Indexs publichnosti eng s

44

publicity index of local self-goverment

report 2013

The publication presents results of a national measuring campaign within the Publicity Index that was conducted in 2013 by OPORA’s partner organizations in eleven regional centers of Ukraine – Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Luhansk, Lutsk, Lviv, Mykolayiv, Odesa, Rivne, Cherkasy, Chernihiv and Uzhhorod. The publication is intended for a wide audience – including experts in local self-government, researchers and civic activists.

The Report is prepared within the EU-funded Project “Measuring the Index of local selfgovernment’s publicity in Ukraine”, implemented by a Lviv-based NGO “Civil Network OPORA”.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission

Not for sale

Responsible for the publication: Oleksandr Neberykut, Iryna Shvets Type of format: 84 x 108/16 Offset printing. «PT Sans» font Conventional printed pages 8,4.

250 pcs Order # 2110 of 21 October 2013 Published by: Piatakov Y. O. Civil Network OPORA 7 Nalyvaika street, office 6 79007, Lviv Tel/fax: (032) 254 61 63 www.opora.lviv.ua lviv@opora.org.ua

© Civil Network OPORA, Lviv oblast non-governmental organization, an exclusive licence for publication, 2013

content Introduction .............................................................. 4 Methodology for Measuring the Publicity Index of Local Self-government ..................................................... 6 SUMMARY ........................................................................... 12 Cherkasy ......................................................................... 16 Chernihiv ....................................................................... 18 Donetsk ............................................................................ 20 Ivano-Frankivsk .................................................... 22 Luhansk ........................................................................... 24 Lutsk ................................................................................... 26 Lviv ...................................................................................... 28 Mykolaiv ........................................................................ 30 Odesa ................................................................................. 32 Rivne ................................................................................... 34 Uzhgorod ...................................................................... 36 measurement Matrix ............................................ 38

Introduction Publicity Index is a practical tool that helps to completely measure, evaluate and compare the level of transparency, openness and accountability of local municipal institutions in their interactions with citizens. In general, the campaign aims to demonstrate the public dimension of decisions made and policies implemented by municipalities, as well as highlight the contributions of major self-government bodies into this process. The analysis results in a publicity ranking of local councils in particular: mayors, executive bodies and local council deputies.

The Publicity Index is unique due to the comprehensive nature of measurements and wide range of functions and activities of municipalities under evaluation, such as: access to public information, accessibility of administrative services, regulatory policies, disclosure of local regulatory and legal acts to the public, transparency of budgetary process, community participation, accuracy of official websites, disclosure of city building and policy documents.

In addition, the campaign focuses on evaluation and comparison of individual local selfgovernment officials such as: mayors, executive bodies and deputies.

The analysis results from joint efforts between the Network of NGO partners, initiated by the Civil Network OPORA in Lviv. In 2013, the campaign has covered 11 cities – Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Luhansk, Lutsk, Lviv, Mykolayiv, Odesa, Rivne, Cherkasy, Chernihiv, and Uzhhorod. In 2014, it will measured activities in all oblast centers of Ukraine.

The active monitoring phase lasted from June till August 2013 and included submission of information requests, an analysis of content on official web-pages and municipal printed media, monitoring visits and direct observation of the work of authorities, as well as analysis of local regulatory legal acts.

Lviv office of Civil Network OPORA would like to express their gratitude to the NGOs engaged in the Publicity Index campaign for their productive and efficient work. The Publicity Index in the regions was measured by the following participants:

4

Cherkasy

Lviv office of Civil Network OPORA

Chernihiv

Polissia Foundation for International and Regional Studies

Donetsk Ivano-Frankivsk

Donetsk regional organization of All-Ukrainian NGO “Committee of Voters of Ukraine” Kolomyia office of Civil Network OPORA

Luhansk

Luhansk office of Civil Network OPORA

Lutsk

Center for Political Analysis and Election Consulting

Lviv

Lviv office of Civil Network OPORA

Mykolayiv

Voznesensk city organization “Agency for Economic Development”

Odesa Rivne

Odesa regional organization of All-Ukrainian NGO “Committee of Voters of Ukraine Rivne office of Civil Network OPORA

Uzhhorod

Transcarpathian office of Civil Network OPORA

For more information about the Publicity Index measuring campaign please visit the webpage www.publicityindex.org.

The Publicity Index of local self-government is implemented within the EU-funded Project.

Sincerely, Oleksandr Neberykut, coordinator of the Publicity Index measuring campaign

5

Methodology for Measuring the Publicity Index of Local Selfgovernment What is the publicity of local Self-government?

By “publicity of local self-government” we mean a set of management and political measures implemented by the authorities and local self-government bodies in order to guarantee fully open and benevolent relations with citizens as well as raise the overall level of credibility in municipal institutions on the part of community. In democratic societies, it is common to consider government’s publicity as a basic indicator of good governance and an efficient mechanism to combat corruption. It is also believed that the publicity of government institutions has a positive impact on living standards, especially at the local level where the authorities are much closer to the citizens and render basic public services to them.

