Why are we publishing this FAQ?
In connection with a resignation from the party, allegations were made publicly about staffing decisions of the Volt council group. Specifically, it was alleged that the fixed-term employment of a family member amounted to nepotism. We would like to set out the processes transparently, place them in chronological order and explain the context.
- What was the starting point of the staffing problems?
In January 2024, the Volt council group discovered that there had presumably been financial irregularities in connection with the work of the then managing director, and that the office had otherwise also been managed improperly to a considerable extent. This made it necessary to restructure the office in terms of both staffing and organisation. - What was the situation in the council group's office?
After the managing director left, the office was significantly understaffed for months. Three policy advisers with a combined 35 working hours per week handled day-to-day business. At the same time, the councillors now had to organise the structural rebuilding alongside their day-to-day political work.
In February 2024, the managing director post was advertised. One application was received, but it was withdrawn. The main reasons for the low level of interest are likely to have been that the post was limited to the end of the term of office, its part-time nature, the limited pay and the demanding organisational situation in the office at the time.
From June/July 2024, one policy adviser was also absent and left for good in the autumn. With now only 15 working hours per week, the workload increased considerably. - Why was the husband of the council group's then spokesperson employed on a fixed-term basis?
After a vacancy of around eight months (January to September 2024), the councillors jointly decided to create a temporary interim solution. They decided not to hire a managing director but to create a fixed-term policy adviser post.
The post was not advertised publicly again, as the previous procedure had been unsuccessful despite the considerable effort involved, and continuing it, with only around 15 months of employment remaining, seemed to have little prospect of success.
After an unsuccessful search elsewhere, the husband of the then spokesperson was employed as a policy adviser on a fixed-term basis, because he had both the necessary qualifications and sufficient experience for the role. The decisive factors for the decision were therefore the acute overload of the council group, the need to stabilise the office professionally and his experience in administration and management. - Was this nepotism?
No. The husband of the council group's former spokesperson was employed not because of, but despite the fact that the two are married. The decisive factor was his professional qualifications. Moreover, the post did not represent a career improvement for him; instead, it came with less responsibility and lower pay.
At the same time, temporary support was hired for IT and press work.
Both measures ensured that the office remained able to function. - What happened in the new term of office?
After the 2025 local elections, the managing director post was promptly advertised again and, thanks to the attractive conditions, was successfully filled externally. The husband of the former council group spokesperson left as planned at the end of 2025.
Staffing decisions were not made on the basis of status or prominence, but on the basis of qualifications and suitability. The priority is our responsibility to the work of the council. Personal judgements do not change our commitment to solution-oriented politics.
