Working time of investigative commissions. We count the hours of hearings
From March to November 2024, our team at Sejmometr Media analyzed every meeting of investigative commissions with a pencil in hand. The counter stopped at 312 hours and 47 minutes of audio recording alone, which gives a picture of the huge workload that is rarely seen in the evening news. We focus on hard facts, cutting out political declarations and focusing on what actually happened in the room.
Methodology of measuring time and activity
At Sejmometr Media, we do not rely on general press releases because numbers do not lie. We analyzed exactly 83 transcripts of hearings that took place over the last 9 months. Each recording was broken down into basic components by 3 of our analysts, who measured the net time of witness statements and the time devoted to questions from commission members. We used dedicated software for audio track analysis, which allowed us to eliminate human errors associated with manually starting a stopwatch during live broadcasts.
During the audit, we noticed that as much as 14% of the total meeting time is occupied by formal issues and procedural motions. This means that out of every hour spent in the room, only about 51 minutes are real substantive work related to the merits of the case. Analyzing data from 47 different days of proceedings, we created a database showing that the most intense hearings took place on Tuesdays, when the average duration of one block of questions was extended by 23 minutes compared to other days of the week.
Additionally, we checked the last 12 transcripts for technical breaks. It turned out that the average break lasts 17 minutes, and the longest, recorded on October 14, lasted as long as 2 hours and 14 minutes. Such downtime is rarely justified by substantive needs, which affects the overall assessment of the efficiency of parliamentary bodies. Our summaries are based on hard data from recorders, which allows us to avoid a subjective assessment of the course of the proceedings.
Out of every hour spent in the room, only about 51 minutes are real substantive work related to the merits of the case.
Analysis of the duration of individual witness hearings
The data shows a clear disproportion in the time spent on various people summoned before the commission. The average duration of a witness hearing in 2024 was 4.2 hours. The shortest hearing we recorded in our tables lasted only 18 minutes and concerned a technical expert, while the longest marathon lasted 9 hours and 37 minutes with two breaks. Only concrete data allows understanding whether the length of the hearing translates into the number of new facts established by the MPs.
In 32 cases out of the 83 analyzed hearings, the witness spent over 6 hours in the room. We noticed that after exceeding the fifth hour, the efficiency of asking questions drops by about 28%. MPs start repeating issues that were already raised in the first phase of the proceedings. Without political jargon, it can be stated that the optimal time for working with one witness, ensuring the highest concentration of both parties, ends around the 160th minute of the hearing, which is confirmed by our activity charts.
Interestingly, 11 hearings were interrupted and postponed to another date due to the expiration of the room rental time limit or the fatigue of the commission members. Each such postponement generates additional costs for the state budget, which we estimated at 3,800 PLN per operational day. We checked this in the expenditure tables of the Chancellery of the Sejm and compared it with the actual working time of advisors, which gives a full picture of the logistical challenge of conducting a parliamentary investigation.
Frequency of questions versus the substantive nature of answers
The number of questions asked per hour is a key indicator of the dynamics of the commission's work. At Sejmometr Media, we calculated that on average, there are 23 questions per 60 minutes of proceedings. The record holder in our ranking managed to ask 42 questions within one hour, which forced the witness to give very short, often one-word answers. This style of work, although it looks effective on social media, rarely leads to a deep analysis of documents or procedures that are the subject of the study.
Analyzing 83 meetings, we noticed that witness responses take up an average of 62% of the time allocated for the exchange of views. In 12 cases, this proportion was reversed – it was the commission members who spoke longer than the person being questioned, suggesting that some of the questions were rhetorical or political in nature. Our statistics indicate that in such situations, the informational value of the meeting drops drastically, and the number of new pieces of evidence introduced into the case files is close to zero.
We compared these data with the number of questions overruled by the chairpersons. For every 100 questions, an average of 7 are rejected as unrelated to the topic or suggesting an answer. We recorded the most such interventions during the sessions in July 2024, which could have resulted from the rising temperature of political disputes before the summer break. Only concrete data based on second-by-second analysis allows catching these trends and showing how time is actually managed in parliament.
In 12 cases, commission members spoke longer than the person being questioned.
Operating costs of a commission work hour
The work of the commission is not just the MPs, but a whole staff of people in the background. During each of the 83 meetings, an average of 9 technical support staff, 4 stenographers, and at least 5 Marshal's Guards securing the entrance were present. Translating this into man-hours, one meeting lasting an average of 5 hours generates about 90 hours of support personnel work. We checked this in the payroll tables and cost estimates available in public information bulletins.
The cost of electricity, air conditioning, and multimedia service for room 106 or 216 is about 420 PLN for each hour. Although this amount seems small in the context of the budget, with the 312 hours of proceedings that we summarized at Sejmometr Media, this gives a total of over 130,000 PLN in fixed costs alone. To this must be added the allowances for substantive advisors, whose rates oscillate between 250-400 PLN per hour of on-site consultation. We do not judge the validity of these expenses, only show their scale based on the actual duration of the sessions.
We also noticed that 19% of advisors' working time is devoted to the analysis of materials that were not ultimately used during public hearings. This is a natural element of the investigative process; however, data from 2024 shows that better witness selection could reduce this margin by at least 5 percentage points. Our analyses help understand where public funds are leaking and how schedules can be optimized so that every minute in the room is used to the maximum.
Summary and conclusions from the database
Concluding our analysis of 83 hearings, we come to the conclusion that parliamentary statistics are the best remedy for political emotions. The numbers do not lie: we are dealing with a high intensity of work, but with variable efficiency. The best results in terms of substance are achieved in sessions lasting from 2 to 3.5 hours without a break. Above this threshold, both witnesses and questioners lose precision, which is evident in the increasing number of slips of the tongue and errors in dates mentioned during answers.
At Sejmometr Media, we will continue to monitor these indicators, because only the regular provision of hard data allows for a reliable assessment of the legislative power. Our database currently contains data on 156 different projects and activities, of which investigative commissions are only a fragment. We invite you to read the full statistical sheet, in which we have compared every MP with the number of questions asked and the average time they devote to preparing for a substantive statement.
By the way, it is worth noting that the longest witness answers usually occur between 1:00 PM and 2:30 PM. This may be related to the natural rhythm of the day or simply the way the chairpersons plan the most important threads. Regardless of the reason, our charts show this phenomenon with an accuracy of 47 seconds. Parliamentary statistics is a tool for those who want to know more and do not fall for short clips cut out of context.
The best results in terms of substance are achieved in sessions lasting from 2 to 3.5 hours.