Research shows “publicity” as a complex notion that includes three interrelated principles of good governance – transparency, openness and accountability. Transparency implies the process in which the municipalities themselves that the initiative to publicize important and actual information about their staff and structure, plenary powers and functions, finances, current activities and plans, political initiatives and decisions voted, services rendered to the citizens, as well as other information that is of public interest1. Government’s openness is seen as a process of offering free access to information that is at the municipalities’ disposal, promoting active citizen participation in direct communication and holding regular dialogues on policies that are in development at the local level. The notion of accountability covers a process of systematically informing the public about the results and efficiency of the performance of municipal institutions, as well as the use of public resources and budgetary funds What are the objectives of the Publicity Index of local self-government?

Publicity Index of local self-government is a practical tool that evaluates and compares the level of transparency, openness and accountability of local municipal institutions in their interactions with citizens.

In simple terms, the campaign aims to measure, and demonstrate the public dimension 1

6

Public interest means that the public benefits from the information becoming accessible.

of decisions made and policies implemented by municipalities, as well as highlight the contribution of major self-government bodies into this process, in particular mayors, executive bodies and local council deputies.

What does the Publicity Index measure?

Key elements evaluated during the measuring campaign within the Publicity Index are mayors (as the main city official), executive bodies of the council (bodies authorized to carry out executive and managerial functions), and deputies (deputies, as a representative body in the system of local self-government). The publicity of each of the element was evaluated on a 100-point scale while the overall Publicity Index is an aggregate sum of these three scores. The value of each of the elements analyzed was determined with respect to powers and political functions of local self-government bodies and for officials, in terms of publicity dimension of their work.

Table 1: Objects under measurement Publicity of a city mayor Publicity of executive bodies Publicity of deputies Total Publicity Index

Value, % 30 35 35 100

What indicators were used to measure the Publicity Index?

The notion of “publicity” was divided into three cumulative components of transparency, openness and accountability for each of the elements monitored (the mayors, executive bodies and deputies). The cumulative indicators are based on 202 operating questions that cover a wide range of functions and policies led by local self-government bodies and officials. The questions include aspects that assess access to public information, disclosure of tax declarations, transparency of the human resources policies, making public city master plans and target-oriented programs, transparency of the budgetary process, release of regulatory legal acts, visits of citizens, access to the offices of municipalities, openness at meetings of municipality collective entities, functioning of the mechanisms of citizens’ participation, reporting procedures, openness of executive committee performance, content update of official websites, transparency of land auction and regulatory policy of a city council, availability of administrative services, etc. for the sake of convenience, all operating questions were grouped into 13 parameters that cover 23 indicators (see the Measurement matrix).

7

Which sources and information collection tools were used for the measuring?

The measuring is based on initial empirical data collected by the monitoring team through: - submission and interpretation of answers to information request letters, - analysis of official webpage content and printed media of the municipalities, - monitoring visits to municipalities, experiments and direct observation over the work of local self-government bodies and officials, - analysis of regulatory legal acts adopted by self-governments.

During the campaign observers submitted circa 400 information request letters for public information in different forms and conducted circa 200 monitoring visits.

How was the data processed?

The data obtained by the observers from each of the 202 operating questions were entered into a specially designed evaluation form. Each answer was normalized, i.e. it was assigned a numerical expression according to a 5 grade scale (0, 25, 50, 75 or 100 scores) within 100 scale where “100” stands for a high level of publicity standard compliance. All answers were “valued” and were assigned a value quotient with respect to their significance in terms of implementation of the highest possible publicity principle. Thus, the questions concerning accountability practices, citizens’ participation and access to public information have more “value” than the issues on availability of personal or contact data for executive body heads.

Value quotients for the Publicity Index (in accordance with the parameters): Publicity parameters City Mayor publicity Transparency of the mayor performance and implementation of his authorities Disclosure policy and normative documents Making policy and normative documents public Openness of the city mayor in his contacts with citizens Accountability of the city mayor Total Executive bodies publicity Transparency of the structure and functions performed by executive bodies

8

Value, % 21 22 31 26 100 14

Making regulatory legal acts and other executive body documents public Openness of executive bodies and the degree of citizens’ participation Availability of administrative services Accountability of executive bodies Total Publicity of council deputies Transparency of personnel structure and implementation of power functions by the representative body of local self-government Transparency of the council’s work, making public regulatory legal acts and other documents Openness of the representative body and citizens’ participation in a decisionmaking processes Accountability of city council deputies Total

20 26,5 13,5 26 100 16,5 30 27 26,5 100

The final score (F) for each of the questions is calculated according to the formula: SCOREact А = SCOREmax х Vq Where the SCOREact is an actual score for the question, SCOREmax is a maximum possible score for the question, Vq – a Value Quotient for the question.

The scores obtained for each question were summarized for each element monitored (mayor, executive bodies and deputies), as well as for the three individual subgroups within these objects – principles (transparency, openness, accountability), parameters (13 in total) and indicators (23 in total). Total estimates for each object and subgroup (principles, parameters, indicators) were further translated into percentages demonstrating the degree of implementation of due standards and publicity norms in practice. That is to say, the percentage indicates the correlation between a planned indicator (standard) and an actual publicity level. Therefore, the sub-indices of city mayor publicity, executive bodies publicity and the publicity of deputies present the percentage sum of all final scores assigned to each answer to operating questions as for each monitoring object.

Apart from the percentage scale, a slightly modified “traffic lights principle” was used to rank municipalities according to the Publicity Index. The brown color indicates that cities within this category are not public. Red color means cities with a low publicity level of authorities.

