K. Neimantas confirmed to BNS that the post was edited.
“Yes, it was done,” he said.
At the end of July, 10 commission members voted for K. Neimantas to correct the post, and one was against.
Read more Police announce search: gang beat one at the intersection
The commission did not find a violation of the Politician’s Ethics Code: six abstained, two were against, and three were in favor of recognizing the Member of Parliament as having violated the Ethics Code.
As the commission chairman Viktoras Fiodorovas told BNS, the commission decided on a milder form.
“If we mandate it, it would imply a violation of the State Politicians’ Code of Conduct. But since, apparently, there was a desire not to commit a violation, the recommendation is milder,” said V. Fiodorovas.
Also, the parliamentary ethics watchdogs drew the attention of all parliamentarians that participation in advertising campaigns of private companies, goods, or services may raise doubts about the transparency of their activities, so they recommended that parliamentarians simply refrain from advertising private companies’ items, goods, or services.
The commission made this conclusion after evaluating the May 27 Facebook post of the Member of Parliament about his visit to the Klaipėda company “Mėmelio ratai,” whose owner he has known for about nine years.
In it, the parliamentarian described his visit to this company and stated that he confidently recommends it “to people in his environment”: “I know they will not disappoint.”
This part of the post attracted the commission’s attention.
Conservative Jurgis Razma said that the commission should not suggest removing part of the post but mandate it.
“To say even more firmly that the Member of Parliament must remove, not just suggest removing, those elements that promote the company’s services,” he asserted.
According to “Nemuno aušros” representative Daiva Žebelienė, there is no need to see a violation or a conflict of public and private interests in K. Neimantas’s behavior.
“It was not proven that he received any compensation,” said D. Žebelienė.
“A visit to a private limited company, communication with company employees, such meetings cannot be considered a violation by a Member of Parliament,” she added.
Read more For these 4 Zodiac signs, the golden age of love begins – they will receive special attention
According to D. Žebelienė, by informing about his visit and the purpose of it, he wanted to show how successfully the business is developing.
Liberal Arminas Lydeka said that K. Neimantas behaved improperly by advertising the company and suggested recognizing him as having violated the parliamentary ethics code.
“If we suggest that something needs to be removed, it means it is illegal, it was done incorrectly. So we recognize that he violated the ethics code by directly engaging in advertising,” the parliamentarian explained.
“It is inappropriate for a Member of Parliament to engage in advertising activities, regardless of whether he received a discount or not for that advertising,” added A. Lydeka.
Meanwhile, Social Democrat Ingrida Braziulienė said that K. Neimantas should “remove the contact information about the company” from the post published on his account because it “has advertising elements” – a recommendation to the residents of Western Lithuania to use the services of a specific company.
“It sounds like advertising and an invitation,” I. Braziulienė said at the commission meeting.
According to I. Braziulienė, the commission’s decision should not open Pandora’s box so that Members of Parliament, after visiting a certain company or institution, do not advertise them.
K. Neimantas stated that he has “no direct interests” with the company described on social networks.
“Out of such goodwill, out of good intentions, I wanted to express great joy, and it turned out that maybe I was a bit too enthusiastic about such business activity,” admitted K. Neimantas.
Read more Are competitors really writing on warehouse roofs that they are not «Wildberries»?
