His adventure with the Citizens’ Network Watchdog Poland began in 2013, when he took part in the Civic Sports Monitoring. Obtaining and analysing information about sport in his municipality – Goleniów – sparked a long-lasting interest in transparency. We invite you to read our interview with Bartosz Wilk.

Joanna Gucman-Muż: Tell us about your social activism regarding bonuses and transparency of professional corporations. When did it start? What set you on this path?

Bartosz Wilk: There were no breakthrough moments. Taking up the topic of bonuses has long been discussed at the Watchdog Network. Local activists have pointed out to us, for example, that it is worth examining the practice of bonuses in government offices in the context of local elections. The aim was to determine whether by any chance the most generously rewarded employees subsequently make the highest contributions to election committees [the only bodies, which are entitled to run election campaign]. It is difficult to determine due to the position of the administrative courts – the only information we have is on bonuses for public office holders, and this is only a fraction of the people working in government offices.

It turned out, however, that bonuses are important to residents not just in regard to elections. This is because they illustrate the problem of the arbitrary granting of additional bonuses in the public administration, in which salaries are supposed to be regulated by pay scales. Bonuses are not subject to strict regulation and this is why they pose the risk of funds being allocated not to the best employees, but according to some unfounded criteria. Simply put, people are repeatedly struck by the injustice involved. This is especially important at the micro level, that is local communities, where people know each other and are conscious of considerations other than merit that may determine the cash flows.

In turn, the interest in professional corporations – mainly legal self-governments – is the result of curiosity about what disciplinary courts decide and how they decide it. Unlike, for example, criminal cases, in which each act must be strictly described in a criminal provision, disciplinary liability “lives in judgements.” It is from these judgements that we will learn what specifically may indicate a breach of the duty to act professionally, or which violations of professional rules may result in sanctions (and what those sanctions are).

How did you get involved with the Watchdog Poland?

I joined the Watchdog Poland in 2013 as a participant in Civic Sport Monitoring. At that time, residents from different parts of Poland were selected for the project and prepared to control the sports policy of their municipalities. I am very glad that I took part in the project – not only did watching the activities of the local government later lead me to a journalistic episode (which I also consider valuable), but I also met many great and committed people.

I had observed Watchdog’s activities before, but it was after participating in Civic Sport Monitoring that I became a member, began collaborating on legal matters, and eventually worked as a lawyer. I also served on the organisation’s Board of Directors in the years 2016–2020 (including as the Vice President in 2017–2020).

Speaking of Watchdog, what does the right to information mean to you?

It is one of the meta-rights, the realisation of which is necessary to protect other human and citizen freedoms and rights, or constitutional principles in general. Without knowing how the law on, for example, personal information works, we do not know whether our state adequately protects privacy. Without the information about the courts’ activities, we do not know whether the constitutional right to a fair and public hearing without unreasonable delay is actually operating. If it were not for information on supervisory activities over municipalities, districts and provinces, it would be impossible to assess whether local government is actually decentralised. Only when we diagnose problems correctly can we act effectively. Without the right to information, it is difficult to make any diagnosis at all.

What do you ask most often and whom?

Personally, I most often direct requests for public information to local government units and local government supervisory bodies. This is related to the research I conduct. I have prepared a doctoral dissertation on the functioning of the institution of local initiative (regulated in the Act on Public Benefit Activity and Volunteer Work). Given the imperfect central reporting of information on local initiative, public information requests were an important resource.

But I use public information in much of my research, not just that conducted as part of my doctoral project. I study public administration and am interested in how regulations work in practice. The sources of information about this are, of course, numerous. But other sources usually end where the area I intend to explore begins. Then it makes sense to use a public information request, although for research, it is obviously a high-risk method.

I, however, have had good experiences – a very high percentage of recipients respond to requests, even though I do not emphasise that I need the information for a specific purpose.

And have you been able to make any change or alert the community to any disturbing changes thanks to obtaining information by means of access to information?

About six years ago, I worked for a year or so as a local journalist. I published texts in which I referred largely to public information, obtained in this way. While this was “public” information, the readers didn’t know it at all. The biggest number of people contacted me after the articles on bonuses. As I have pointed out, it’s a topic that simply engages the readers who recognise injustice. Thus, the bonuses provided an impetus for readers to raise other issues.

It is telling that when information about bonuses in ministries is revealed, the public is moved by multi-million dollar sums, but it is different on the local level – personal details matter here, because people know each other. 

When it comes to bonuses, I can’t pinpoint a specific success because it’s more about the process. I hope, however, that local governments, aware that the public is watching, have resigned from awarding least some unwarranted bonuses. Or perhaps thanks to transparency, a bonus was given to someone who deserved it?

In the case of professional self-governments, the Watchdog Poland can show more tangible results. Administrative courts have unanimously affirmed that disciplinary decisions are public information. Some of the self-governments of lawyers (especially the self-government of legal advisers) publish these rulings on their website. Of course, there is much to be done in this regard, but access to disciplinary jurisprudence is much greater than it was when this information interested me as a law student.

Another major topic raised by the Watchdog Poland in the context of professional corporations is the disclosure of self-government allowances, i.e., the remuneration received for holding a position in the self-government. We have been pursuing and conducting this issue for years, and this year it gained an unexpected ally – the new authorities of the Supreme Bar Council, with whom we had previously conducted proceedings for disclosure of this data. This example demonstrates that the most common problem is the attitude of the authorities and their lack of understanding of the role of transparency. I’m not counting the chickens before they’re hatched, but it’s better to discuss things in meetings than in a courtroom.

What would you like to wish the Watchdog Poland on its 18th anniversary?

Officials and judges who, when applying the law, recognise the importance of transparency and take it seriously as a principle, a starting point. Informed people at the helm of government and judges can fix the law’s imperfections or at least mitigate the effects. This is especially important when the quality of adopted legislation is declining.