100 days of Mykola Romaniuk's leadership in Lutsk: an analysis of the first steps

On February 20, 2011, 100 days passed since the day the new Lutsk city mayor, Mykola Yaroslavovych Romanyuk, took the oath. It is precisely "100 days" in countries of developed democracy, where candidates for most leadership positions are elected through elections, that is customarily considered the first serious period for which an official must report, and the public can form its assessment of the official's actions. Let us try to apply this tradition to Ukrainian political realities. All the more so since the new city authorities have also actively begun using such foreign experience to improve their image. It is not for nothing that the Lutsk city mayor has already held a special press conference dedicated to the "100 days" of his activity, participated in a program on Volyn Television dedicated to the same topic, and held a citywide meeting "On the results of the economic and social development of the city of Lutsk in 2010 and priority tasks for 2011." Let us try to assess the 100 days of the city mayor's work according to several indicators and criteria: - team formation and leadership style; - definition of immediate tasks and strategic priorities of activity; - prompt resolution of current city problems; - establishing cooperation with the deputy corps and relations with the regional authorities.

Team formation and leadership style (Kind and fair, but uninformed) In 100 days of governing the city, the city mayor, in his own words, formed his team, built a scheme of relations with subordinates, and developed his own "mayoral" management style. In fact, during this period Mykola Romanyuk felt himself to be the city mayor. First of all, he managed at his own discretion to change the structure of the executive bodies of the city council, restoring the three-tier management system. This became possible thanks to separate agreements with the deputy composition, which in fact did not interfere in this sphere and gave a certain "carte blanche" to the city mayor for independent actions. In this way, firstly, the city mayor made the vertical of power more convenient and familiar for himself (whether it is more convenient for the citizens will be shown by time). After all, this way one can directly give instructions to the heads of departments and divisions, and accordingly demand their implementation. Secondly, in this way it was possible without excessive effort to change the managers who did not fit into the new ruling team and to check the loyalty of those who were left in their positions. True, there is a question regarding compliance with all legal subtleties when changing the structure of the executive bodies of the city council. After all, in fact, until the beginning of March, the old structural subdivisions are operating, headed by officials appointed by the previous city mayor. Instead, already in January Mykola Romanyuk appointed new heads of new subdivisions, although he should have maintained a two-month pause. As for the formation of the personal composition of the new team, without going into a detailed analysis of each appointment (since our colleague Andriy Luchyk did this in previous materials), we will note only a number of features. The backbone of his team, that is, the deputies and heads of a number of departments, the city mayor formed from colleagues and subordinates from work in the regional state administration. This to a certain extent simplified the process of relations (the style of communication and mutual relations were already established) within the ruling team and gave the city mayor the opportunity not to worry about his "rear" (there is a certain balance of mutual trust). Each of the "mayor's" deputies had priority in selecting candidates for leadership positions in the subdivisions subordinate to them. Therefore, one can say with confidence that the responsibility for the work of each of the officials will be borne precisely by the deputies of the city mayor. A significant part of the heads of structural subdivisions remained in their places; a mass renewal of the executive structures of the city council did not occur. This is evidence that the so-called "Romanyuk team" is limited only to the top officials of the executive committee, while the new team lacks effective mid-level executors. The current ruling team is not yet ready to involve new unbiased specialists in work in the executive bodies of the city council. Confirmation of this is the absence of competitions for filling positions in key subdivisions. In order not to hold such competitions, the city mayor resorted to "little tricks" that were allowed to him due to the lack of regulation by legislation of certain issues. Thus, in order to appoint as head of a department a person who had not previously worked in state or "municipal" service, the city mayor appointed such a person as an adviser, and then by his order simply transferred this person to another position in the executive bodies of the city council. Therefore, the new ruling team can be divided into three conditional groups: - people of M. Romanyuk or members of his previous team; - "old" officials who worked with the previous city mayor; - new specialists who were attracted from other spheres. Moreover, the ratio of these groups is disproportionate. In fact, the city mayor in most matters, including personnel matters, is dependent on his deputies and advisers, and therefore the effectiveness of the work of the Lutsk city authorities depends on mutual understanding between them. We will also note the leadership style of the city mayor. Given his personal character traits, in particular "humaneness, decency," etc., which the politician's staff constantly reminded of during the elections, the city mayor is more inclined toward a liberal (lenient) leadership style. This is manifested both in the style of giving instructions and in the style of conducting meetings and sessions of the executive committee, and in the manner of communicating with journalists and deputies. Such a certain softness, on the one hand, well disposes voters and media representatives toward him, but at the same time may result in a weakening of executive discipline within the officials' collective itself. Although here "the demanding first deputy city mayor Svyatoslav Kravchuk often comes to the rescue." Thus, between the city mayor and his first deputy, the roles are divided according to the classic principle: "good" and "bad" leader. Also characteristic of Mykola Yaroslavovych is a certain inconsistency in making his own decisions. For example, he may change his mind about punishing an employee for an offense, feeling sorry for him, or choose a milder form of punishment. Or he cannot decide on candidates for the executive committee. A certain lack of awareness on the part of Mykola Yaroslavovych regarding the procedural aspects of the work of local self-government bodies is observed. For example, at one of the meetings of the executive committee of the city council, when one vote was lacking to adopt a certain decision (by the way, concerning the operating hours of the "Cheri" bar), the city mayor proposed to count telephone votes from absent members of the executive committee. Or at a session of the city council, the "mayor" wanted to shift the issue of selecting candidates for the executive committee onto the shoulders of the deputies themselves and managed to get out of a deadlock only on the advice of the city's elected representatives, who suggested removing the issue from consideration. And although there is nothing surprising in such lack of awareness, since Mykola Romanyuk is only getting accustomed to his new status and familiarizing himself with the specifics of local self-government work, these examples demonstrate a certain unpreparedness of the city mayor for an independent and confident game.

Definition of immediate tasks and strategic priorities of activity (Changing plans on the march) The realities of Ukrainian political life today dictate a fashion in which both the candidates for elective office themselves and the voters pay less and less attention to such a mandatory element of electoral democracy as the program (plan) of action of a politician, that is, election programs. In the last local elections, even the legislation did not require candidates to publicly announce their election programs. Mykola Yaroslavovych nevertheless prepared and presented to the city's voters his election program, a brief summary of which was set out in campaign booklets. In his election program, the candidate for the position of Lutsk city mayor, Mykola Romanyuk, in October 2010 planned to work in 10 key directions (detailed program in the appendix): 1. Strong local self-government – effective city authority 2. Increasing industrial potential, developing entrepreneurship, improving the city's investment climate 3. Development of the healthcare, education, culture and sports system 4. Reform of housing and communal services and development of the city's infrastructure 5. Effective energy-saving policy, introduction of alternative types of energy 6. Inventory and assessment of communal property and its involvement in the service of the community 7. Safety of life and activity of the community, every Lutsk resident and guest of the city 8. Scientific and educational potential of the city – in the service of the community 9. Social guarantees as a prerequisite for a dignified life, health and longevity of Lutsk residents 10. Prospects for the development of Lutsk as an administrative, scientific and cultural center of Volyn. This was more a set of slogans and priorities on which the politician wanted to work first of all. After all, planning one's activity as a candidate has significant differences from planning the work of a politician already in office. Here the principle is confirmed that "where one sits determines how one thinks." Therefore, to a certain extent, a certain adjustment and detailing of the plans and tasks that the "mayor" sets for himself was predictable. Therefore, already a month after the election (December 9, 2010), the city mayor publicly, at an expanded meeting with heads of enterprises, institutions, organizations, and employees of the executive committee of the city council, presented a list of specific tasks (13 points) on which he plans to work during his term. On the one hand, such a step by the city mayor is positive, since voters will be able after a certain period of time to check what has been implemented from what was declared. But at the same time, such a list is too narrow, since it does not touch upon a number of important spheres of the city's life. Another problem with such a plan of tasks is the too high financial cost of its implementation, which in conditions of existing debts in the city treasury will be difficult to do. If we analyze the work of the city mayor over the first 100 days, we should note that some of the issues raised in the election program were taken up for implementation already in the first months of the new authorities' activity. For example, to implement item 2 of the election program, the Program for Support of Small Entrepreneurship in the city of Lutsk for 2011-2012 was developed and approved by a session of the city council. From item 3 of the election program, the city authorities planned to expand the existing network of groups in preschool educational institutions and begin construction of one swimming pool, as well as a school and kindergarten in the city's 55th microdistrict. From item 4, most attention has so far been paid to completing the above-ground crossing over the tracks from the railway station to the Zavokzalny market and to lighting the city's adjoining territories. Under item 7, work is being carried out first of all on attracting investments for the construction of a waste processing plant in the village of Bryshche and on putting order in the city's parks and green zones. From the ideas of item 10, work is being carried out on expanding the city's boundaries. However, there are issues on which, at least publicly, no steps have yet been taken, or conversely, in which the authorities' activity contradicts the priorities of election promises. Thus, contrary to the promise from item 1, the city mayor has still not begun a dialogue with the city's public. Even such important things as defining strategic tasks for the city's development were carried out without taking into account the opinion of the public, including the expert environment. From item 3 of the candidate's program, the city authorities did not ensure proper financing of extracurricular education, but on the contrary reduced such financing. So far no new ideas have been announced regarding the implementation of part of item 4 of the program, in particular regarding overcoming monopolism in the housing and communal services sphere and regarding the opening of the airport. There are no initiatives under item 5 concerning energy-saving policy. No steps have been taken to restore youth lending, which was envisaged in item 9 of the election program, and the construction of a student campus mentioned in item 10. But since only 100 days have passed since the election of the new city authorities, such a state of affairs is still normal, since there is still plenty of time ahead to begin resolving these issues as well.

