Lviv

Index of publicity: 53%

Read more...

Rivne

Index of publicity: 52%

Read more...

Ужгород

Index of publicity: 42%

Read more...

Kharkiv

Index of publicity: 46%

Read more...

Dnipropetrovsk

Index of publicity: 47%

Read more...

Kherson

Index of publicity: 55%

Read more...

Khmelnytskyi

Index of publicity: 48%

Read more...

Kirovohrad

Index of publicity: 56%

Read more...

Ternopil

Index of publicity: 52%

Read more...

Zaporizhzhia

Index of publicity: 48%

Read more...

Житомир

Index of publicity: 53%

Read more...

Полтава

Index of publicity: 45%

Read more...

Chernigiv

Index of publicity: 47%

Read more...

Cherkasy

Index of publicity: 47%

Read more...

Odesa

Index of publicity: 57%

Read more...

Mykolaiv

Index of publicity: 57%

Read more...

Lutsk

Index of publicity: 67%

Read more...

Chernivtsi

Index of publicity: 60%

Read more...

Ivano-Frankivsk

Index of publicity: 71%

Read more...

Vinnytsia

Index of publicity: 70%

Read more...

Kyiv

Index of publicity: 69%

Read more...

Sumy

Index of publicity: 63%

Read more...

Publicity index 2014

Upon the whole, in 2014, the local self-government bodies and officials became less open in distributing information on their activities, as well as in their daily interaction with citizens. The compound average publicity index for self-government bodies and officials over Ukraine amounts to 48% out of the possible 100%.

No city council in the oblast centers of Ukraine managed to reach the publicity index above 80%, the index qualifying a municipality as fully public. Even the top rating leaders such as Ivano-Frankivsk and Vinnytsia city councils with the indices of 67% and 63% respectively are classified as municipalities with a satisfactory publicity level. At the same time, most of the other city councils have been qualified by the monitoring results as low publicity level municipalities. Some better results are found with Kyiv (58%), Sumy (57%), and Lutsk (56%) city councils, while Luhansk and Kherson city councils are in the bottom of the low publicity level cities list. The performance of two city councils of Cherkasy and Donetsk (with 37% and 34% respectively) are formally classified as non-public.

In terms of analyzing individual subjects of local self-government, the most public are executive bodies of the councils (compound average index is 55%) and City Mayors (compound average index is 51%). Conversely, the compound average publicity index of city councils in 2014 was only 40%. The same situation was found about the year 2013, while compared to the previous year, the publicity level of deputies has significantly dropped (by 11%).

A satisfactory publicity level is found about City Mayors of the four cities of Ivano-Frankivsk, Vinnytsia, Khmelnytskyi, and Kyiv. The leaders in the rating are Viktor Anushkevychus (68%) and the acting City Mayor of Vinnytsia Viktor Morhunov (67%). They are followed by Khmelnytskyi City Mayor SerhiyMelnyk and Kyiv City Mayor Vitaliy Klychko with the index 63% and 62% respectively. The performance of Kharkiv City Mayor Hennadiy Kernes with the index of 36% is characterized as non-public. However, much better results are recorded about heads of Lutsk (60%) and Sumy (59%), while Zaporizhzhia and Cherkasy city heads close the list with the index of 41% out of the maximum standard.

In terms of publicity, the activities of executive bodies at ten municipalities are characterized as satisfactory. Absolute leadership is held by executive bodies of Ivano-Frankivsk city council with the index of 77%. Four city councils ranked as non-public in 2014. They are Luhansk, Kherson, Cherkasy, and Donetsk.

No deputy corps of city councils under Publicity index measurement in 2014 showed at least satisfactory publicity levels. The rating leaders are deputies of Ivano-Frankivsk and Vinnytsia city councils with the 55% of the maximum standard. At the same time, the performance of deputies of most city councils (15 out of 24) can be described as non-public.

A crucial disadvantage in the performance of municipalities is the low accountability level of City Mayors, executive bodies, and the deputies. Even though the law provisions the commitment of officials and deputies to report, local regulatory acts do not stipulate any specific reporting procedures. In particular, local councils do not set any unified formal requirements to the texts of reports, they do not determine any specific formats for reports by City Mayors, executive bodies, and the deputies during open meetings with the citizens (voters). Reports by City Mayors do not contain full information on the implementation of focused programmes, as well as state regulatory policy.

Open meeting reports of city heads to local communities are either sporadic (Rivne, Donetsk) or have the form which does not allow many people willing to listen to the mayor’s report attend the meeting, therefore not allowing much feedback.

Executive bodies of city councils (departments and boards) do not have any open reporting at all (except for Lviv). They do not publicize any written reports on their work, either. The written reports would contain detailed explanations on the course and results of alienation of municipal property and the execution of tailored programmes. There are no efficient practices for public presentation of information on the implementation of local budget with graphic representation of exhaustive financial data and active involvement of the public to the budgeting process. Most executive bodies of city councils do not make public or do not disseminate any information with calculations formulae for utilities tariffs, or any data on current privileges for different categories of population for different services. Despite the fact that there are no legal restrictions city councils still procrastinate to implement regular practices for selling land plots or rights for them at land auctions.

