On February 23, 2004, a meeting of the Volyn Oblast Territorial Election Commission was held in the premises of the Volyn Oblast Council. The main item on the agenda was the consideration of the decision of the Lutsk City Court of February 20, 2004, in case No. 2-1700/2004. Let us recall that the court ruled that the oblast TEC's decision of 9.02.04, by which I. V. Dziamulych was recognized as elected deputy of the Volyn Oblast Council in district No. 19, be annulled and, accordingly, obligated the TEC to take actions in accordance with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine "On Elections of Deputies of Local Councils..." So, let us return to the TEC meeting, at which, in addition to the commission members themselves (there were 11 of them), the following were present: the authorized representative of the candidate for deputy of the oblast council Shyba B.P., People's Deputy of Ukraine Volodymyr Nalkovych Bondar, and candidate for deputy of the oblast council Ivan Vasyliovych Dziamulych. It was precisely their presence that added a certain emotional coloring to the TEC meeting. After the TEC members familiarized themselves with the court decision, the majority of those present began to express their indignation at the court's actions. It all boiled down to the fact that the TEC saw no guilt on its part, and therefore did not understand why People's Deputy Bondar filed a lawsuit specifically against the commission. Commission members appealed to the deputy with reproaches that, supposedly, he should have reported the facts of legislative violations before election day, or at least before the commission's final meeting. Doubts were also expressed regarding the veracity of the violations found by the court. The commission also questioned the competence and impartiality of the judge's actions. Also, a lot of time was spent discussing the moral and ethical aspect of the behavior of Deputy Bondar, who went to court. Thus, instead of addressing the issue on its merits, the commission spent two hours commenting on the court decision, trying to find an error or some other catch. Also, with the tacit consent of the commission chairman, small-scale political debates took place directly during the meeting between Mr. Dziamulych and Deputy Bondar. True, it did not even resemble a debate: Mr. Dziamulych, in a somewhat nervous state, began to argue that the court had acted inhumanely toward him, that all the stated violations were fabricated, and that representatives of "Our Ukraine" had influenced the judge, which had led to the adoption of an unlawful decision. Mr. Dziamulych also reproached the opposition representatives that they had acted immorally by filing a lawsuit, because he himself had never insulted anyone or spread slander against anyone. To all of this, Mr. Bondar responded in a calm manner, referring to the law and the court decision. Then TEC members joined these debates and began accusing the People's Deputy of failing to perform his direct duties and, using his status, exerting pressure on the court and the commission itself. True, against the background of these emotionally charged statements by commission members, the words of one of the oldest TEC members should be singled out; to Mr. Dziamulych's phrase that he had not used administrative resources, he said: "To claim that administrative resources do not exist in Volyn is the same as, being a prostitute of all-Ukrainian scale, assuring everyone of one's chastity!" Such an emotional discussion lasted for two hours. After long deliberations on the topic "And what should be done next?" (although the Law of Ukraine "On Elections of Deputies of Local Councils..." clearly set out the chain of further actions), the commission managed to adopt a decision that can actually be characterized by the word "none." The commission, by 9 votes "in favor," adopted a decision to annul its previous decision of 9.02.2004. To clarify further actions, it was decided to turn to the CEC, and to wait with its own final decision. In a word, the commission, having in hand the facts of legislative violations, as confirmed by the court, did not adopt any acceptable decision: it did not declare a winner and did not punish the violator. That is, it simply took a time-out. Although, proceeding strictly from the requirements of the law, the commission should have adopted the only possible decision in this situation. But for this, both legal awareness (as the TEC members themselves stated) and political will were lacking. After all, the placement of the TEC in the same building as the Oblast State Administration and the Oblast Council does take its toll. At the end of the meeting, a statement by Mr. Dziamulych was also considered, in which he expressed his disagreement with the court decision, stating that it was unlawful. Also read was an appeal to the commission from the labor collectives of several schools in the Turiisk district, in which teachers called on the TEC not to take away Dziamulych's deputy mandate and not to allow a "crowd of people" to change the will of the voters. The commission took these appeals into consideration and decided to send them to the CEC for review. It is only interesting whether administrative resources, which Mr. Dziamulych called on people to use to vote for him during the elections, were not used to write these letters-appeals. If there are brave souls willing to state this, then the respected head of the education department will be in trouble. This precedent once again raises the urgent question of improving election legislation and of the quality selection of members of election commissions at all levels, especially territorial ones. After all, their decisions will have a decisive influence on elections at all levels.