The National Times - Noosha Aubel: Failed Leadership Instead of a Fresh Start – Is Potsdam’s Lord Mayor Up to the Job?

The political mandate was clear. Her predecessor, Mike Schubert (now 53, SPD), was voted out of office in a local referendum on 25 May 2025—in effect, dismissed without notice by the electorate. It was an ignominious departure for Schubert. The public had made it clear that they would not tolerate a controversial administration indefinitely. Aubel’s subsequent promises of an efficient administration and greater equality of opportunity consequently raised considerable expectations. She, too, now faces calls for her removal from office, and there are numerous reasons for this.

The responsibilities of serving as Lord Mayor of Potsdam, the state capital, come with a generous salary funded by hardworking citizens. The office falls within civil service pay grade B 7 and, under the existing pay scale, carries a monthly basic salary of €11,921.34. This amounts to €143,056.08 gross per year, excluding individual allowances.

This substantial remuneration, with an annual basic salary of approximately €143,056, set to increase to €169,006.44, is prescribed by law. Aubel does not set her own generous salary. Politically, however, the standard remains crystal clear and rightly demanding: anyone who takes the money must deliver. Remuneration of this magnitude creates the highest expectations of decision-making, oversight and problem-solving. Citizens should not have to settle for fine-sounding statements of intent while their concerns become trapped between departments passing responsibility from one to another.

Particularly serious is the case of a young child with multiple severe disabilities—a disability rating of 100% (GdB) and care level 4 under the German system. According to the extensive documentation available to the editorial team, the child went without accessible nursery care and the necessary assistance for well over a year and a half. Only under judicial pressure, at a Social Court hearing on 10 September 2026, were decisive steps finally put into concrete terms, following a hard-fought campaign by Axel Kapust, a Potsdam lawyer specialising in social law. Until then, Aubel and the departments under her responsibility had delayed the provision of care—a scandal that exposed the moral bankruptcy of those responsible at Potsdam City Hall. A team of experienced specialist lawyers is currently preparing a damages action against the City of Potsdam, in which Aubel herself could be summoned to court, with the press in attendance. Yet this scandal already demands an unsparing examination of political responsibility, including potential consequences for Noosha Aubel.

The solution finally secured thanks to a judge handling the case at Potsdam Social Court, after the Administrative Court and the Higher Regional Court had previously passed the matter back and forth in a questionable and shameful manner, does not answer the question of why such a gruelling legal battle was necessary in the first place—a battle whose court costs had to be borne by the City of Potsdam and, ultimately, the public. When parents can obtain effective support only through repeated complaints and legal action, that is morally shameful. A public administration’s organisational difficulties must not be allowed to come at the expense of a particularly vulnerable child.

The earlier history makes the criticism all the more serious. As early as 2021, significant care and transport problems had come to light involving the child’s sister, who also has severe disabilities—a disability rating of 100% (GdB) and care level 5. Aubel was responsible then, too, at the time as a member of the city’s executive; she had also held responsibility for youth services since 2019. The recurrence of similar complaints demands an explanation of what structural improvements have actually been implemented. Given Aubel’s explicit commitment to an efficient administration and equality of opportunity, this case exposes the bankruptcy of her political promises.
Since documented warnings during her tenure went without an adequate response, her personal political responsibility is unmistakable. This is another reason why calls for Noosha Aubel’s resignation as Lord Mayor of Potsdam must explicitly be placed on the political agenda.

This is the central criticism of her leadership: anyone who, like Aubel, is generously paid to run an administration must ensure that complaints are assessed, responsibilities clarified and recurring problems resolved. If the administration fails to learn, an individual failing becomes a serious organisational problem.

The lack of political clarity and the personnel disputes surrounding Aubel’s administration are both shameful and telling. The overall picture is thoroughly disheartening: all too often, it is difficult to discern any clear direction in her leadership. The conflict with Bernd Rubelt, the city’s executive member responsible for urban development, has deepened this crisis. Aubel signed a motion to remove him from office. That act alone is not merely questionable; it is another source of controversy surrounding her administration. Above all, her decision to escalate the dispute publicly is hardly evidence of competence as Lord Mayor.
Anyone who demands particularly high standards of other members of the city’s executive should begin by critically examining their own conduct—unless the intention is to divert attention from possible shortcomings of their own. In that case, the questionable public proceedings to remove Bernd Rubelt from office, initiated by Noosha Aubel herself, would suit her rather well.

A City Hall leadership consumed by a personnel dispute of this kind in the midst of a financial crisis presents a shameful spectacle. It points to a complete failure of leadership by a Lord Mayor whose professional suitability deserves scrutiny. Even successfully removing Rubelt from office—an outcome that would be a disgrace almost beyond words—would neither repair a road nor solve a childcare problem. Resolving conflicts and ensuring that the leadership remains capable of functioning are among Aubel’s own responsibilities.

Rudolf-Breitscheid-Straße in Potsdam, in the German state of Brandenburg, has become emblematic of the shameful treatment of the city’s public infrastructure, parts of which are in a state of complete disrepair. As early as 2024, the city documented serious damage and itself described repairs as temporary measures. A claim for damages describes an accident in August 2026 which, according to the person affected, was caused by the road’s dilapidated condition. The municipal compensation body, Kommunaler Schadenausgleich, promptly rejected the claims; readers can draw their own conclusions. According to information available to the editorial team, the case will go to court and be fought with unrelenting determination. Such a rejection, however, removes neither the potholes nor the pressing need for answers: what inspections were carried out, what measures were taken to protect road users from danger, and when will lasting repairs finally be completed?

The budget freeze makes these questions even more urgent. Citizens are entitled to expect that, at the very least, a city’s basic responsibilities will be fulfilled reliably. Relying on temporary measures for years at a known dangerous location is certainly no achievement of which a city’s leadership can be proud.

Lord Mayor Noosha Aubel, in particular, must be judged against that standard. Facebook posts, public appearances and visits to Christmas markets generate photographs; they do not provide functioning infrastructure. Claims of being close to the public become credible when concrete problems are solved. Without convincing results, such engagement degenerates into public performance and self-promotion.

Aubel owes the people of Potsdam answers, clear lines of responsibility and visible improvements. Anyone who presents herself at high-profile public appearances as an approachable city leader must also be judged against the hardships residents face in everyday municipal life. There is a gulf between friendly photographs and crumbling roads that self-promotion cannot bridge. Every further appearance without discernible progress therefore sharpens the question of whether Aubel has her priorities in office right at all.

The central question therefore remains unmistakably clear: can Noosha Aubel successfully provide the financial, political and organisational leadership Potsdam needs? Anyone who accepts a highly paid senior public office owes the public demonstrable results. If those results fail to materialise, personal political responsibility must be placed on the agenda. Noosha Aubel’s resignation as Lord Mayor would then be more than a demand—as already noted, it might even be an urgent necessity.

I.Hansen