Deputy talker of the Sejm Krzysztof Bosak on X.
I see rather a discussion about Members' privileges. A politician speaking in specified cases is always in a losing position, due to the fact that on the 1 hand he has tools and resources always insufficient to carry out the tasks that voters anticipate from him, and on the another hand he stands materially better than most of his constituents, so he should not complain.
I would so like to mention only 2 details which I do not see in this debate and which may be applicable to knowing and evaluating the situation:
1. The lump sum on the flat from the Chancellery of the Sejm never goes into the account or in the Member's pocket. There is no anticipation for a associate to spend a possible "mountain" for another purposes. These funds are transferred straight to the owner's account, who rents them on the basis of the contract concluded.
2. The celebrated "kilometer" is not an additional resource for a Member. It's just 1 of the positions in his office's accounts. More "kilometres" = little resources for another office expenses. The proportion of expenditure in the offices of 560 parliamentarians is budget neutral.
I have seen quite a few discussion about Members' privileges since yesterday. A politician speaking in specified cases is always in a losing position, due to the fact that on the 1 hand he has tools and resources always insufficient to carry out the tasks that voters anticipate from him, and on the another hand he stands... https://t.co/xTZ7wTNQI2
— Krzysztof Bosak (@krzysztofbosak) October 2, 2024What to do with it is simply a completely different matter.
If I were to outline my proposals, the right to a flat-rate lump sum should only be granted to Members who are engaged in full-time politics in the capital, besides outside the Parliament. The remainder to hotels. And erstwhile it comes to the "kilometer", it's a PRL relic. This needs to be eliminated. Office funds should be cleared on the basis of invoices.
