[ad_1]
Elisabeth Ackermann came under heavy criticism after GPK’s report on the museum debacle at the Grand Council. Withdrawing the cultural record, however, did not find a majority.
The president of the Basel government was criticized in the Grand Council on Wednesday when dealing with the special report of his business audit committee on the Basel Historical Museum. The motion of the SVP to withdraw the entire cultural record did not obtain a majority.
The spokesmen and women of the bourgeois parliamentary groups and the SVP turned the criticism of the Business Audit Commission (GPK) of the presidential department into harsh accusations against its director Elisabeth Ackermann (Greens). This, although Commission President Christian von Wartburg (SP) initially regretted that the GPK report had been misused by politicians and in the media to some extent to “handle outrage”.
In relation to the conflicts at the management level at the Historisches Museum Basel, the GPK criticized the fact that the Presidential Department had ignored both the Museum Law and the Personnel Law. In particular, the legally guaranteed independence of the museum was not preserved and the public was informed in a “misleading” way. Furthermore, the Commission did not have full access to the files.
“The debacle that damages reputation”
The CVP / EPP group spokeswoman spoke of a “reputational debacle” for the entire museum landscape. The presidential department leaves a “bleak impression,” he said. The FDP spokesman criticized the “unacceptable behavior” towards the museum director, who has now been released. And the PLD spokesperson pointed out that the lack of leadership capacity in the presidential department could be corrected in the next elections.
The Alianza Verde spokesperson took protection from his party colleague at the head of the department. The criticism of the GPK was “exaggerated and one-sided” and caused a scandal in the public, he said. Furthermore, the director’s problematic personality is barely mentioned in the Commission’s report. The SP spokesman admitted to the department head that he had coped well with the stormy conflict situation.
The District President defended herself against the “serious accusations” and regretted not having had the opportunity to clear up misunderstandings with the GPK. The dispute resolution process was not an alibi exercise, as GPK had complained, he said. Although it was mutually agreed that the employment relationship would have ended in 2022, if the situation had eased, it would have been possible to continue employment.
The file remains in the presidential department
Ackermann described the charge that he had too restricted the museum director’s operational autonomy as incomprehensible. Four years ago, the GPK accused the Department of the Presidency of overweighting the legally stipulated autonomy, also in relation to a leadership conflict at the Historical Museum.
The Grand Council finally took note of the GPK’s special report with 66 votes to 12 and with 11 abstentions “in favor”. However, the SVP’s request to withdraw the cultural file from the head of the department through a parliamentary declaration clearly failed with 72 votes to 13 and 5 abstentions.