Yellow color marks cities with a satisfactory publicity level of local self-government bodies

9

and officials. Green color shows the local government as public. The approach is more accurate to show a level of authorities’ publicity irrespective of its ranking position among other cities.

0 – 40%

41 – 60%

61 – 80%

80 – 100%

What normative base was used to develop the indicators system?

Indicators and evaluation questions were developed on the basis of norms of Ukrainian law, international democratic standards and successful practices on different aspects of publicity of municipal authorities. The freedom of information principle is fundamental in the indicators system as it is based on the citizens’ right to receive information from the bodies of state public administration (and institutions that perform public functions) and on a duty of these bodies to publicize and offer information. The “right to know” concerns all information in any form created and obtained by authorities and related to any of their public or administrative functions.

In particular, the key international documents underlying the identified principles and standards of freedom of information are the following: -

The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (1995)2.

-

Council of Europe Recommendations on Access to Official Documents Rec (2002) as of February, 21, 20023.

-

Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents (2008)4.

The legal basis to develop the systems of indicators consists of the following regulatory legal acts: -

The Law of Ukraine “On Access to Public Information”

-

The Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Government in Ukraine”

-

The Law of Ukraine “On Preventing and Combatting Corruption in Ukraine»

-

The Law of Ukraine “On the Status of Local Council Deputies”

2 http://library.khpg.org/index.php?id=944255597 3 http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_a33 4 http://crimecor.rada.gov.ua/komzloch/control/uk/publish/article;jsessionid=DD394411BA1FD129A5209C55F2D68391?a rt_id=49046&cat_id=46352

10

-

The Law of Ukraine “On Public Service”

-

The Law of Ukraine “On the Local Self-Government Office”

-

The Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Services”

-

The Law of Ukraine “On the Principles of State Regulatory Policy in the Sphere of Economic Activity”

-

The Law of Ukraine “On Requests from Citizens”

What is the advantage of measuring the Publicity Index?

-

Publicity Index offers a comprehensive system of indicators that allow anyone to regularly evaluate and compare the quality of governance by local self-government bodies and officials in terms of their publicity.

-

Publicity Index of local self-government plays a proactive role in preventing corruption cases and violation of citizens’ rights for freedom of information.

-

Publicity Index aims to promote a culture of openness of local self-government bodies and officials as well as to raise people’s awareness about their rights and opportunities.

-

Measurement of the Publicity Index is a platform for mobilizing the relevant community members and for coordinating efforts of non-governmental organizations in increasing publicity of state and local governmental institutions.

-

The data obtained while measuring the Publicity Index is used as evidence and a baseline for recommendations for the improvement of governance practices on the local level.

11

SUMMARY The Publicity Index results show that local councils of three cities – Ivano-Frankivsk, Lutsk and Lviv – gained the highest positions in the ranking list having received 68%, 65% and 61% respectively.

According to a 0-100% scale, these cities made up a group of municipalities with a satisfactory level of publicity (cities evaluated as 61%-80% public). The second group includes municipalities with a low publicity level, which are the councils of Donetsk (55%), Luhansk (51%), Chernihiv (51%), Mykolayiv (51%), Odesa (50%) and Rivne (44%). The cities having received up to 40% created the third group of municipalities and are assessed as non-public. These are Cherkasy (39%) and Uzhhorod (32%) city councils. We should also

12

indicate that none of the city councils that were evaluated managed to reach at least 81%, which is enough for being called “public”.

As for the key elements evaluated during the measuring campaign, executive bodies of city councils (with an average score of 58%) and the mayors (51%) were determined to be the most public components of local self-government. An average level of publicity presented by council deputies in 11 cities unfortunately made up only 51%.

Four city mayors occupying the highest ranking places reached the level of satisfactory publicity. The leaders are Ivano-Frankivsk city mayor Viktor Anushkevychus (74%); Lutsk mayor Mykola Romaniuk (73%), Donetsk mayor Oleksandr Lukyanchenko (68%); Lviv mayor Andriy Sadovyi (66%). The mayors of other six cities – Odesa (53%), Luhansk (52%), Chernihiv (52%), Mykolayiv (48%), Rivne (44%) and Uzhhorod (41%) – were determined as those having low publicity level. The activity of Viktor Bilousov, a deputy mayor of Cherkasy, is assessed as non-public (33%).

13

Executive bodies of six city councils received high ranking positions and were evaluated as “satisfactory public”. These are executives of Ivano-Frankivsk (80%), Lviv (73%), Lutsk (67%), Chernihiv (63%), Odesa (61%) and Mykolayiv (61%) city councils. A group comprising executive bodies with a low publicity level includes Rivne (53%), Cherkasy (52%), Donestk (51%) and Luhansk (50%). Executive bodies of Uzhhorod city council are non-public and received only 30%.

The worst situation was observed while evaluating the publicity of local deputies. We may define two groups here – the first one shows a low level of publicity and includes council deputies of Lutsk (55%), Luhansk (50%), Ivano-Frankivsk (50%), Donestk (47%), Lviv (46%) and Mykolayiv (44%) city councils. The second group consists of those councils whose deputies are non-public and received much lower scores – Odesa (38%), Rivne (36%), Chernihiv (36%), Cherkasy (30%) and Uzhhorod (27%).

