- Court calls for stricter rules on city council minutes
The Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal (BayVGH) has imposed stricter rules on the minutes-taking practice in city and town council meetings to protect against excessive psychological pressure on "dissenters". Specifically, the court ruled that the previous practice of the town council of the Upper Palatine town of Windischeschenbach, where only council members voting "no" were recorded in the minutes, was unlawful.
After a review by the local authority, the district office of Neustadt a. d. Waldnaab had instructed the town to remove this regulation from the council's rules of procedure. The town had already appealed to the Administrative Court in Regensburg last year, but without success, leading the case to the Administrative Court of Appeal. However, the town's appeal was also unsuccessful, with the court not allowing an appeal against the judgment.
The BayVGH stated that while the legal basis in the Bavarian Municipal Code does allow some flexibility in recording minutes, a town can only record the result of the vote (the number of "yes" and "no" votes) or record who voted for and against each proposal. Only recording those who voted "no" violates the constitutional principle of equality among council members.
This is because those who voted "no" are more easily identifiable to outsiders and can be held more accountable in public, especially in votes with only a few dissenting voices, which can create psychological pressure to avoid being identified as a "dissenter".
The town had argued that this practice made it easier for the minutes-taker and avoided delays in the meeting. However, the court did not accept this argument. Even if only the "no" votes were initially noted during the meeting, the names of those who voted "yes" could still be added in the later minutes.
The town subsequently decided to appeal the ruling at the Court of First Instance, believing that their argument about easing the process for the minutes-taker and reducing meeting delays would be better received. Despite their hopes, the decision at the Court of First Instance also upheld the BayVGH's ruling, maintaining the importance of equality among council members and the potential psychological pressure associated with identifying dissenters.
