Online reports – Politics – The partnership sinks in the smoke of smoke bombs

© Photo by OnlineReports.ch

“A quarrel over words”: Future life sciences site Schällemätteli

OnlineReports editor Peter Knechtli on the dispute between the two Basels over the award of the contract for the new Life Sciences building

From Peter Knechtli

DChristine Heuss, member of the Basel Grand Council and President of the Education and Culture Commission, hinted semi-publicly weeks ago: The negotiations with the Education Commission of the Basel District Council regarding the planning of the new Life Sciences building of the University of Basel on the “Schällemätteli” site were “extremely difficult” – without going into detail.

NAfter the events of the last few days, it is clear why: the cantonal councillors of Basel-Landschaft insist that their canton's industry be “equally considered” when awarding contracts in partnerships and that no disadvantages arise as a result. This was the decision of the parliament in Liestal on February 19th when it came to the project credit of 11 million francs for the new life sciences building. At the request of the SVP, “equal consideration” was explicitly included in the resolution. The red-green coalition opposed the motion, but there was no dissenting vote in the final vote.

AWhen last Friday, the director of the Chamber of Commerce and FDP National Councillor Hans Rudolf Gysin suddenly published a referendum threat in the event that the Basel Grand Council did not follow the “equal consideration” of the Basel-Landschaft SMEs, it was clear that things were starting to get tense between the two cantons. When the negotiations to reach an agreement between the two education commissions failed on Monday, it became obvious that things were on fire! The Grand Councillors were literally “cringe” (Heuss) and then drove to Basel “depressed” when the Basel-Landschaft commission even moved its position back behind its own compromise resolution of April 30th.

“The people of Basel are once again
the rural narrow-minded people.

DThe verdict was quickly passed: the people of Basel-Landschaft, it was said, had once again shown themselves to be rural narrow-minded people, only concerned with the ideological agenda of their own advantages. A constitutionally guaranteed partnership between two sister cantons could not be maintained in this way. In their initial disappointment, some people were already talking about “the end of the partnership”.

DHowever, it is doubtful that the soup will be eaten as hot as it was cooked. When the new Life Sciences building is officially opened in a few years, the heads of government and university at the time will not be short of memories of the birth pangs. The divided Basels will never allow themselves the disgrace of letting a university center that is indispensable for education and research fail because of mutual hurt pride. The days of halberds as weapons of war are definitely over.

HOn the other hand, the current conflict makes it clear that partnership can be easily invoked in Sunday speeches, but it has to be worked hard for in the tough everyday life. Partnership is not a state, but a process.

AHowever, the example of the life sciences project has revealed some oddities on both sides, which show the fragile basis on which real politics is often conducted, even though it appears to be extremely solid business management. The tendering system is a very complex structure, and it is to be assumed that not all education politicians – and even trade politicians – have a firm grasp of the awarding practices of their canton, not to mention those of their neighboring canton. If education committees are suddenly confronted with tenders, there is a risk in the making.

SIt is also clear, however, that there is still room for negotiation, otherwise the Basel Commission would not have been able to offer the “compromise” of accepting “equal consideration” at least in the case of direct awarding.

“It is astonishing that Urs Wüthrich
did not pull the emergency brake.”

FThe fact is that government representatives from both Basel and the then university president had committed themselves to a “joint consideration” of the industry in a “joint declaration” in February 2004 – just as the district council decided last February.

BIf Basel cantonal councillors now insist that this decision violates the city's procurement law, then the question arises why the Basel-Landschaft government councillor Urs Wüthrich did not pull the emergency brake when dealing with the SVP proposal in the district council debate and pointed out to the district councillors with due clarity that their wording was unlawful. Instead, he said aloud that the proposal (after “equal consideration”) “in substance represents nothing other than what is already laid down in the real estate agreement as part of the state treaty”. However, this agreement from June 2006 only contained the weaker wording that the cantons should be “treated equally” when awarding the contract.

AOn the other hand, more than three months have passed since the controversial district council decision without the alleged illegality of a district council decision being included in the public debate. But things must have been simmering in the pot. During this time, there was a lot of fog between the education committees, but the Basel delegation seemed to make even less of an effort to credibly explain the illegality to the Basel region. It is astonishing that concrete evidence of which provisions the district council decision violates has never been presented publicly. Political observers are also likely to be interested in finding out what has changed so significantly in Basel's procurement law since 2004 that the wording that was valid at the time is now suddenly illegal. This gives the impression in the Basel region that the alleged violation of the law is just a pretext to benefit their own industry.

“He who demands must also be able to give.”

EIt is now time for the representatives of both cantons to emerge from the fog and act on the basis of facts and not prestige: First of all, the validity or illegality of the district council's decision must be clearly proven. If the illegality is proven, the district council will have a difficult time. However, if the law and regulations allow the necessary scope for interpretation between homeland protection and competition, then the Grand Council would have to give in in the interests of the matter, especially since the tendering law will remain the decisive basis for the award – parliamentary decisions or not.

DIt is a relatively modest 11 million loan. The fact that the partnership has once again come to a standstill may surprise those who see the dispute in isolation as a minor quibble. But the Basel-Landschaft region is not concerned with pettiness, but with much more: in the next twelve years, university buildings alone are to be built, with an investment volume of over 800 million francs. If the University and Canton of Basel-Stadt demand hundreds of millions in contributions from the Basel-Landschaft region without creating a partnership-based trade policy balance, then the referendum will be as certain as amen in church.

UAnd if the Chamber of Commerce and the SVP pull together, there will no longer be much need to guess about the outcome of a referendum.

26 May 2009

Further links:

“Why are external providers missing from the Basel Ordinance?”

I don't really know anything about procurement or how it is handled in practice, but I can read, and I have read the Basel and Basel-Landschaft laws and regulations on procurement. The procurement laws of the two Basel regions are practically the same. They have to be, because that is what an intercantonal agreement on procurement from 1994 stipulates.

Then this should actually also be the case with the regulations based on it, shouldn't it, I ask myself? Well, the keen reader of the regulations will find the following: In the Baselbieter regulation, Section 8 Paragraph 2 under the heading “Invitation procedure” states: “As a rule, at least one external provider must be invited to submit a tender.” The equivalent rule in Basel-Stadt would probably be Section 12, whose Paragraph 1 sounds similar to that of the Baselbiet. But that is where the similarities end, because there is no Paragraph 2 in the BS regulation that would correspond to Section 8 Paragraph 2 of the BL regulation. In other words: In the Baselbieter regulation, the procurement authorities are required to invite external (and therefore also Basel) providers to submit a tender.

Why is this not prescribed to the Basel authorities in such a clear manner, or is it prescribed to them anywhere at all? What were the considerations of the regulatory authority, i.e. the Basel government, for not including an analogous “invitation rule for external suppliers” in the Basel city procurement regulations? Questions upon questions.

Daniele CeccarelliDistrict Administrator FDP, Group President, Pfeffingen

“Basel protectionism at the expense of the Basel region”

At the time, I rejected the controversial motion in the district council, contrary to the majority, because I was afraid that the requirement would be too wrong

protectionism. In the meantime, the behavior of Basel-Stadt has taught me the opposite. The arguments of the people of Basel do not add up and are contradictory. The controversial proposal does not lead to false protectionism, but rather prevents protectionism in Basel at the expense of the SMEs and taxpayers of Basel-Landschaft.

Siro ImberDistrict Administrator FDP, Allschwil