Municipalities Ranking 2013
You can use the table to create a ranking of municipalities based on the Publicity Index values which you may choose below. There are 13 Index values proposed: general publicity index, city mayors’ publicity, publicity of executive bodies, publicity of council deputies as well as transparency, openness and accountability of every object of local self-government – mayor, executive bodies and council deputies.
By choosing one of the table headers, the program will automatically generate a relevant city ranking. By additional click, you may also choose the ranking direction – from the highest position to the lowest one or vice versa.
Names of municipalities presented in the table also contain links going to separate city pages where you can find more detailed measurement results.
|Rated||Publicity Index||City Council||Mayor||Executive Bodies||City Council Deputies|
|Rating||Publicity of subject||Transparency||Openness||Accountability||Rated||Publicity of subject||Transparency||Openness||Accountability||Rated||Publicity of subject||Transparency||Openness||Accountability|
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 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%).
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%).