W Krakow wants to challenge the Dean's choice

The issue of elections in the Krakow Bar Chamber, which took place on 5.11.2024, caused a large stir in the environment. The vote was attended by 748 lawyers, with only 733 votes cast. In addition, the difference between the winning dean and his counter-candidate was only 5 votes. The consideration of these 15 could so change the outcome, hence the controversy mentioned. The more so, the deficiency of 15 votes makes no of the candidates get the required absolute majority rules.

Attorney Wojciech Bergier, head of the press office of the Krakow Chamber, explained in consequence to the questions “Rz” that the convention rules separate the number of “participants who took part in the vote” from the number of “votes cast”. The voting system, on the another hand, assumed that each candidate could be voted "for" or "against" or "resistance", but as votes cast only counted those "for" 1 of the candidates. Thus, these 15 participants had to vote "against" twice or abstain, and their votes could not be taken into account. And if so, it is only the "voices cast" that were 733 and the winning candidate obtained more than half of them (369 to 394).

As “Rzeczpospolita” learned, a group of over 40 attorneys and lawyers from the Krakow Chamber asked the NRA bureau to ask the NRA to repeal the law-abiding resolution of the Krakow Chamber of Advocates on the election of the Dean of the territory Bar Council in Krakow. This anticipation is given by the NRA by Article 14(3) lawyer rights.

Attorney Michał Chrabąszcz, author of the paper, emphasizes that it is about transparency and that our self-government democracy should be held according to the rules.

– There are no charges of intentional forgery, I am absolutely convinced that this is the consequence of the errors mentioned," he adds.

Among the errors, it states that first, no voting rules have been established. Secondly, the method aspect of the usage of the equipment was misleading. Thirdly, since the electoral committee did not establish the rules for voting, it could not necessarily have announced those rules. Fourthly, the committee should lay down rules on the counting of votes and the setting of election results, which has not been done either. Finally, no verification of the votes was carried out (no votes were so rejected), only immediately, on the basis of a printout from the strategy to operate the devices, the president of this committee read the results alone.