When Lamia Messari-Becker, the former state secretary in the Hessian Ministry of Economics, met her colleague Umut Sönmez in the hallway, she reminded him that they wanted to go out to dinner together. This is said to have caused him to ask “whether it wouldn’t be better if he reserved a hotel room.” At least that’s how Messari-Becker described it to the parliamentary committee of inquiry, which dealt with her early retirement. The fifty-two-year-old didn’t want to give the MPs any further samples of interpersonal communication at the head of the Ministry of Economics. Just this much: “It was also difficult for me as a woman to endure.” But she herself wasn’t squeamish either. She is said to have called Sönmez an “asshole”. Also the sentence “You in the minister’s office all have a little one.” is recorded in writing. “The Devil Wears Prada.” The quote was handed down by Messari-Becker’s former personal advisor. The way his boss treated him reminded him of the movie “The Devil Wears Prada.” He explained the details in a written official statement and in the committee. There, all witnesses were informed that unsworn false statements are also punishable. “The State Secretary spoke to me in bad, defamatory tones about colleagues and also members of the house management,” reported the former employee. “Because of Ms. Messari-Becker’s unacceptable behavior towards me,” he had himself transferred. She denies his account as vehemently as she rejects all the allegations made against her. “I don’t even have a point in Flensburg,” says the professor of building physics. And then this: just six months after she was sworn in, on July 22, 2024, Economics Minister Kaweh Manoori (SPD) announced the separation from Messari-Becker. In a press release, he cited “unacceptable misconduct.” Behind this was the accusation that Messari-Becker had abused her political office in an attempt to get her daughter a better Abitur grade at her Darmstadt school. “Destroyed her reputation in one media second.” Mansoori had thus “destroyed the reputation that she had built up over 30 years in an unprecedented action in one media second,” complained Messari-Becker, who has since returned to science. The State Chancellery had advised the minister not to give a reason for the separation in his press release. In doing so, it relied on the undisputed principle that it is sufficient to separate political officials if the relationship of trust no longer exists. The opposition used the process as an opportunity to set up an investigative committee, which has now completed its work. The final report of the black-red coalition contrasts with the different votes from the Greens, AfD and FDP. Neither strives for balance. Things will be no different when the parliamentary groups finally debate the results of the committee of inquiry in plenary this Thursday. Did Mansoori violate his duty of care by publicly incriminating Messari-Becker? This is one of the central questions that the investigative committee had to clarify. Yes, says the lawyer Thorsten Masuch. The case law requires that the employer must treat his officials protectively and carefully in public statements and must not expose them. Legal scholar Michael Bäuerle takes a different view. He emphasizes the “public interest in information”. If such behavior had occurred, Mansoori’s assessment was admissible. The two experts initially come to opposite assessments, but on one point they are closer to each other than it seems at first glance. Three months after his appearance in the investigative committee, Masuch published an article in the legal journal “Die public administration” in which he draws the conclusion from the position represented by his committee that Messari-Becker “could fundamentally demand a correction as a measure to eliminate the consequences”. However, in the course of legal proceedings, the facts could develop in such a way that “no ongoing breach of duty of care no longer exists. This would be the case if the allegations against her were to be substantiated. “What exactly happened at school Both lawyers agree that what ultimately matters is what exactly happened in the Darmstadt high school. This has become clear since three teachers were surveyed. The director reported that Ms. Messari-Becker had repeatedly pointed out that she was a professor and state secretary in the Hessian Ministry of Economics in order to get her daughter’s grade changed. Two other teachers confirmed this representation.More on the topicThe clarity of the statements did not leave the opposition MPs unimpressed. Even the Greens avoid defending the fifty-two-year-old in their final report. “The teachers felt put under pressure by Ms. Messari-Becker’s self-confident demeanor,” it says in the group’s vote. However, it could not be conclusively clarified “whether this was the intention of the former state secretary.” The AfD faction, which decided on the investigative committee against Mansoori together with the Greens and the FDP, believes that Messari-Becker “lied” on this point. In a press release, the FDP came up with the adventurous thesis that the core accusation of an attempt to influence a school grade had “collapsed”. In their official final report, however, the Liberals expressed themselves in a more moderate manner. It says “that Ms. Messari-Becker behaved in accordance with the rules and without any specific intention to illegally influence grades.” However, this assessment misses the point. “An exit door within the scope of what is legally possible” because the teachers had not made any criminal allegations. Messari-Becker was quoted as saying: “I expect an exit door within the scope of what is legally possible.” The accusation made against the fifty-two-year-old was and is that she had exploited her high political office for private purposes. This is also what the statement by the now retired head of the Darmstadt building authority boils down to. She reported to the deputies that Messari-Becker had complained about a building permit for her neighbor because it enabled him to see her property, even though she was a “public figure.” When deputies pointed out to her that Messari-Becker had assured during her questioning that she had not brought her professional position into play, the building director stuck to her statement: “It came across that way, and that’s how she said it. That’s already stuck in my mind.” This information is one of the Representations that Mansoori only had obtained after he had already separated from his state secretary. The Greens and the FDP complained that he had snooped on her when the investigative committee was set up. To this day, the AfD speaks of an “unworthy step”. Exoneration by the data protection officer. On the other hand, the Hessian data protection officer Alexander Roßnagel explained that the investigations could be justified if they had served to prepare for the process announced by Messari-Becker. Mansoori was thus exonerated of the accusation of snooping by, of all people, a head of authority whom the Greens brought into office in the year they were in government. Of course, the government factions took advantage of the points that Mansoori’s lawyers had already raised in the court proceedings. This resulted in the paradoxical constellation that in the control committee requested by the Greens, FDP and AfD and directed against Mansoori, witnesses who incriminated Messari-Becker had their say. So the establishment of the committee became a non-starter for the opposition. While the Greens, FDP and AfD had driven Mansoori into a corner with a professional campaign after his technically unsuccessful press release in the summer of 2024, they now suddenly found themselves on the defensive. In the interviews, they primarily tried to unsettle the witnesses and cast doubt on their statements. But neither the teachers nor the building director in Darmstadt were impressed by this. All other processes that have been discussed for hours are no longer crucial. This applies, for example, to the question of whether Messari-Becker actually tried to delay the departure of a scheduled flight because she was afraid of being late. The fact that one would trust her to do so is evidence of the damage she has suffered from the investigative committee. The responsibility for this lies with the opposition – and with itself.
Go to Source