San Francisco Frontiers - Noosha Aubel and Potsdam: The trust placed in her has been squandered

Potsdam citizens state: “Aubel inherited the budgetary crisis – yet she herself bore responsibility for the priorities of her draft budget.”

Another scandal: half a million euros for consultants – instead of in-house leadership

Now external consultants are to sort out matters at the town hall where there is apparently a lack of a clear political direction and leadership. According to media reports, the project signed by Noosha Aubel for the “consolidation and optimisation of budget management” costs around 500,000 euros. Admittedly, the underlying resolution had already been passed before her election. However, by signing it, Aubel has taken political ownership of the contract – and thus bears responsibility for its implementation.

In the end, it is the citizens who foot the bill: not only the approximately 500,000 euros for external consultancy, but also Aubel’s official salary. Under pay grade B7, this amounts to a monthly basic salary of 11,921.34 euros, plus an official car with a chauffeur. Anyone who receives nearly 12,000 euros a month from public funds paid for by the public must face the question of why a further half a million euros is to be spent on external consultants for a key leadership role. Potsdam needs political leadership – not the costly outsourcing of responsibility.

Anyone spending half a million euros on consultancy must also state in advance what is ultimately supposed to be measurably different; Aubel has failed to do so to date. What is the savings target? Which duplicate structures will be eliminated? By when will the results be implemented? The public description provided so far lists audit mandates and procedural terms, but no hard measure of success. Thus, ‘securing the future’ quickly becomes a euphemism for political procrastination.

Consultants can do the maths – but they do not have to take responsibility or lead. Yet this is precisely why Aubel was elected by the citizens of Potsdam, the capital of Brandenburg. To date, very little of this leadership has been evident in Noosha Aubel.

Independence turns into going it alone

Aubel wanted to govern without a fixed party alliance and with shifting majorities. During the election campaign, this sounded liberating and pragmatic. In the day-to-day reality of a fragmented Potsdam City Council, however, it increasingly appears haphazard. Local media report on major projects that were presented publicly before viable majorities had been secured. Even former supporters criticise Aubel’s presidential style, which lacks political backing.

Independence is an advantage when it enables decision-making. It becomes a problem when it replaces preparation. A mayor does not have to please everyone. However, she must know with whom she is pushing through a budget running into billions, the water supply, social infrastructure and major urban projects. Shifting majorities are not a viable strategy if the necessary majorities are regularly lacking.

The nursery case is proving to be a moral admission of failure for Aubel

Particularly damning is the case, which has become public knowledge, of a two-year-old child with a severe disability, a disability rating of 100 and care level 4. According to an investigation published on 25 June 2026 – which, by its own account, is based on court documents, disciplinary complaints and press enquiries – the child has been waiting for more than a year for a nursery place that they can actually use with the essential personal support required.

This is neither a matter of personal sentiment nor a mere ‘portrayal of the family’ that could be dismissed with a few reassuring words from the town hall. Rather, what is at issue is the outrageous allegation that a local authority has, for months on end, failed to provide a severely disabled toddler (100 per cent GdB with care level 4) with precisely the support without which their statutory right to early childhood support remains practically worthless.

From the age of one, children have a legal right to early childhood support. In the case of children with disabilities, their specific needs must be taken into account. How the necessary support is referred to within the administration – individual case assistance, support, additional staff resources or otherwise – is completely irrelevant to the child concerned. The only thing that matters is whether the child can actually make use of their nursery place. A place on paper that a child cannot attend due to a lack of support is not a childcare place. It is an administrative fiction.

Noosha Aubel does not wish to handle the case personally as a case worker. Yet this very excuse falls far short of the mark.

Aubel is Lord Mayor of the state capital, Potsdam, and thus head of the administration. She leads the local authority, determines its organisation and the allocation of duties, and bears overall political responsibility for its functioning. She can delegate tasks. But not responsibility.

For Aubel, therefore, there are only two conceivable explanations – and both constitute a political and moral failure: If she was not informed about this exceptional case of hardship, or was only informed far too late, then her leadership, information and oversight structures have failed – one must draw a clear line here, as Aubel was demonstrably approached again by the parents concerned at the Christmas market on 13 December 2025, this time in person, in front of dozens of witnesses. Aubel was informed and yet has not, to date, ensured an effective solution was found without delay – in this regard, Aubel has quite clearly failed, right up to today (12 June 2026). Mayor Noosha Aubel can therefore hide behind neither jurisdictional issues nor ongoing proceedings or internal administrative procedures.

The Mayor owes the public a clear answer: when did she first become aware of the case? What specific measures did she order? Who bears responsibility for the fact that, to this day, the child has apparently not been provided with a genuinely usable nursery place with a dedicated support worker? And why was the administration of the state capital unable to organise a solution for a severely disabled toddler within a year?

