PROBLEMS OF LEGAL REGULATION OF THE STATUS OF RURAL, SETTLEMENT AND URBAN HEADS

Abstract

Introduction. The article provides a comprehensive review of the legal status of rural, settlement and city heads in light of the current decentralisation reform in Ukraine.

Summary of the main results of the study. It examines both the theoretical foundations and practical aspects of the functioning of the chief official of a territorial community. Discrepancies in terminology and substance between the provisions of the European Charter of Local Self-Government and domestic legislation, in particular the Law of Ukraine ‘On Local Self-Government in Ukraine,’ are identified.

Particular attention is paid to the ‘combined’ nature of the legal status of the head, which combines political, representative and managerial functions. The work analyses in detail the three main roles that he performs: representative (speaking on behalf of the territorial community), executive and managerial (leading the executive committee and disposing of property) and organisational and representative (moderating council sessions). Based on a study of the internal regulations of the Kharkiv and Lviv city councils, the authors conclude that there is an excessive concentration of power in one person, which poses a potential threat of authoritarian practices at the local level and gives rise to conflicts of interest.

The article raises the issue of the organisational dependence of the deputy corps on the chairperson, which is due to his control over the council apparatus and the formation of the agenda for meetings. To resolve these issues, the foreign experience of Estonia and France was studied, where a clear division of responsibilities between the political leader of the council and the professional administrator (mayor) was introduced.

Specific vectors for reforming the local self-government system in Ukraine are proposed. These include institutional separation of the functions of the council chair and the head of the executive body; abolition of executive committees as collegial bodies of general competence, replacing them with ‘cabinets’ under the personal responsibility of department heads; and introduction of the ‘mayor-manager’ model. The need to introduce ‘electronic reporting’ by the head to residents and expand his or her capabilities in the field of ‘municipal diplomacy’ is also argued.

Conclusion. It is concluded that it is critically important to create effective mechanisms for resolving disputes between the head and the council through direct consultations with community residents.