Mazurek’s blunder concerning Kamil Barczyk, who nevertheless deserves scrutiny

Kamil Barczyk, director of Szpital św. Łukasza in Bolesławiec and the new head of the merged Bolesławiec–Zgorzelec hospitals, became the subject of a segment of Kanał Zero’s Extro program.

The most attention was drawn by the segment in which Mazurek called Kamil Barczyk a doctor.

– Who could have won, dear bears? Kamil Barczyk won. A young doctor in his thirties, earning over a million last year, over one million zlotys. No, but it’s fine, as a doctor only around 900,000, so a modest man – Robert Mazurek said, commenting on Barczyk’s selection as director of the merged hospitals.

The problem is that Kamil Barczyk is not a doctor. For years, he has operated publicly as a healthcare manager. He headed the Bolesławiec hospital and, according to publicly available biographies, has technical and economic education as well as experience managing a medical facility.

Another point of doubt is the suggestion that Barczyk became hospital director because he is a PSL councillor on the regional assembly. This shorthand does not reflect the chronology of events. Barczyk first became director of Szpital św. Łukasza in Bolesławiec. He took up the position in 2019. Only later did he enter local politics and become a councillor.

The director deserves criticism

Mazurek’s blunder does not mean that Kamil Barczyk should not be assessed. On the contrary, as the director of a public hospital, a regional assembly councillor and a person managing large amounts of public money, he should answer questions concerning the transparency of the facility’s operations. In recent months, istotne.pl has asked the hospital, among other things, about its relationship with MEDASK, a company whose owners are people associated with the hospital. During a press conference on June 12, Barczyk did not address the details of the matter and stated that the answers had already been provided. The editorial team maintains, however, that some information was not disclosed and that the matter has been brought before the administrative court.

It is precisely in such matters that criticism of the director is justified: when public money, personal connections, contracts, settlements and access to public information are involved. Residents have the right to know how the hospital cooperated with the private company, what the scope of that cooperation was and whether the facility is properly fulfilling its information duties.

Defending Barczyk against Mazurek’s imprecise allegations should therefore not mean exempting him from responsibility for fully and clearly explaining matters of public interest.