Deputies of city councils mostly do not report to their voters about the implementation of their powers, the results of their activity in the council, execution of voters’ mandates, spendings of deputy funds. There is no free access to written reports on the work of deputy commissions of the council and the work of the deputies themselves. The regulatory documents do not stipulate any unified format for deputies’ reports at open meetings with the voters, the councils ignore decision making on setting deadlines for deputies’ reports.

Інфографіка

Upon the whole, in 2014, the local self-government bodies and officials became less open in distributing information on their activities, as well as in their daily interaction with citizens. The compound average publicity index for self-government bodies and officials over Ukraine amounts to 48% out of the possible 100%.

No city council in the oblast centers of Ukraine managed to reach the publicity index above 80%, the index qualifying a municipality as fully public. Even the top rating leaders such as Ivano-Frankivsk and Vinnytsia city councils with the indices of 67% and 63% respectively are classified as municipalities with a satisfactory publicity level. At the same time, most of the other city councils have been qualified by the monitoring results as low publicity level municipalities. Some better results are found with Kyiv (58%), Sumy (57%), and Lutsk (56%) city councils, while Luhansk and Kherson city councils are in the bottom of the low publicity level cities list. The performance of two city councils of Cherkasy and Donetsk (with 37% and 34% respectively) are formally classified as non-public.

In terms of analyzing individual subjects of local self-government, the most public are executive bodies of the councils (compound average index is 55%) and City Mayors (compound average index is 51%). Conversely, the compound average publicity index of city councils in 2014 was only 40%. The same situation was found about the year 2013, while compared to the previous year, the publicity level of deputies has significantly dropped (by 11%).

A satisfactory publicity level is found about City Mayors of the four cities of Ivano-Frankivsk, Vinnytsia, Khmelnytskyi, and Kyiv. The leaders in the rating are Viktor Anushkevychus (68%) and the acting City Mayor of Vinnytsia Viktor Morhunov (67%). They are followed by Khmelnytskyi City Mayor SerhiyMelnyk and Kyiv City Mayor Vitaliy Klychko with the index 63% and 62% respectively. The performance of Kharkiv City Mayor Hennadiy Kernes with the index of 36% is characterized as non-public. However, much better results are recorded about heads of Lutsk (60%) and Sumy (59%), while Zaporizhzhia and Cherkasy city heads close the list with the index of 41% out of the maximum standard.

In terms of publicity, the activities of executive bodies at ten municipalities are characterized as satisfactory. Absolute leadership is held by executive bodies of Ivano-Frankivsk city council with the index of 77%. Four city councils ranked as non-public in 2014. They are Luhansk, Kherson, Cherkasy, and Donetsk.

No deputy corps of city councils under Publicity index measurement in 2014 showed at least satisfactory publicity levels. The rating leaders are deputies of Ivano-Frankivsk and Vinnytsia city councils with the 55% of the maximum standard. At the same time, the performance of deputies of most city councils (15 out of 24) can be described as non-public.

A crucial disadvantage in the performance of municipalities is the low accountability level of City Mayors, executive bodies, and the deputies. Even though the law provisions the commitment of officials and deputies to report, local regulatory acts do not stipulate any specific reporting procedures. In particular, local councils do not set any unified formal requirements to the texts of reports, they do not determine any specific formats for reports by City Mayors, executive bodies, and the deputies during open meetings with the citizens (voters). Reports by City Mayors do not contain full information on the implementation of focused programmes, as well as state regulatory policy.

Open meeting reports of city heads to local communities are either sporadic (Rivne, Donetsk) or have the form which does not allow many people willing to listen to the mayor’s report attend the meeting, therefore not allowing much feedback.

Executive bodies of city councils (departments and boards) do not have any open reporting at all (except for Lviv). They do not publicize any written reports on their work, either. The written reports would contain detailed explanations on the course and results of alienation of municipal property and the execution of tailored programmes. There are no efficient practices for public presentation of information on the implementation of local budget with graphic representation of exhaustive financial data and active involvement of the public to the budgeting process. Most executive bodies of city councils do not make public or do not disseminate any information with calculations formulae for utilities tariffs, or any data on current privileges for different categories of population for different services. Despite the fact that there are no legal restrictions city councils still procrastinate to implement regular practices for selling land plots or rights for them at land auctions.

Deputies of city councils mostly do not report to their voters about the implementation of their powers, the results of their activity in the council, execution of voters’ mandates, spendings of deputy funds. There is no free access to written reports on the work of deputy commissions of the council and the work of the deputies themselves. The regulatory documents do not stipulate any unified format for deputies’ reports at open meetings with the voters, the councils ignore decision making on setting deadlines for deputies’ reports.