Online reports – Politics – The key question about the Biozentrum: Does the Haute Volée have style?

© Photo by Peter Knechtli, OnlineReports.ch

“Emergency explanation in the control bodies”: Cost monster Biozentrum

The Basel government is facing severe criticism for its behaviour towards the PUK

From Peter Knechtli

DThe report of the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission (PUK), which investigated the massive explosion in time and costs during the construction of the Basel Biocenter, is 16 millimeters thick, printed on both sides. On 317 pages, the report chronicles a project that was overwhelmed, culminating in the budgeted costs of 338 million being exceeded by over 100 million francs.

FEach of the 13 militia members of the cantonal commission, none of whom have any technical knowledge of the construction of a 70-meter-high research laboratory, deserves unreserved praise for their Herculean work. This report is a prime example of a thoroughly serious parliamentary investigative body that takes its role as a supervisory body over the government seriously, and thus serves as a model for similar bodies in other cantons.

DThis report does not and cannot claim to know the sole truth in the search for causes and responsibilities. Rather, it will contain errors or misjudgments here and there – something which even the Commission does not deny.

DHowever, since they remained largely unchallenged in the report, it is not the fault of those who were roughly examined, but that of current and former members of the government who refrained from commenting on the PUK perceptions.

ITheir calculation is based – as the reactions of Hans-Peter Wessels (former Director of Construction) and Christoph Eymann (former Director of Education) facsimiled in the report show – on the assumption that they will not express themselves individually, but with collective calibre at a later, more favourable time before the report is dealt with in the Grand Council: in order to protect themselves from a personal admission of guilt.

EThe only statement from the former building director is from 2019: “The main responsibility lies (…) with the building department and therefore with me.” This cannot be his use. However, other government councilors from both Basel and the presidium of the university council sat with him on the steering committee, the central steering body.

“It cannot be that the elite
shirks responsibility.

MOne may well ask whether this is the art and manner in which the elite of government and academia, in their often highly problematic dual roles, are trying to evade responsibility when, of all things, during the construction of a “beacon of science”, pretty much everything that could have gone wrong went wrong.

DThe PUK report rightly did not aim to demand “heads”, especially since the government actors who were responsible for construction and education at the time have not been in office for some time. As is well known, every member of the government college is required to look beyond their own backyard and also take care of neighboring departments.

DHowever, the tax-paying public has a right to know who got them into this Biozentrum mess by violating their duty of control and supervision. This is part of a proper investigation.

DThe government should therefore be careful not to tear the PUK tome to pieces now that the smoke has settled. The tone of its forthcoming statement will indicate which image concept it chooses: parrying criticism and attacking the PUK – or using a differentiated set of arguments that also include misconduct and guilt. Pure “regret” as before will no longer be used in the final assessment of a matter in which the PUK “cannot rule out possible illegal actions”.

VThe second option is to be expected from a government that is committed to an open culture of error and criticism. The political and educational elite cannot be allowed to evade responsibility. Rather, they will have to declare where, in their view, the major errors that have led to this financial and image disaster are to be found.

BThe involvement of a communications agency (“Farner”) shows how much of a lack of explanation there was in the control bodies during the cost explosion. Their creative spirit came up with the idea of ​​selling the blatant additional costs to the outside world as “added value” and getting the actors in the mood for this through media training and “also supporting the story pitching”.

“The worst accusation is that
the government is practicing supremacy.

IThe next Grand Council debate on the PUK report will focus on the question of who will pay the additional 100 million. But it is also about fundamental issues. While the day-to-day dealings between the Grand Council and the government still seem to be characterized by the usual conflicting interests, the PUK report and the accompanying media announcement reveal a mood malaise of unprecedented severity. In it, the commission accuses the government of being “not interested in finding out the truth” and of having “refrained from commenting on the report.”

DBut it would be naive to conclude that the government wants to repent and just let the PUK storm rain down. All signs indicate that the government's counterattack will not be long in coming. Half a year ago, the steering committee agreed to the government's proposal for a “possible reaction”. The government wants the last word.

AAccording to OnlineReports, the Commission's perceptions of the government's behavior were unanimous across all parties. Some say it is “cheeky and arrogant to refuse to give a fair hearing,” “a big show of understanding of democracy,” while others speak of “arrogance.”

DThe harshest criticism, however, concerns the accusation by a bourgeois member of parliament that the government is practicing “supremacy” – claiming something like sovereignty over the parliamentary inquiry commission. This means nothing other than the perversion of the legally guaranteed supreme supervision of this commission over the government – and not the other way around.

SSuprematism tendencies within the government, if they were to go beyond a possible isolated case, would be dangerous for the Grand Council. Parliament would have to put an unequivocal stop to them.

EIt will also be interesting to see whether the government continues to try to wash its hands of guilt in a PR-driven statement – whether it is prepared to make a decisive contribution to clarifying responsibility. Image management can never replace style.

Learn more about the author

23 September 2022

Further links: