“Budget Process 2017: Regional Dimension”

On December 27, the results of monitoring the process of taking local budgets for 2017, which was conducted by the public partnership “For transparent local budgets!”, In more than 30 cities of Ukraine, including all cities-regional centers and Kyiv, in Kyiv.

Thanks to decentralization in two years, local budgets have doubled! Did the level of local budget processes in the aspect of transparency, openness to citizens’ participation and compliance with the requirements of the legislation increased as much and has increased as much?

According to the results of the monitoring, the budget process at the local level has a number of shortcomings: not promulgation of draft decisions on the budget or failure to comply with the deadline and fullness of promulgation, failure to comply with the terms of approval of the budget provided for by law, restriction of access of citizens at a session of local councils and the unwillingness of the authorities.

Chernihiv in the total rating is in the 11th place out of 30 cities of Ukraine, where the local budget was monitored. In Chernihiv, a draft decision on the city budget was published 7 working days before the session of the city council. Although, according to the Budget Code, the draft budget decision must be published 20 working days before the session. And also on the site of the city council there are no transcripts of the session of the local council.
Consultations on the draft decision on the local budget were held in the format of a meeting of the profile commission of the city council, which is open and every citizen may join it.
But it should be noted that the session of the city council is open, provides information on the site of the city council about the date, time and place of the session of the city council.

Accordingly, of the 31 cities, which was covered by monitoring, only in Sumy the budget process was organized at the appropriate level, which means not only compliance with the formal requirements of the legislation, but also a high level of involvement of the public. Voznesensk lags behind one score, as the city council was limited only to conducting electronic consultations and did not use other formats of public consultations on the budget for 2017 with citizens.

In the remaining 26 cities, the budget process had different disadvantages in its importance, and the most critical situation with the budget process was in Severodonetsk, Poltava, and Zdolbunov (Rivne region).

Thus, in the Severodonetsk, the draft budget was published an hour before the session of the city council, for which it was to be considered, the access of citizens to the session of the city council is limited, the transcripts of sessions are not conducted or published, and consultations with citizens on the draft budget were not conducted in any of the formats. In addition to the same shortcomings, Zdolbunov has also violated the time of budgeting. The relevant session of the city council is scheduled only for December 28. But, perhaps, the worst situation has occurred in Poltava, where the city budget for 2017 is not only adopted, but it is not known – when it will happen and the City Council has already decided to finance expenditures on the 2016 budget.

Regarding other conclusions. Despite the independence of local budgets from the state, and the stated term in Art. 77 of the Budget Code, as of December 25, 7 cities still had no budgets for 2017: Lutsk, Poltava, Rivne, Kherson, Khmelnitsky, Chernivtsi and Zdolbuniv (Rivne region). As noted, the most critical situation has occurred in Poltava, where the date of consideration of the draft budget is not even known, and the project itself is not made public.

Despite the clear requirement of the current legislation, which qualifies the budget decisions as a normative legal act and the provision of the provisions on the release 20 working days before the date of consideration for the purpose of adoption, this provision was maintained only 14 cities. In Dnipro, Rivne, Uzhgorod, Cherkasy, Chernivtsi and Kovel, they published a draft decision in less than 20, but more than 10 working days. In 9 cities (Vinnitsa, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kramatorsk, Lutsk, Lviv, Severodonetsk, Ternopil, Khmelnitsky, Chernihiv) the draft decision was published in less than 10 working days. Budget projects in Poltava and Zdolbunov (Rivne region) were not published.

The study also evaluated the full publication of the draft budget decision. The analysis of all the published local budgets showed the existence of issues to comply with the requirements of Article 76 of the Budget Code. 13 analyzed budgets found the absence of one or more documents from the list below:
• explanatory note;
• explaining the main spending units to the draft relevant budget (the budget commissions of the respective local council are submitted);
• local budget forecast for the next two budget periods, prepared in accordance with Article 21 of the Budget Code of Ukraine;
• a list of investment programs (projects) for the planned budget period and the next two budget periods;
• Information on the progress of the relevant budget in the current budget period.
In particular, the draft decision on the budget of Kyiv for 2017 was also published without some of the applications.

The situation with access to the results of personal voting for the draft budget has improved somewhat compared to last year’s monitoring. If, last year, this information could not be obtained in all cities, now only in 5 cities (Mykolaiv, Severodonetsk, Belozerka (Kherson region), Kovel and Chuguev (Kharkiv region) do not publish this information on the site and to receive an information request or watch the session.

Worse is the situation with the stenograms of session meetings that are not or are not published in 15 cities, which were covered by monitoring: Zhytomyr, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Rivne, Severodonetsk, Kharkiv, Cherkasy, Chernivtsi, Chernihiv, Bilozhiv, Bilozhira, Zdolbuni.

It is significant that the possibility of free participation of citizens in a session of the local council is in 20 cities that were covered by monitoring. In 10 cities, the possibility of limited participation (by temporary passes or invitations) was recorded. And only in the Dnieper there is no opportunity to participate.

The worst situation is recorded in the part of the authorities of consultations with citizens regarding the draft decision on the budget after its publication, which is an important practice of involving citizens in the preparation of the main financial document. Thus, in 11 cities, consultations with citizens on this issue were not conducted at all: Kramatorsk, Kropyvnytskyi, Lviv, Mykolaiv, Poltava, Severodonetsk, Kherson, Belozerka, Zdolbunov, Izmail, Mariupol.

Only 4 cities (Odesa, Sumy, Voznesensk and Chuguev) were conducted electronic consultations. In the rest of the cities, the authorities did not use this convenient and simple consultation format for some reason.

Public public discussion (in the format of a presentation or open meeting of the profile commission of the City Council, or public expert discussion, or public meetings with interested parties) was held in 19 cities. Public public discussions were not conducted in 12 cities (Kramatorsk, Kropyvnytskyi, Lviv, Mykolaiv, Poltava, Severodonetsk, Kherson, Belozerka, Voznesensk, Zdolbunov, Izmail, Mariupol).

Even worse is the situation with measures that should be confidence in the results of consultations and effective feedback from citizens who participated in the consultations on the draft budget. Unfortunately, the results of the monitoring prove that even if the authority consulted with citizens, the fate of proposals provided by citizens is mostly unknown.

Thus, only in 5 cities (Vinnitsa, Sumy, Chernivtsi, Voznesensk, Chuguev) was published reports on the results of consultations with citizens regarding the draft decision on the budget. Another 15 cities were conducted in a particular consultation format, but reports on their results were not published.

Undoubtedly, such practice cannot contribute to the formation of confidence in consultations by citizens who may consider that their participation is simply manipulated to legitimize the decision. In the end, it undermines the desire of citizens to further participate in such consultations.

The results of monitoring the process of taking local budgets for 2016 can be viewed at the linkhttp://probudget.org.ua/zvity/2015/.

Additional information by tel: 067 988 0 553,info@probudget.org.ua

Public partnership “For transparent local budgets!” – association of almost 40 NGOs and media from 17 regions of Ukraine.

Our mission: creation of conditions for the effective formation and use of local budgets in the interests of communities by increasing integrity, transparency of the budget process and ensuring the participation of citizens in it.

More about the public partnership for transparent local budgets!http://probudget.org.ua/

Public Partnership Press Service “For Transparent Local Budgets!”