Assessing the Level of City Transparency in 2023

The Transparent Cities Program of Transparency International Ukraine presents an updated 2023 Methodology for Assessing City Transparency. 

Like last year, the research will aim to determine the level of transparency of local self-government bodies in martial law according to adapted criteria. The assessment according to the updated methodology will be carried out in January–February 2024 and will cover the period of activity of city councils during 2023.

CHANGES IN THE METHODOLOGY 

This year’s research will cover 80 cities from the list of the 100 largest cities in Ukraine representing 21 oblasts. Occupied cities or those in which city military administrations (hereinafter referred to as the CMA) were established by presidential decrees were not included in the research. The program will cover Kyiv, Chernihiv, Sumy, and Netishyn because, despite the formation of the CMA, city councils have not ceased to exercise their powers and continue to perform their functions.

Program analysts added information on the areas of urban self-government to the new version of the methodology. This will reveal how fully a city council implements the criteria in each specific area of municipal government:

•     information on the work of a local self-government body
•     municipal property and land
•     access and participation
•     responding to the challenges of war
•     anti-corruption policy
•     e-tools
•     procurement

This year, the assessment will be conducted according to 50 adapted indicators (instead of 40 in 2022).  These include:

• 19 indicators: legal requirements,
• 17 indicators: best practices of municipal management, whose implementation significantly enhances the quality of municipal governance,
• 14 indicators combine legal requirements and best practices.

Having consulted experts and city councils when updating the adapted Transparent Cities program analytics methodology, we:

• updated the regulatory framework of the indicators;
• reviewed the implementation levels of individual indicators;
• merged indicators that are similar in content;
• added new indicators, which, in particular, relate to the increased impact of internally displaced persons (hereinafter referred to as IDPs) on local policies, post-war reconstruction, anti-corruption policy, budget, procurement, and reporting.

NEW INDICATORS 

The program has significantly expanded the area of Responding to the Challenges of War and added six new indicators:

1. formation of councils on IDPs;
2. engagement of IDPs in such bodies;
3. informing about the activities of the commission/commissions on consideration of issues on compensation for damaged/destroyed property as a result of the full-scale attack of Russia;
4. engagement of citizens in consideration of issues on compensation for damaged property;
5. publication of information on granting or refusal to grant compensation for damaged/destroyed real estate;
6. development of programs for the economic and social development of the city that consider wartime and post-war challenges.

There are new indicators in the area of Municipal Property and Land. They aim to enhance transparency in the management of property and land plots through:

1. publication of the list of land plots or rights to them that can be transferred at land auctions;
2. informing about all objects of movable property that are in municipal ownership;
3. publication of lists of property objects that can be privatized, as well as those not subject to privatization.

The area of Information on the Work of City Councils is supplemented with 4 indicators, which include:

1. publication of quarterly reports on budget implementation;
2. reporting of the mayor on their activities;
3. publication of the list of key spending units;
4. informing about greenery to be removed.

In the Procurement area, two indicators have been added regarding the publication of justifications for the technical and qualitative characteristics of procurement items and their expected value, as well as complaints about the conditions of the tender documentation.

Finally, in the Anti-Corruption Policy area, an indicator was added that considers whether city council officials voluntarily submitted e-declarations before October 12, 2023, when they were optional (before the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine No. 3384-IX).

The list of changes in the methodology can be found in more detail in the comparative table.

CHANGES BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM CITY COUNCILS

In the course of updating the methodology, analysts took into account feedback from city councils on the wording of individual indicators or levels of their implementation. Thus, the program simplified the conditions for implementing the criteria related to the announcement and broadcasting of meetings of the city council, executive committee, and standing committees due to warnings about security risks.  Cities may not specify the time of the meeting, and recordings of meetings uploaded during the day are on par with broadcasts.

The conditions for the implementation of indicators related to the compliance of issues in the draft agendas and minutes of meetings of the city council and the executive committee have also been mitigated. This is because city authorities need to respond quickly to problems and submit decisions for consideration by the relevant bodies.

However, the program warns against abuse and encourages cities to provide broadcasts (if the security situation allows it!), as well as to minimize the number of questions submitted during the meeting, not letting the council members and citizens review them in advance. 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 

1)    Will there be points for implementing the indicators this year?

The program will not give points to cities, as it did last year. The implementation of the indicator will be assessed according to 3 levels:

• full implementation;
• partial implementation;
• indicator is not implemented.

2)    Why implement the indicators that are best practice?

It is necessary to implement such criteria for several reasons. Firstly, their implementation enhances the quality of municipal management as well as increases the convenience and accessibility of urban services. Secondly, the implementation of such indicators also influences the final result of the city and its category.

3)    If we do not broadcast meetings of the city council and its bodies for security reasons, is it necessary to publish records of meetings? 

If the meetings of a city council, an executive committee, or standing committees are not broadcast for security reasons, the records of the relevant meetings should be made public no later than within 24 hours from the date of the meetings.

4)    Is it enough to invite media representatives to a meeting of the council or its bodies, but restrict access for residents? 

This is not enough. All citizens, without exception, should be included in the political agenda and have access to online broadcasts or recordings of meetings. The city council, within the framework of our methodology, may not report on the time of the meeting (considering security risks), but must provide information about its date, a link to the online broadcast/ where the record of the meeting will be uploaded, and a list of matters to be considered. In this case, all interested parties will be able to view the meetings of the city council, executive committee, or standing committees.

5)    Are those indicators that are regulated by legislation that was not in effect throughout the calendar year included in the methodology?

The Methodology also includes those indicators that are regulated by regulatory acts adopted/that entered into force throughout 2023. When forming indicators, analysts considered how resource-consuming it was to implement them. That is, if the regulatory act was adopted at the end of the year and provided for the development of a comprehensive program or collection and aggregation of significant amounts of information, it was not included in this year’s methodology.

6)    Since the NACP portal has not functioned since the full-scale invasion of Russia, why evaluate the indicator on the submission of e-declarations by city council officials? 

After the full-scale attack of Russia, the NACP portal underwent restriction on public access to the already submitted e-declarations. Officials could voluntarily submit e-declarations and check the information specified in the previous declaration for errors. 

7)    If the city council does not have housing on its balance sheet, does not sell land plots during the war, or did not receive humanitarian aid, will we score 0 points? 

In the absence of housing on the balance sheet of the community, land plots or property that can be sold, humanitarian assistance provided, this should be indicated in the relevant section on the official website of the city council. In this case, the indicator is assigned the status “impossible to determine,” and it is excluded from the calculation of the overall result of the city and its category.

No city council will score 0 because the adapted methodology does not provide for points, only levels of implementation.

The project is implemented with the support of the EU Anti-Corruption Initiative (EUACI), a leading EU-funded anti-corruption support program in Ukraine, co-financed and implemented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. The opinions and views expressed by experts or organizations in this material do not necessarily reflect the position of EUACI, the European Union, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. 

Transparency International Ukraine is an accredited chapter of the global movement Transparency International, helping Ukraine grow stronger since 2012. The organization takes a comprehensive approach to the development and implementation of changes for reduction of corruption levels in certain areas. TI Ukraine launched the Transparent Cities program in 2017. It aims at overcoming corruption at the local level and promoting the best practices of transparency and accountability.

In 2017–2022, the program annually compiled the Transparency Ranking of the 100 Largest Ukrainian Cities. Over the five years, the average transparency of cities has increased by 62.2%. Within the framework of the program, the Accountability Ranking of 50 Ukrainian Cities was also formed, showing the actual state of accountability of local authorities.