14

15

16

Cherkasy

According to the results of , the publicity level in Cherkasy is quite low – 39%. Activities of the Executive Committee proved to be the most open to the public, while activities of deputies can be characterized as the least open. Since March 29, 2013 the Acting Mayor is Viktor Bilousov, elected as a deputy from the Communist Party of Ukraine. He is affiliated in the Cherkashchyna deputy group in the City Council. The major part of important information about the Acting Mayor (declaration, information about the procedure of registering for an appointment) is not available at the City Council’s website. The Acting Mayor is not actively communicating with the media, and information about his activities is published on the website not regularly enough. The City Master Plan published on the website lacks description, while the Strategic Urban Development Plan is unavailable. There are no decisions of the Mayor either.

There is no detailed information about the structure and composition of executive bodies, their functions and powers. Information about the officials’ visiting hours is also absent. Draft resolutions of the executive committee and decisions on the procedures of land auction are not published on the Council’s website. Regarding positive innovations, the Center for Rendering Administrative Services has an electronic registration system.

However, it does not have its own website.

Executive bodies do not report directly to the citizens on their activities, and their re-

ports are unavailable on the website. There are also no reports on socio-economic development programs on the website.

Information about deputies in Cherkasy published on the website is incomplete. Rules for Procedure of the City Council and regulations on standing committees are not available. The electronic voting system is absent in the City Council. However, a regular live video broadcasting of all plenary sittings of the City Council is available on the website All the decisions taken on plenary sittings are published on time on the website. However, standing committees are not reporting to the Council. Current reports on activities of deputies are not published.

17

18

Chernihiv

In general, the publicity level of local selfgovernment in Chernihiv is quite low. Deputies have the worst results in transparency and accountability. In particular, the list of majority constituencies in which deputies were elected is absent from the City Council’s official website. Regarding downsides, draft resolutions and decisions of the Council on land issues are not published. Meeting minutes of standing committees are also unavailable. There is no electronic voting system on plenary sittings. Current reports on activities of deputies are not placed on the website but they are permanently published in the official printed newspaper.

Chernihiv Mayor has a very low publicity level. The procedure of registering for personal appointments with the City Mayor is not published. As for the positive innovations, it is possible to register a written claim through the website. Even though the section “Ask the Authorities” is updated from time to time, none of the questions asked during the monitoring were published on the website. There is no information about regular and part-time assistants of the Mayor, or about his advisors. Information about the procedure and rules for applying for vacancies is also unavailable. The Mayor has never reported to the voters during an open meeting. It is interesting to note that the documentation on urban construction, including Chernihiv City Master Plan, has the designation “For official use only”. Only Temporary Provisions on the Use of Chernihiv

Territory, the Future Chernihiv Tourism Development Plan, and some other construction documents are available.

Executive bodies have quite a satisfactory publicity level. Experiment results prove that the citizens can attend meetings of the executive committee after their written request is approved by the Chairperson. Access to offices of officials is also free. Since September 26, 2012 the Center for Rendering Administrative Services has been functioning. It has its own website. However, the executive bodies do not report on their activities to the local community even though its obligated by Statute of the local community.

Reports of executive bodies are not available on the website.

19

20

Donetsk

In terms of publicity , the Mayor of Donetsk city leaves the deputies and executive bodies of Donetsk City Council far behind. A major drawback in the work of executive bodies is the inability for citizens to personally sit in on the meetings of the Donetsk City Council Executive Committee. The same can be stated about plenary sittings of the Council.

There is the option to apply for participation to sit in on the meetings s in Donetsk. However, it is not regulated by any specific procedures. The access of citizens to the meetings of City Council Committees is not regulated either. Moreover, the voters of Donetsk City Council do not have an opportunity to receive information about the composition of the deputies corps because no personal data on the deputies is available. Furthermore, the information on their attendance at plenary sittings of the council and on results of roll-call voting is not timely updated. Standing Committees do not publish their minutes.

However, access to facilities (administrative and departmental offices) of the Council is actually open.

There is no public information management system on the Council website. It does not contain procedures for filing appeals against actions and decisions of public information manager. The extra pay set for copying documents containing classified information is unjustified. However, the answers to requests for public information are provided in time. No Center for Rendering Administrative Services is available in Donetsk to this day; the practice for land auction is not in place either.

Donetsk citizens are very well informed about current activities of the City Mayor.

The Mayor Oleksandr Lukyanchenko arranges regular media events. He often participates in celebrated events of community life. Donetsk City Mayor provides all the necessary information and reports in accordance with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine on Local Self-Government. However, there is a disadvantage to this practice as there is no reporting schedule of the Mayor provided in advance and no information on the results of his activities is made available to the public. Executive bodies do not make public their written reports on results of their activities. This diminishes the efficiency of the procedure itself. The deputies report on their accomplishments to the voters of the relevant constituency at least once a year. However, their written reports are not posted on the Council’s website. Therefore, it is impossible to control the meaningfulness of such reports, to compare results of different deputies, and determine the stage of implementation of election programs.

21

22

Ivano-Frankivsk

Ivano-Frankivsk City Council is in first place (holds the highest position) in the publicity rating among city councils due to the highlevel publicity of the Mayor (74%) and executive bodies (80%). However, the deputies’ level of publicity is only at 50%. Positives include an electronic information terminal that was placed in the lobby of the City Council so that citizens could comfortably get acquainted with the relevant documents of the city council, executive committee and the city mayor. The same facility is installed at the Department of Citizen Requests. Also, citizens can attend meetings of the Executive Committee after they officially register in writing before the meeting. The Center of Rendering Administrative Services is functioning properly. The City council procedure provides free access to citizens to the sittings of city council committees. The official registration procedure also takes place before the sitting itself.

