[ad_1]
The report released today Friday lists a number of complaints. In the course of the examination, suspicions of possible criminal offenses arose. The ministry also exercised its service and technical supervision “inadequately”. An evaluation of the organizational form is also recommended.
Overall, the report concludes with 90 recommendations for the museum and the Ministry of Defense. Points of criticism raised include “non-compliance with legal norms” and “lack of an overall economic vision”, as well as complaints in the collection area and lack of “compliance awareness.” In addition to the “numerous and serious deficiencies in the management of the Army History Museum,” the examiners also criticize “the inadequate exercise of the service and technical supervision by the Ministry,” for which the Ministry of Defense is advised that ” consider the organizational form of the Army History Museum as a subordinate service critically evaluate and compare with other organizational forms of federal museums. ” The Defense Minister, Klaudia Tanner (vice president), already declared in a statement: “The museum will continue to be part of my portfolio, nothing to the contrary is under discussion.” However, the test results will immediately be forwarded to the current HGM commission under the leadership of Wolfgang Muchitsch, “to incorporate the test results into their work.” Tanner described the need for action at the HGM as “enormous”: “We will not stand idly by here.” A new tender by management will follow shortly.
“No overview of the collection”
The Court of Auditors also criticizes the handling of the HGM collection: the house “does not have a complete overview of its collection” because the inventory has not been fully updated since the end of World War II. As a result, the museum “to this day does not have a complete understanding of the losses caused by the war and the effects of the postwar period.” No parts of the collection can be found, the report emphasizes, for example, the fact that three letters from Egon Schiele from the spring of 1918 to the museum director at the time were not found. Although three people in charge of the collection knew about the missing letters since the beginning of 2016, “they did not inform the museum management.
As part of the conduct review, RH also found that the “Weapons and Technology” collection lacked an overview of the collection of tanks and other products. For example, three Saurer armored personnel carriers and four Krassier tank destroyers were not included in the inventory, although these had been delivered to the Army History Museum in 2008 and 2011, respectively. The possibly relevant offense mentioned refers to “various abuses” around the warehouses in the Zwlfaxing garrison. As part of the on-site inspection, the inspectors found several bunkers, filled with tank spare parts of unknown origin. According to the museum’s management, they only found out about this stock of armor spare parts through the audit office. While the investigation was still ongoing, the Army History Museum asked the Ministry to file a criminal complaint against the employee who had the keys to the bunker, in particular on suspicion of “unauthorized possession of war material.”
Here Tanner claims that the suspected unauthorized possession of war material at the Zwlfaxing barracks “turned out to be incorrect” after an internal examination by the department. The objects assigned to the HGM are fully available, registered and inventoried electronically. Regarding the ministry’s allegation that the suspicion of criminal offenses had not been confirmed, the HR responded that the facts of the spare parts for tanks of unknown origin had been referred to the competent law enforcement agency for a final evaluation of the existence of criminal offenses.
“Risk of conflicts of interest”
Another point of criticism is directed at the director’s dealings with associations close to the house. At the time of the review, M. Christian Ortner held various positions on the board of directors of associations that are closely related to the museum. The Court of Accounts criticizes the fact that several associations have their headquarters at the address of the Army History Museum without the approval of the Ministry. “There is a risk of conflicts of interest in close personal, spatial and organizational integration.”
Also striking is the “sick days” point in the report, which speaks of a “surprisingly high number of average sick days”. “In the period from 2014 to 2018, these averaged between around 27 days and around 52 days per person per year.” To this end, the Court of Auditors compares the Austrian average of approx. 12.6 days per employed person and year. There were also criticisms of purchases. Particularly racy: The Army History Museum bought 54 objects owned by the director and his deputy, “although there were no special requirements for purchases by their own employees, as dictated by international guidelines due to the bias issue.”
In the final recommendation there are 90 recommendations from the Court of Accounts, 55 of which are directed directly to the HGM, the rest concern the Ministry of Defense.
