Something is brewing about Markus Söder. The prime minister is standing under a huge globe, almost the size of a hot-air balloon, in the Museum of the Future in Nuremberg. It changes color according to temperature and the like, Söder looks up when it suddenly bubbles. He and Science Minister Markus Blume (both CSU) talk to students from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg about future topics such as the energy transition.
Before that and before Söder is recognized and greeted by the humanoid robot Ameca (“Söder, Markus – classification: priority high”), a little chat: Söder says that he studied law despite the advanced math course, but was always fascinated by technology. That his government’s high-tech agenda “is unparalleled in Europe.” That he doesn’t want to go to the moon, but “knows whom I would send”. These are sentences that have often been heard from Söder, and they fit quite well into the backdrop of the technology temple.
And the museum itself? Nothing has been heard from Söder for months, especially not in relation to the debate about the lavish rental costs, which the Supreme Court of Auditors (ORH) estimates at 200 million euros over 25 years. Or to the either awkwardly or deliberately generously negotiated contract with the Nuremberg investor Gerd Schmelzer, who both the ORH and the traffic light opposition in the state parliament assess as “landlord-friendly”. As a rule, the State Chancellery does not answer press inquiries, but forwards them to the Ministry of Science, which is responsible for legal supervision and funding.
The impression is created: It is Söder’s museum when it comes to the beautiful sides – but he obviously does not want to have anything to do with it when it is discussed as a political issue. As a “scandal”, as the Greens, SPD and FDP call it.
“Of course awesome”
Well, says Söder at least in the light of the giant globe and placed between showcases for laboratory meat and Sahara irrigation: The money for the museum is “well invested”. It is “of course great” that it is in Nuremberg and not in Munich. As is well known, in contrast to projects there, people in his hometown like to “fight for every euro”. Ready, let’s go, robot Ameca is waiting. It’s the future, it’s better not to dwell on the past. But the past – the conclusion of the rental agreement and Söder’s involvement in it – is making waves in these weeks; since it became public that the ORH had a reprimand for the project in the pipeline.
In 2014, the cabinet under Horst Seehofer (CSU) decided on such a museum for Nuremberg as part of the North Bavaria Initiative, and in 2016 Schmelzer’s Augustinerhof was selected. As Minister of Finance, Söder was the public driver of the museum and did not omit a photo that was effective in the media. In 2017 he signed the financing agreement in the “Star Trek” outfit.
At the beginning of 2021, the opposition, led by the FDP construction expert Sebastian Körber, brought the cost debate back to the table. The Greens, SPD and FDP later had external reports prepared. Since then, their interpretation has been: Söder pushed through the museum in his homeland, “no matter what the cost” – and that he is therefore responsible for the “financial debacle”. At the beginning of May, the ORH announced its interim conclusion: it was more expensive than planned, the contract was “landlord-friendly”, and buying a property might have been wiser. In any case, it is dubious that there were no profitability comparisons and no “open market exploration”.
“Munich Culture Mafia”
For the time being, the most recent volte was a plenary debate in which the opposition fired on all cylinders. FDP man Körber said: “Söder’s prestige project is a million dollar grave for taxpayers, it all stinks to high heaven.” Not Söder or Markus Blume, who was present, spoke for the CSU, but the budget politician Ernst Weidenbusch. He attacked the ORH, who should be “ashamed” and he also ranted about the “Munich culture mafia”, which begrudge Nuremberg nothing. And about the opposition, which is “desperately trying to establish a connection to Markus Söder”.
The ORH interim status is based on the internal audit notification that the state government received in June 2021 for comment. The full paper is based on information from the Süddeutsche Zeitung not only about the costs and the unfavorable distribution of risk in the lease – but also about Söder’s influence. Accordingly, the house of the then finance minister directed from the beginning.
For example, there is a letter from the head of the Ministry of Science, August 2014, shortly after the decision of the Seehofer cabinet. In it he regretted that he “only found out about the idea from the newspaper” and doubted the concept sketch. According to the ORH, if the specialist departments actually responsible had been involved, “the follow-up costs could have been assessed more realistically”. The Treasury’s approach is “problematic”.
Both ministries were involved in the first negotiations with Schmelzer in 2016, but an internal note from Söder’s house shows who was in charge: “Please move the matter forward quickly and consistently. Augustinerhof would be the solution.” The Treasury had also instructed that market research should be carried out using “on-board resources” and without brokers. The ORH recognizes a “narrowing” to the Augustinerhof. This may have led to the fact that there was no longer any leeway towards Schmelzer.
In the summer of 2016, the Ministry of Finance publicly announced that the Augustinerhof had been awarded the contract. At that point at the latest, according to the ORH, the conditions were “abandoned” as a decision criterion. The project sponsor, the Deutsches Museum, complied.
Blume reprimands the ORH
Blume, in office since February, has so far avoided the museum debate. He now commented on request. “The lease for the necessary special property cannot be compared to a zero-eight-fifteen valuation for any office property.” The Deutsches Museum also always pointed out that it was an object with special requirements for large exhibits. “More than 75,000 visitors since the opening in autumn 2021 prove the correctness of the concept for a spectacular future museum in the heart of Nuremberg city center,” says Blume.
He also argues: “The location decision was made by the Deutsches Museum itself as a legally independent institution.” The reconstruction of the ORH certainly calls this into question. Incidentally, Blume reprimands the Court of Auditors, whose actions are “strange. He comments on an ongoing process without waiting for the overall assessment”. However: In mid-April, the ORH had written a letter warning of the lack of answers from the ministry – and announced that it was therefore obliged to provide information to the press. Blume did not take up a question from SZ about Söder’s role.
The Greens, SPD and FDP are pushing for answers – so that there is even speculation about an investigative committee: with Söder as a witness. Unlike the ongoing sub-committees on the mask affair and the NSU murders, the files and witness lists would be manageable. On the other hand speaks: With the other two bodies, the parliamentary groups are already well occupied. And there is one more thing: Nuremberg MPs are in the opposition and will have to campaign there in 2023. And in Nuremberg, many citizens don’t think it’s a bad thing that the flow of money into their city was plentiful.