As for downsides , the electronic voting system is not available. As a result, there is no information on the roll-call vote for draft resolutions. Information about the registration of deputies on plenary meetings is also unavailable. In addition to that, the information about deputies’ requests, on implementation of deputies’ commitments to the voters, the minutes of meetings and reports of deputies’ committees are not published.

There is no information on how voters can contact deputies other than personal visits since their phone numbers or emails cannot be freely accessed.

Local regulations do not outline procedures for reporting of the City Mayor. There is no practice to present the report at the public meeting with the citizens. Similarly, executive bodies do not present their reports to the public even though they publish written reports. There is no information about privileges to various categories of citizens and types of services that can be provided. The City Council has no information about when and where deputies are presenting their reports, as well as about the number of deputies who have already reported to the citizens. On top of that, deputies do not provide the City Council with any information about the results of such reporting, comments or suggestions of citizens, or how they perform their commitments. Only several deputies published their reports for the previous year on the official web site of the Council.

23

24

Luhansk

The publicity level of Luhansk City Mayor, executive bodies, and deputies is almost equal- 50-52%. It indicates that despite the fact that the procedures of the city mayor reporting are not regulated in local legislative acts the Mayor of Luhansk city is yearly reporting to the community at public meetings.

All the executive bodies are also reporting once a year to the local community but the corresponding written reports are unavailable. Similarly, the deputies are reporting to their electorate no more than once a year.

However, they do not publish their reports or reports of standing committees on the council’s web-site (but for some exceptions). The City Mayor does not actively communicate with the media. Information about assistants and advisors of the City Mayor is not available. The procedures for applying for vacancies are not published. Also, the procedure to make an appointment with the Mayor is not established. The City Council does not have any hot-line for prompt contacts with citizens.

Regarding the publicity of executive bodies, biographies of Deputy Mayors are unavailable. The practice of land auction is not established in the city. Executive bodies do not provide full information about services rendered by communal enterprises as well as about the tariffs for them. The website contains no information about privileges given to various categories of citizens and types of services that can be provided under these privileges. Draft resolutions of the Executive Committee are not published on the official website of the Council while the citizens

can attend its meetings only upon receiving a permission (they need to submit a written request and receive the positive answer). The Council website does not contain any information about the procedure of public hearings, such as the way to call them, conduct them or to consider their results. Moreover, there is no information about other mechanisms of citizen participation (local initiative, general meeting of citizens).

As to the downsides in performance of the deputy corps of Luhansk City Council, the visiting hours of deputies are not published on the website. Personal information for some deputies is lacking. The City Council does not have an electronic voting system.

The data on registration of deputies on plenary sittings is not published on the Council website. The results of roll-call vote for every issue on the agenda are not published.

The Council does not provide regular audioand video broadcasting (on-line broadcasting) of all its plenary sittings.

25

26

Lutsk

Lutsk city with a Publicity Index of local selfgovernment of 65% is on the second place in the rating. Members of the City Council turned out to have the lowest Publicity Index of all the research objects in Lutsk (55%).

As for upsides, the quality management system (ISO) was introduced in Lutsk and it has been already proven by external audits. City Mayor has personal and off-site appointments with the citizens every month and is reporting during open meetings (despite the fact that the reporting procedure is not regulated in detail). In contrast, executive bodies do not report directly to the community; not all the reports are published on the Council website. However, the Council has an electronic voting system and the results of roll-call vote are published on the website several days after sessions. Another convenient mechanism offered is online broadcasts of the City Council sessions on the Council official website. The broadcasts are then archived and made available on the website.

However, there is no information about the registration of deputies on plenary sittings; parliamentary requests and minutes of meetings are not published.

Downsides include, no contact information of deputies on the website. One cannot find out about the location and hours for personal visits to deputies, nor their personal data, income declarations, and the list of their powers and responsibilities. City council committees do not submit their reports.

There are no scheduled reports of deputies, or reports on commitments fulfilled. Moreover, deputies do not inform the Council on the reporting results. However, citizens may freely attend plenary sittings and meetings of council committees. Citizens also have free access to the meetings of the Executive Committee and to the majority of administrative and departmental offices. Although the Center for Rendering Administrative Services is functioning in Lutsk properly enough, it does not have its own website.

The Council›s website does not have any public information management system. On top of that, the detailed information (from managers of budget funds) about the structure and expenditures of the local budget is also unavailable. The Council website does not contain any information about the expenditures of local self-government for activities of executive bodies.

27

28

Lviv

Lviv City Council with 61% holds the third position in the publicity rating. Executive bodies have the highest Publicity Index (73%), followed by the Mayor (66%), and the deputy corps (46%). Lviv City Mayor broadcasts video addresses to the citizens on a weekly basis informing the community members about most important events in the city life. He also communicates with the media often enough to inform about his activity. However, the Mayor spends only 4 hours a month in direct communication with the citizens. There is no practice to present yearly reports on his performance during open meetings with the community. Mayor’s resolutions on appointing candidates for vacancies available are not published on the website, as well as other normative documents. Citizen participation is regulated only by general rules which are, in fact, mere copies of the law.

