The Greens group commissions an expert opinion, but is dissatisfied with the result – and does not want to pay. But when is an investigation a good investigation? The matter ends up in court.
It happens again and again that parliamentary groups in the Bavarian state parliament hire external expertise – for studies. It is often about scientific methods that members of parliament or their employees do not master, sometimes also about lack of time. And, of course, political demands can be marketed better if they are backed by the results of independent research. Rarely does such a commissioned work end up in the drawer, one hears in state parliament circles – because it resulted in something different than expected or the topic is no longer up to date. It will be very rare for a faction to consider a study to be entirely a case for the wastepaper basket. And that the cause ends up in court.
On Friday, employees of the Greens parliamentary group and an economic consulting institute, each with their lawyers, met in civil proceedings at the Munich Regional Court. In 2021, the parliamentary group commissioned a study. Bulky title: “Effects of budget compositions on climate-relevant emissions using the example of the Bavarian state budget”. Translated: How harmful to the climate are all the individual items in the budget? The researchers delivered a good six months later and billed 68,544 euros for this. The Greens complained about deficiencies and, after a reminder, only paid half. The faction has now been sued for the remainder.
For the Greens, the study – which was never published – doesn’t go deep enough, they could basically be “thrown away”. Whereby it is important that it is not about party-political benefit, but rather whether it serves as a basis for discussion in politics at all. “The core element of the order has not been fulfilled,” said the group’s lawyer at the meeting. It was desired to “identify dirty expenses”. So “turning over every euro”, not just obvious things like company cars or the promotion of ski lifts. The aim was that the entire budget of the state government “is descriptively analyzed and functionally regrouped”. Not an easy task, which is precisely why the parliamentary group did not do it on its own. “To put it bluntly,” the report supplied does not contain more than the budget itself. In addition, previous green advances and their potential for change have not been included, the whole thing “does not take place in a vacuum”.
The researchers and their lawyer emphasized that everything that was contractually agreed had been done. There were never any such fundamental complaints at meetings on the interim status. And in an “independent study” one would not discuss how the party’s political lines run – one should have hired political scientists, not economists. “We see our performance as sufficient.” Hardened fronts, now what? A report on the suitability of the report? You would “throw good money after bad,” noted the judge. In the end there was an agreement: The Greens pay two thirds of the fee, i.e. 11,500 euros. And will probably look elsewhere for expertise in calculating the dirty household.