In an emotional meeting, the district council reassigned four of its committees.
The administrative court had ordered the measure - after a lawsuit by the AfD.
In the discussion there was a lot of distribution: against the big parties in Dachau, the German judiciary in general and “brown sheep” in democracy.
Dachau
- Only for the second time since the beginning of the corona pandemic did the district council meet again on Thursday in the large meeting room of the district office. In contrast to the replacement venue, the spacious Karlsfeld community center, those present literally got together again in their old place of work.
But this was not only due to the limited space. The occasion of the meeting was also spicy. As reported, the AfD parliamentary group in the district council sued the district. Reason: Due to the formation of the committee community made up of representatives from the ÖDP, the Left and the Alliance for Dachau, the AfD had lost its seat in the four 14-member district committees - the school committee, the environment and transport committee, the culture committee and the district committee. The AfD had therefore argued that the formation of the committee community had disadvantaged them in an inadmissible manner. The judges shared this point of view - and set the district a deadline to correct this alleged wrong choice by September 30th at the latest.
Before the district councils did this, however, there was a general discussion - or the search for who was to blame for the mess. For the district councilors Sebastian Leiß (Free Voters Dachau) and Leonhard Mösl (ÖDP) the question of guilt is very easy to answer: It was the big parties in the district assembly, namely the CSU, the SPD and the Free Voters, who were in the constituent session 16 months ago had enforced that the committees are no longer calculated according to the Hare-Niemeyer method, but according to D'Hondt.
In fact, the latter method has a reputation for favoring large parties; Critics therefore complain that the distribution of seats according to D'Hondt does not correspond to the will of the voters. "They served themselves very cleverly and enriched themselves at the expense of the little ones," Leiß railed in the direction of the CSU, SPD and Free Voters. Mösl asked: "What drove us to prevent a more diverse composition of the district council?" He was "personally disappointed" with his colleagues, because: "You can see true greatness if you also take the small parties with you!"
District Administrator Stefan Löwl, on the other hand, defended the change in the calculation mode for the committee composition.
“De facto,” D'Hondt created a five percent hurdle for the committees.
By preventing many small and very small groups from sitting on a committee, it has increased its efficiency and ability to work.
In the opinion of Löwl, the move from Hare-Niemeyer to D'Hondt had absolutely no influence on the fact that the AfD was disadvantaged in the court's opinion.
After both procedures, the AfD would have had a seat on the committees.
What led to the disadvantage was the formation of the committee community made up of the ÖDP, the Left and the Alliance for Dachau.
This community was formed after the D'Hondt procedure was established for the committees.
While the district argues that the legislature explicitly wants the formation of committee communities of small parties, the court has now ruled that the seat for a committee community must not go at the expense of a party that would have had only one seat anyway.
“That was completely new to us,” said Löwl.
However, not only the district of Dachau was surprised by this view of the administrative court.
A total of 15 lawsuits by the AfD are pending against districts, including the district of Munich.
It will take years for the administrative court to reach a final judgment in the Dachau case and for the announced appeal proceedings to be ended.
In order to remain quorate as a body and to take into account the resolution of the so-called interim legal protection proceedings, the district council reassigned the four committees on Thursday.
Since the AfD had the right to propose the vacated seat and, as expected, proposed its own candidates, there were also discussions here.
The six district councils of the ÖDP, Left and Alliance, as well as three Greens and a CSU district council rejected the AfD men as committee members.
The AfD was democratically elected, according to Peter Heller (Alliance), but it is "a herd of brown sheep".
Jonathan Westermeier (left) called the AfD "essentially undemocratic and fascist".
Harald Dirlenbach (SPD) and District Administrator Löwl, on the other hand, were disappointed with the negative attitude of their colleagues. "We are the last to support the AfD," said Dirlenbach. But democracy also includes accepting the law. It must not happen that those district councils who "raise their hands for committee appointments with AfD district councilors are put in the right light for this"! Löwl also emphasized in the direction of those "who think that they have leased the good" that democracy also includes the ability to compromise. Marese Hoffmann (Greens) declared that she “grudgedly accept the verdict”. At the same time she held on to it: "What German courts are currently doing is under all hell!"
