ”says the local councilor Hofbauer, whose harsh criticism of the rule of law triggered a screaming duel with ÖVP councilor Matthias Cernuska. Mayor Schmuckenschlager tried to calibrate.
For City Councilor Josef Pitschko (FPÖ) it is incomprehensible that the community would not have suffered any damage during the Happyland renovation, as was formulated by the public prosecutor in the reason for the termination. “If the mayor writes a brief to the public prosecutor that the municipality has not been harmed, then that is an act by the municipality. The fact that a minority proposal is not allowed is a form of cover-up in its own right, ”said Pitschko’s criticism. However, this brief was largely responsible for the fact that the criminal proceedings were discontinued. “Because if you are not harmed, you are not a victim”, says Pitschko. How one cannot feel harmed when the costs are exceeded by 4.26 million is incomprehensible for Pitschko.
“Could this be a commission to prevent document disclosure?”
And Pitschko subsequently questions the correctness of the opinion of the Graz expert. “This statement only deals with the question of how treatment in the local council can be prevented. Is that possibly a commissioned work to prevent the disclosure of documents? ”Why would a lawyer from Graz use a statement on the Lower Austrian municipal code and not one from the service points provided by the Lower Austrian state government? And Pitschko concluded: “In truth, this approach snubs the Lower Austrian community representatives, is anti-democratic, prevents any transparency and gives rise to the suspicion that something is being covered up.”
Mayor Schmuckenschlager is now leaving his seat as chairman and going to the lectern: “The public prosecutor called me and passed on a list of questions to the municipality. My job was to pass everything on to the public prosecutor’s office as well as possible. ”The fact that the municipality was not harmed refers to one point in the list of questions. Schmuckenschlager: “I am happy to provide information, but only in the non-public part of the meeting.”
“My job was to pass everything on to the public prosecutor as well as possible.”
A minority motion should be on the agenda for jewelry hits. At the same time, however, in preparation for the discussion in the local council, he would have contacted the lawyer who wrote the statement at the time, with the request to look at these things. The lawyer gave the expertise that the topic did not fall within the competence of the municipal council. Schmuckenschlager: “Legally, the process is complete, but I have to be able to defend myself against political allegations.” He will contact the supervisory authority on his own initiative and ask for clarification, because “I will not be accused of taking away rights from the local council. I am also only a local politician and do not want to get involved in legal disputes that could affect me privately. ”Schmuckenschlager consulted the Graz lawyer because he was also commissioned by the city council to deliver the opinion to the public prosecutor. And: “Enlightenment, yes, clear the table, yes, but we also have to get back to work.”
“Legally, the process is closed, but I have to be able to defend myself against political allegations.”
“The competence of the community must also be the competence of the municipal council. The highest body is not the mayor, but the local council ”, interjects the green city councilor Sepp Wimmer. Therefore, he found it difficult to imagine that “certain things that were brought to you, Mr. Mayor, on behalf of the public prosecutor, do not fall within the competence of the municipal council.” How did Schmuckenschlager come to the lawyer in Graz? Schmuckenschlager: “The community association recommended that.”
Then, surprisingly, NEOS boss Clemens Ableidinger, who, despite the partnership with the ÖVP, directed himself against Schmuckenschlager: “I take note of the legal information, as a layman I have to. But I simply don’t think it’s right that the present mandataries have the door slammed in their faces. That contradicts not only our demand for transparency, but also our future program. ”This approach caused an unbelievable escalation, which could have been avoided. Ableidinger read the document and saw no proportionality to the escalation that had occurred. “I think what happened here just awkward.”
“The fact that the door is slammed in the face of the mandataries present is simply not right”
“If the proposal goes public, I have to make sure that I don’t make a mistake,” says Schmuckschllager in defense. And to the door that was closed: “I didn’t have the information earlier. As I had it, I made it available to everyone. I’m not someone who closes doors. That’s not me. You know me.”
– .