Prompt resolution of current city problems (Patching potholes is an uninteresting matter) The difference and specificity of the activity of city authorities from regional ones lies first of all in the extremely larger number of current issues and problems that must be resolved daily. This is precisely what became a certain test for Mykola Romanyuk, since in addition to planning strategic tasks, developing development programs, etc., one must daily monitor the work of communal enterprises, monitor the state of provision of communal services to city residents, respond to citizens' appeals, etc. And at times it is visible that such "minor" issues as clearing the city of snow, repairing roads, replacing pipelines, etc., tire the city mayor, who is more capable of resolving strategic issues, such as attracting investments for the construction of a waste processing plant or for the concession of communal enterprises. For example: this winter many Lutsk residents were outraged by the state of cleaning during the snowy period of both roadways and adjoining territories. At least, if one assesses the work of communal workers in cleaning the city, the impression is that few people controlled their work. An explanation may be that Mykola Romanyuk's predecessors (both Anton Kryvytskyi and Bohdan Shyba), as leaders of a more authoritarian style, tied the activity of key enterprises, including housing and communal services, to themselves and personally controlled this work. Because of this, executive discipline was also higher. The current city mayor gave the initiative to his deputies, which as a result led to less effective work of communal workers. At least the complaints of Lutsk residents this year had real examples behind them. The city mayor's work on establishing the activity of the city's communal enterprises looks more effective. At least here there is already an attempt to introduce market rules of the game, under which the status of a communal enterprise should not mean its loss-making nature. That is, communal enterprises must work at least not "in the minus." It is precisely the radical formulation of this issue and the requirement for the heads of such enterprises to prepare business plans that may become a turning point for the city, as a result of which communal enterprises will fill the budget rather than eat it up. True, a doubt arises regarding the possibility of realizing what was conceived in the city council by the current managers. After all, if the heads of such communal enterprises did nothing before to earn funds, then they are unlikely to start doing so now. Therefore, replacing such managers looked more expedient. A separate issue is the problem of the Lutsk electric transport enterprise, which, in addition to undereceived state subventions, has a leasing debt for buses. The city mayor has so far refused the idea of selling the buses and accordingly the leasing obligations for them together with transferring passenger road transport routes to interested entrepreneurs. He understood that the city, not having its own vehicle fleet, could become a hostage to a conspiracy of entrepreneur-carriers. Therefore, the decision on a simple division of the LETE into two separate structures (bus and trolleybus) is more effective and strategically correct. But perhaps the most difficult factor that prevents the new authorities from feeling all the advantages of local self-government is the city's debts. In principle, Mykola Yaroslavovych already during the election campaign knew about the critical state of affairs with the financial situation of the city council. Moreover, Romanyuk assured that as a banker he knows what should be done to pay off existing debts and where to get funds for new city projects. But it is visible that here too the previously mentioned principle about where one sits should be applied... Because now the city mayor looks less optimistically at the ways out of the "debt pit," although, it must be said, he does not give up but tries to seek alternative ways of resolving the issue. It is precisely now that many years of experience in managing a bank may come in handy for Mykola Yaroslavovych. In the event of a positive resolution of the issue of restructuring the city's debts to banking institutions, the image of Mykola Romanyuk as an "effective manager" (actively advertised during the elections) may finally receive a real foundation. Among the most principled and important decisions initiated by the city mayor during this period were the decisions of the executive committee on banning the sale of alcoholic beverages in the 100-meter zone around schools and on banning the sale of alcoholic beverages at night from 23:00 to 8:00. At least in such decisions there is no lobbying or other interest; they are genuinely intended to reduce the effect of negative factors affecting the health of Lutsk residents, and especially children.

