At the February session of the City Council, councillors will adopt—or not—a resolution “on the sale of shares in Miejski Zakład Rehabilitacji Leczniczej Sp. z o.o., headquartered in Bolesławiec, by the Mayor of Bolesławiec.” The document’s justification states:

Based on its preliminary financial statement for 2012, the company reported net profit of PLN 2,555.81 at year-end, with turnover of PLN 510,642.20, giving a profitability ratio of 0.5%. The company’s share capital amounts to PLN 96,000.00 and represents 46.37% of the company’s assets. The company’s management applied to the Mayor of Bolesławiec for funding of at least PLN 400,000 to expand its range of services to include whole-body cryotherapy [...].

The municipal council fully supports the company’s development plan [...]. However, given the financial situation, the municipal council sees no possibility of supporting the operations of entities that are not public-utility entities. The municipal council believes that the company’s activity is low-profit and largely dependent on the value of contracts concluded with the National Health Fund for the services provided. As follows from the documents submitted, the company reports increasingly lower profits each year, which makes it impossible to finance rehabilitation activities from its own funds.

The municipal council believes that there is no economic justification for maintaining entities that incur losses or generate only symbolic profits. Given that at least three large entities providing rehabilitation services operate in the Bolesławiec market, supporting one of them with public funds would violate the principles of market competition [podkreślenia pochodzą od redakcji – przyp. „ii”]. Therefore, the sale of the shares held to the company’s employees and their assumption of full responsibility for the business activity is fully justified. Directing the sale of the shares exclusively to the company’s employees is consistent with the principles of employee privatization.

Updated 2013-02-27 12:19

The council adopted the aforementioned resolution with 15 votes in favor. Five councillors abstained.

(information: ii)