Failing to answer these questions not only demonstrates a lack of transparency; it fuels the suspicion that, at Potsdam City Hall, responsibility is shunted back and forth between departments, areas of competence and legal interpretations until no one is willing to take personal responsibility for the consequences. For a Lord Mayor, this would not be a regrettable communication error, but a shocking demonstration of a lack of leadership.

The contradiction could scarcely be more stark: as recently as February, Aubel once again accepted the ‘Child-Friendly Municipality’ seal on behalf of Potsdam and promised to enshrine children’s rights as a binding principle in administrative practice. Yet child-friendliness is not demonstrated through award ceremonies, press photos and well-worded action plans. It is demonstrated where administrative action becomes difficult, costly and inconvenient. A seal of approval does not organise support. An action plan does not accompany a child through their daily life at nursery. And a press release is no substitute for a space that a severely disabled child can actually use.

If the account given by those affected is accurate, the ‘child-friendly municipality’ seal becomes a bitter backdrop in this case. Whilst the city of Potsdam publicly adorns itself with children’s rights, a child in particular need of protection continues to wait for these rights to be realised in practice. Between the political aspiration and the reality experienced in administrative practice, there is not merely a gap, but a moral abyss.

Whilst at Potsdam Town Hall responsibilities are apparently being scrutinised, files passed on and blame shifted, it is not the administration that bears the immediate consequences, but a severely disabled toddler and their family. Despite having a disability rating of 100 and care level 4, the child is said not to have been allocated a suitable nursery place with the necessary personal support to this day. The administrative actions in question are now under scrutiny at the Potsdam Social Court, where lawyer Axel Kapust is fighting for the severely disabled toddler and their rights. According to those affected, once all domestic legal avenues have been exhausted, a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will also be considered if necessary.

Should a court find that the state capital has acted unlawfully, any compensation or damages would ultimately have to be paid from public funds. Those responsible at a political and administrative level make – or fail to make – decisions; the child bears the consequences initially, whilst the general public foots the bill afterwards.

That is the real scandal: at the town hall, matters are merely administered, delayed and passed on to others. The child loses valuable, irreplaceable time. And in the end, citizens could also be held financially liable for the failures of those in charge at Potsdam Town Hall and within the Brandenburg state government, which is supported by the SPD and the CDU. So, once again, it would be the citizens who would have to pay.

The parents concerned are prepared to raise questions in court – in the presence of the press – in order to bring this case and its handling by Lord Mayor Noosha Aubel to the public’s attention. The severely disabled toddler is also to be present.

The justified demand for action, not empty promises

Mayor Noosha Aubel must immediately ensure that the child in question receives care appropriate to their needs, provide an anonymised and complete chronology of the authorities’ decisions, and commission a genuinely independent investigation. It must be clarified who was aware of what and when, which decisions were taken or not taken, and whether there have been breaches of duty, organisational shortcomings, failures in supervision or discrimination on the grounds of disability. Data protection safeguards the child and their family – not the administration against scrutiny and clarification.

The substantiated allegation that a comparable case had already occurred under Aubel’s predecessor, Mike Schubert (53, SPD), in the context of a severely disabled sibling, should also be investigated separately and as a matter of urgency. Should this be confirmed, it would raise questions not only of individual misconduct but also of a possible complete structural failure of leadership and oversight at Potsdam City Hall. The suspicion of recurring discrimination against people with severe disabilities in Potsdam and Brandenburg must also be investigated without prejudging the outcome. The onus is here, above all, on Minister-President Dr Dietmar Woidke (64, SPD), who is known to be aware of this case – as evidenced by numerous registered letters with return receipts – and who has, to date, also remained inactive in this scandalous affair.

As long as there is a lack of oversight, transparency, an independent investigation and clear consequences, the case remains a serious political scandal and a massive burden on Aubel’s tenure. Should she delay the investigation or refuse to take the necessary action, the question of a recall process would also be politically legitimate; as with her ousted predecessor Mike Schubert (SPD), this would amount to dismissal without notice. A recall is not merely a dismissal without notice, but a democratic procedure governed by law.

Is Noosha Aubel up to the job of Lord Mayor of the state capital, Potsdam?

It is a tough question. Her track record to date makes it unavoidable. In this context, Aubel did not single-handedly cause Potsdam’s financial crisis and ultimately secured the budget’s passage through the parliament with a broad majority. However, an approved deficit budget does not in itself constitute a financial recovery, a consultancy contract is not yet a strategy, and a ‘child-friendly’ seal is not yet proof that children’s rights are being upheld.

Potsdam now needs three things: a quantified and verifiable consolidation plan, reliable political majorities for key decisions, and a full investigation into the nursery case – including a genuinely workable solution for the child.

Until Noosha Aubel delivers on these points, the answer to the question of her competence cannot convincingly be ‘yes’. She received 72.9 per cent of the vote of confidence. This result gave her power, but no grace period. She inherited the budget crisis. The leadership deficit and, above all, the shameful scandal surrounding a severely disabled toddler are now associated with her name: Noosha Aubel.

M.Motin