Establishing cooperation with the deputy corps and relations with the regional authorities (Let's live together...) Cooperation with deputies is also a new experience for Mykola Romanyuk. After all, neither his own deputy experience nor the experience of cooperation with the regional council in the status of head of the regional state administration can be compared with the experience of a city mayor. Given that in this composition of the city council the city mayor does not have his own faction, and the majority of mandates belong to political forces that were his opponents in the elections, the issue of establishing interaction with deputies should have become one of the main ones for the "mayor." It is precisely in this field that Mykola Yaroslavovych has not bad results. Here again his character traits came in handy – peacefulness and compliance, although external help also came in handy. In 100 days of cooperation with the deputy corps, the city mayor has already developed certain relations with the key players in the council, which gives him the opportunity not to worry about the possible adoption by the council of a decision to terminate his powers. Thus, Mykola Romanyuk can count on the friendly support of 4 deputies from the "Front of Changes" party faction (first deputy city mayor S. Kravchuk heads the regional branch of this party), 4 deputies from the Party of Regions faction (thanks to the influence of the head of the regional state administration B. Klimchuk), 2 deputies from the European Party of Ukraine faction. Two more factions – the "Our Ukraine" party (2 deputies) and the "For Ukraine!" party (4 deputies) – despite their external ostensibly oppositional nature, are ready situationally to support certain initiatives of the city mayor. Instead, Mykola Yaroslavovych's cooperation with the two key and largest factions of the city council – the All-Ukrainian Union "Batkivshchyna" (23 deputies) and the All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" (9 deputies) – looks more varied. "Svoboda," as a more monolithic faction, will irreconcilably oppose the "mayor" on political issues. Instead, on socio-economic issues, the deputies of this political force are ready to cooperate with the city mayor. One example is the fact of voting for the candidacies of two deputy city mayors in exchange for including a representative of the All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" in the executive committee. But it is now much easier for the city mayor to negotiate with individual deputies of the All-Ukrainian Union "Batkivshchyna" faction, which cannot boast of clear party discipline and is in fact divided into two deputy groups. Moreover, Mykola Yaroslavovych currently has not bad relations with the council secretary Hryhoriy Pustovit. Therefore, if necessary, the city mayor can push through the council the decisions he needs, but each time the price of the issue will fluctuate. Such a state of affairs requires constant dialogue with deputies, conducting a certain under-the-carpet game and intrigues. Instead, in these matters Mykola Romanyuk is not a very strong player, and therefore needs the help of his more experienced deputies and his "patron" from the region. The function of moderator at council sessions is also not easy for the city mayor. Sometimes it is visible that in such a "cauldron" of people and ideas it is not to his liking to work. But such is the lot of a city mayor. Although one can always act "à la Chernovetskyi"... The cooperation between the city mayor and the head of the regional state administration looks quite interesting. At the moment, a friendly and amicable atmosphere prevails between these officials, which differs very strongly from the type of relations that the two predecessors of the "mayor" had with the "governors." Thus, Mykola Romanyuk very attentively listens to the advice and hints of Borys Klimchuk and unquestioningly participates in the initiatives of the head of the regional state administration. In turn, Borys Petrovych in every way promotes the city mayor, in particular lobbies Lutsk's issues before the Cabinet of Ministers and individual ministries and, if necessary, helps in resolving political or economic conflicts.

Summing up, we note that Mykola Romanyuk started his "mayoral" term quite well. He studied the state of the city, formed his team, managed to agree on cooperation with the deputy corps, and defined key tasks for further work. However, the start of the term precisely in the winter period (when complaints about the authorities' work always arise), the lack of sufficient political support in the council, the city's significant debts and the critical financial state of key communal enterprises created for him far from the best starting platform for beginning his activity. In addition, a number of mistakes were also made. In particular, almost no new competent specialists were attracted to work in the executive bodies of the council, appointments to leadership positions were carried out non-transparently, without appropriate competitions, and the determination of the city's development priorities was carried out without involving representatives of the public. Given the listed "pluses" and "minuses" in the city mayor's work, his work for this period can be rated "four with a minus" on the usual five-point scale. The 100 days of Mykola Romanyuk's work in the position of Lutsk city mayor are behind. The time for "rocking" and "learning" is over. If earlier many experts and politicians were cautious in assessing his work, now the demands on the city mayor will be very high. It seems he understands this himself. Therefore, only publicity in activity and consistency in following through on announced initiatives, as well as involving new people in work in local self-government bodies, will be able to help the city mayor carry out his work qualitatively and in a modern way.

For reference: Monitoring of the work of the Lutsk city council and the city mayor is carried out within the framework of the OPORA Civic Network project on public democratic monitoring of newly elected local self-government bodies in 15 communities of the country.