Information about the composition, powe­rs, and activities of executive bodies is provided. The Council website contains information about officials and employees of structural subdivisions, visiting hours and procedures to set up an appointment; information about all the functions and tasks of structural subdivisions of the City Council and the list of enterprises within the Council authority.

However, the draft resolutions of Executive Committee are not published on the official website of the Council. The Center for Rendering Administrative Services is functioning but it does not have its own website;

there is no electronic registration tool to set up the appointment. In addition to that, the Center working schedule does not comply with the requirements set by the law.

Lviv City Council has an electronic voting system and the results of all roll-call votes are published on the Council website. Audio broadcast is currently available on-line on the Council’s website but there is no video broadcast. Members of the City Council have their own information portal (lvivrada.gov. ua) is an example to follow. It contains the detailed information about every deputy, their assistants, parliamentary requests, agendas of plenary sittings and drafts of the corresponding documents. However, the deputy corps accountability scored the lowest. The City Council does not adopt the reporting schedules of deputies, or have the information on the number of deputies who had reported to the voters. Only two of ninety deputies in Lviv have their reports published on the website.

29

30

Mykolaiv

Mykolaiv City Council sits low in the publicity rating. Secretary of the Council who was the Acting Mayor from March to September 2013 has secured the worst openness and accountability ratings. Specifically, the official was only spending 2 hours on appointments with the citizens; consulting and advisory bodies under the City Mayor were not created, public council and specialized working groups exist only in the departments or administrations, etc. Information about the competition for filling vacancies is available in the section «Access to Public Information». Although vacancies are timely announced in this section there is no list of necessary documents to apply for them. Orders of the Acting Mayor for filling a vacancy or the appointment of officials are also absent from the website. Despite the fact that on January 16, 2013 the previous City Mayor, V.D. Chaika, held the press-conference on the results of executive bodies’ activities in 2012 the report was not published on the site. The Strategic Urban Development Planning should been updated as the last document developed was in 2006 and the main activities described in attachments should have been implemented before 2011.

With respect to executive bodies of Mykolaiv City Council, they are more open when it comes to providing information about their functions and structure. However, information about privileges to different categories of citizens is quite basic with no specifications on the amount of such privileges. The website has search options to find laws and regulations but there is no general website search engine. Information about the publi-

cation of draft regulations does not contain contact information of their authors or terms for comments and proposals. Reports of executive bodies for 2012 are not available on the website.

As for the deputy corps, there is little contact information as well as information about income and expenditures of deputies on the website of the City Council. The list of majority constituencies in which deputies were elected is unavailable. The latter fact gravely complicates the possibility of communication between the voters and their representatives in the Council. Most deputies meet with the voters personally; visiting hours and addresses are published on the website. However, the information about reports on the results of deputies’ activities and the activities of standing committees are rarely available. On the other hand, on June 27, 2013, Mykolaiv City Council passed the corresponding decision which determines the reporting deadline (until October 1, 2013) and place to publish reports.

31

32

Odesa

The 38% publicity level of deputies in Odesa is one of the lowest while the publicity of the Mayor and executive bodies is 53% and 61% respectively. A major disadvantage in the work of the City Council is lack of free and full access to plenary sittings (it is possible only upon receiving individual invitation from the Council). Similarly, citizens cannot freely attend the meetings of Executive Committee of Odesa City Council if they wish to. The procedure of arranging the personal meeting with the Mayor is complicated.

Therefore, an average citizen of Odessa will not have a chance for a personal meeting.

In addition, not all categories of citizens can personally meet with the Mayor because most of claims are usually redistributed between assistants and structural subdivisions of the City Council. Even those citizens who managed to set the appointment have a wait of approximately two months. The City Council failed to create no-barrier access for individuals with physical disabilities.

The accountability of local self-government bodies and officials is unsatisfactory. The reporting procedure for the Mayor and deputies is not established. The city statute provides only the interval limitation for such reporting. When the City Mayor was presenting his reports only a limited number of citizens could attend. Executive bodies never report back to the voters. On top of that that, only 17 out of 42 subdivisions of the City Council have their reports published on the

website. The reporting schedule of deputies is unavailable. As a result, only 24 deputies out of 120 made public their reports for the second year of holding mandates, while only one report is published on the Council website.

Neither the Mayor, nor Deputy Mayors, nor Council deputies published their declarations on assets, income, expenses, and financial obligations. Information about the procedure and rules for filling vacancies is absent. The standing committees› meetings schedule is unavailable, and their procedures are not announced. Meeting minutes of standing committees are not published.

Despite the fact that almost all factions published visit hours of their deputies (except for the RODYNA faction), this information was last updated about a year ago.

33

34

Rivne

The average publicity level of Rivne City Council is 44%. It is one of the lowest in the rating. Executive bodies turned out to be more open to the public (53%) than the Mayor (44%) or deputies (36%). The major downside in publicity of Rivne is the reporting of local self-government bodies and officials.

The Mayor does not report neither on the implementation of socioeconomic and cultural development programs nor on the completion of local target-oriented programs. The last time Volodymyr Khomko reported to the citizens was during the open meeting was in 2011. None of Rivne City Council departments reported to the local community on the results of their activities in 2012. Moreover, only some executive bodies published reports for 2012 on City Council›s website.

