Civic City of Lubartów

Why 14? This is the number of pages that justify the refusal to disclose the public information we requested. 

We asked the Lublin local government about the costs of using a private car, business trips and the costs of representation costs incurred by the Office in 2014-2018 for the President of Lublin Krzysztof Żuk.

We did not show any particular significance, because for us it is an obvious matter. The office costs residents and they have the right to know how much.

How should the residents of Lublin know that they pay less for President Żuk's delegations than the residents of Zamość? What do these journeys mean for them? What are their profits?

We found out that  The Mayor of the City of Lublin does not have a concluded contract on the use of a private car for business purposes, hence the Lublin City Hall does not bear any costs on this account. 

There were no answers to the other two questions. 

You can appeal to the Local Government Appeal Court in Lublin. You can then go to the Provincial Administrative Court. These are common, accessible tools that each of us can use.

However, the reflection on whether the question of how much the overall cost of the functioning of power is not sufficiently "particularly important from the point of view of the general public", prompted us to reach for a different solution.

We checked. At the time we requested, there is an annual request for such information. And every year, the Office requires determining their particular significance for the public interest. Civic activity is a manifestation of the activities of an NGO, but not only. 

We came to the conclusion that you can try to do something about these queries permanently and with the expected informational effect.

A petition to keep a register of expenses related to business trips of persons performing public functions, employed in the City Hall of Lublin, in particular the Mayor and his deputies, has been submitted by us.
Responsible activity for us also means considering how to reconcile the arguments of the supporters of openness with the officials in a way that is useful for both parties.