The reporting procedure for deputies is not regulated in local regulatory legal acts. The Council does not have deputies› schedules and deadlines of reporting to the voters approved. Only some members of Rivne City Council systematically report to the voters on the results of their activities. Only 5 out of 54 reports for 2012 were published on the Council›s website.

Access to a considerate amount of regulations passed by the City Mayor is unduly restricted. The available regulations are mostly concerned with granting financial support, bonuses to employees and awarding acknowledgements. In accordance with part 7 of Article 6 of the Law of Ukraine on Access to Public Information, access shall be limited

to some information but not to documents.

City Council›s website contains no information about assistants and advisors to the City Mayor, or about the structure and membership of executive bodies. The information about officials of executive bodies is not full (resumes lacking). Declarations on assets, income, and expenses of Deputy Mayors are not published. Executive bodies failed to introduce the practice of land auction.

In addition, citizens cannot freely attend plenary sittings; preliminary registration is required. City Council›s website contains no contact information of deputies, such as mailing address, phone numbers, or emails.

Their rights and responsibilities are not described either. Only 5 out of 54 deputies have their biographies published on the website.

Rivne City Council has an electronic voting system but the results of the roll-call vote and information about registration of deputies are not made public.

35

36

Uzhgorod

Uzhgorod City Council is in last place in the publicity rating with 32% and can thus be characterized as «not public». The publicity level of deputies is even lower – 27%, while that of executive bodies is 30%. It is only the Mayor who reached the 41% of his publicity level. In particular, citizens may personally meet with the Mayor on the same day they set an appointment. However, there is no information about the procedure of registration for an appointment on the website.

Moreover, there are certain problems with reporting procedures and making information public. Information about assistants and advisors to the Mayor is absent; the same concerns the declarations. Announcements on competitions for vacancies at managerial positions are not published on the website, while those published are lacking in information about the documents needed to participate in such competitions. The Mayor does not report on the implementation of socio-economic development programs.

Information about the structure and composition of executive bodies is never updated; life histories of the Executive Committee are not available. The access to meetings of the Executive Committee is possible only upon receiving the written permit. Certain drawbacks in regulatory policy of executive bodies are found: there is no plan for the preparation of draft regulations and reports on monitoring of their efficiency published on the Council›s website. Besides, executive bodies do not provide full information about services provided by communal enterprises as well as about their tariffs. The informa-

tion about local target programs in which implementation is covered from budget funds is unavailable. The City Council has no established practices for land auction yet.

Executive bodies do not report on their activities to the citizens, while written reports are also absent. The Center for Rendering Administrative Services was formally established but not operating.

As long as the citizens cannot continually attend plenary sittings of Uzhgorod City Council and do not have enough information about their deputies, the deputy corps will have a low publicity level. Resolutions on land issues passed by the Council are not published. The same goes for meeting minutes of standing committees and parliamentary requests. Although the City Council has an electronic voting system, information about registration of deputies on plenary sittings and the results of the roll-call vote are not published on the website. Similarly, current reports on activities of deputies are not published either.

37

measurement Matrix Principles

Parameters

Indicators

Brief description of operative questions

Transparency

City mayor’s publicity Transparency of the mayor’s work and implementation of his functions

1.1. Information about the city mayor and his activity

Publicizing of program and normative documents

1.3. The main program documents of the municipality

1.2. Information about the mayor’s assistants and HR policy

Accountability

Openness

1.4. Normative documents of the municipality

38

Biographical data, tax declaration, contact information, mayor’s meetings with citizens and procedures for being admitted to the meetings, description of mayor’s plenary powers are available at the official webpage. A constant cooperation with mass media and operation of a special department responsible for promoting mayor’s activity. Information on the mayor’s assistants and advisers, contact information of council staff is available at the webpage. The rules and procedures for those applying for the vacancies at the city council, announcements of the competitions, meeting minutes run by competition commissions are also available. Plans for city strategic development, General city plan with all the annexes, city budget, Program for economic and social development, statute of territorial community are publicized. ISO is introduced. All mayor’s decrees are promptly publicized. There is a possibility to search documents at the webpage. Decree on implementing the Law “On access to public information” is adopted.

Openness of the city mayor in his interaction with citizens

1.5. Public participation

The city mayor runs individual meetings with citizens; people can be easily admitted to the meetings. Disabled people can enter the building of the city council. A “hot line” operated promptly collecting people’s concerns. The city mayor initiates public discussions and runs public consultations. Citizens can file an electronic appeal to the mayor. Advisory bodies function under the city mayor. A special department responsible for cooperation with NGOS operated within the council structure.

The city mayor uses modern communication technologies to communicate with people.

Accountability of the city mayor

1.6. Financial resources of the municipality

A report on budget performance (with annexes) is publicized.

The city mayor regularly (at least twice a year) informs citizens at the public meeting about the performance of social, economic and cultural programs as well the purpose-oriented programs. The mayor every year reports for the city council on fulfilling the state regulatory policy by the executives. The mayor every year reports on the work done by the executive bodies, the document is publicized. Every year the mayor reports on his work for the local community gathered at the public meeting.

1.7. Reports on the results of mayor’s work

Transparency

Publicity of executive bodies Transparency of the structure and functions performed by executive bodies

1.1. Information about the executive bodies and activity

Publicizing of normative and legal acts and other documents

1.3. Decisions and other documents of the executive bodies

1.2. Information about the executive committee of the city council

Openness

1.4. Communal property and municipality’s lands Openness of executive bodies and citizens’ participation

1.5. Public participation

Availability of administrative services

1.7. Administrative services

1.6. Access to public information

Contacts and information about the location, structure and staff of the executive bodies, their plenary powers, bio data, schedule and procedure of public meetings run by their managers are publicized. Tax declarations of mayor’s assistants are publicly available. Information regarding all the enterprises, institutions and organizations (managers, contacts, sphere of activity) under the city council is also available. Information on the staff working at executive committee, their bio data, committee’s contacts, time and place of sittings is publicized. All committee’s decisions and agendas are promptly advertised. A detailed plan of preparing draft regulatory acts, announcements about their publicizing is publicly available (with the regulatory impact analysis). Procurement plan and amendments are duly advertised. Information about all the services provided by communal services and their cost, privileges on these services for separate categories of people is available at the webpage. The list of all purpose-oriented programs funded by the city budget is publicized. Land tenders are run; announcements and tenders results are publicized.

Citizens can easily attend the sittings of executive committee.

There is a free access to the council offices (offices of departments, sectors). A procedure is set and the information about the mechanisms of public participation is available (public hearings, local initiatives, general assemblies). Announcements about public hearings and all the supplementary information is duly provided. Full information (minute/shorthand record) on public hearings that were already carried out is publicly available. Advisory bodies functions under the executive bodies.

There is a separate section for the “Access to public information” available at the webpage including all the necessary information, in particular about the filing and submission of the information request letters. A registration system for public information owned by the executive bodies operates and the procedure for appealing against the decisions taken by information holders. Information request may be submitted by different ways: by post, email, fax, telephone, directly at the council. Executives follow the terms for responding the requests, responds are full and well-grounded. There special places (offices) for working with documents. Executives do not charge people over the norm for copying documents, printing responds etc. Center for administrative services is created and continues to function. The Center has its webpage presenting information about the procedures for providing concrete services, working hours.

39

Comprehensive information about all the services provided by executive bodies is available. Information cards describing the procedures of receiving each of the services are also available.

The staff working at the Center receives citizens, self-help materials are freely distributed at the Center, information desks with samples are placed, fill-in forms are available. Boxes for submitting concerns and recommendations are also placed.

Accountability

Accountability of executive bodies

1.8. Reporting on the work results of executive bodies

Executive bodies (departments) directly reports on their work to the public at least twice a year, reports are publicized. Information on the place and time of reporting is duly spread by all means. Reports on implementation of social, economic and cultural programs, interim and final reports on the purpose-oriented programs are publicized. Executives submit written reports 1.9. Financial on the course and results of communal property disposal. Full resources of reports on the responds given to information requests, detailed municipality information about the structure and total expenditures of the 1.10. Regulatory city budget are publicly available. Quarterly reports on city policy budget performance and reports on financial resources spent on the city council’s work, in particular on the executive bodies, are also available. Reports of executive bodies about the course and results of communal property disposal, monitoring of regulatory acts efficiency.

Openness

Transparency

Deputies’ publicity

40

Transparency of personnel structure and implementation of power functions by the representation body of local selfgovernment

1.1. Information about the local deputies

Transparency of the council’s work, publicizing of normative and legal acts and other documents

1.3. Plenary sessions of the city council

Openness of the representation body and citizens’ participation in a decisionmaking process

1.5. Public participation

1.2. Structure and organization of work of the representative body

1.4. Normative legal and other documents of the city council

Contacts, bio data, tax declarations of deputies, information about their schedule of receiving citizens and plenary powers are available at the webpage. Council’s regulations, decree on the deputies’ commissions, office hours when the secretary receives citizens, his bio data, plenary powers and tax declaration are publicized. Powers and contacts of secretariat are available at the webpage. Decisions to hold plenary sessions, plan of work, draft decisions to be taken at the sittings are duly announced. Electronic voting system is used. Information about the registration of deputies at the plenary sittings, results of nominal voting on each of the questions, all requests submitted by the deputies, plan of implementing voters’ orders are publicized. Online video and audio broadcasting is run on a regular basis covering all the sittings, records are available at the webpage. A decision adopting the amounts of a deputy’s fund and the procedures of their spending is also advertised. All decisions adopted at the sittings are duly publicized. Minutes of all the sittings of deputies’ committees are available.

Citizens can easily attend the plenary sittings at the city council. Disabled people can enter the building of the city council.

Deputies regularly receive their voters. The rules for creating and functioning of advisory bodies, conduct of public hearings, local initiatives, general assemblies are established. Deputies initiate public discussions themselves.

Accountability

Accountability 1.6. Reporting of local depuon the depties uties’ work

Deputies’ committees publicly report, reports are available in the Internet. Terms of reporting to the voters are adopted by the council. The procedure of reporting to community is also set up. Deputies report about their work in the constituency at least once per year. Reports are advertised. Deputies inform the council about the results of their reporting. The report is full and detailed and includes information about the fulfilling of election promises and program, work with voters, participation in discussions, fulfilling voters’ orders etc. The information about the amounts allocated from the deputy’s fund for the people’s needs is publicized.

41

Notes ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________

42