Out of 100 city mayors, 70 published reports on their activities for 2024, and only 24 of them did so publicly, by responding to questions from residents. Just 13 mayors followed the best practices for transparency in reporting. The rest either published a written or video report without any interaction with the community. These are the findings of the Transparent Cities program as of the end of June 2025.
Over the past year, 70 mayors out of 100 cities reviewed submitted reports. Nineteen were published at the end of 2024, and 51 appeared during the first half of 2025. However, only 30 city councils announced the report at least one business day in advance. Public engagement was even more limited — residents had the opportunity to ask the mayor questions in only 24 cities. Video recordings were published in 33 cities; in the rest, mayors restricted their communication to a written report posted on the city council website.
Thirty community leaders failed to inform residents about their activities in any format, in violation of Ukrainian law, which requires mayors to report to the public twice a year.
Out of the 100 communities assessed, only 13 followed best transparency practices: they published an announcement in advance, engaged residents, provided a livestream, released a video recording, and published a detailed written report. Successful examples include Boryslav, Brody, Volodymyr, Drohobych, Zviahel, Kolomyia, Lutsk, Poltava, Rivne, Stryi, Uman, Chernivtsi, and Chortkiv.
Among the 20 regional centers, reporting took place in 15. The mayors of Kyiv, Sumy, Uzhhorod, Zhytomyr, and Kharkiv did not summarize their performance for the year. Ten mayors delivered public reports with a video or livestream, but residents could ask questions in only six regional centers: Dnipro, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lutsk, Poltava, Rivne, and Chernivtsi.
The mayors of Khmelnytskyi and Cherkasy held television interviews on local media outlets, denying citizens the chance to participate in a direct dialogue with the authorities. The mayor of the capital also failed to set a strong example — only scattered updates on specific areas of activity were published, rather than a comprehensive summary report.
“Unfortunately, few mayors truly understand the importance of open dialogue with their residents, and they report as if it’s merely a box to check,” said Olesia Koval, Transparent Cities Program Manager. “What could change this situation is proactive citizen engagement and legal reform: setting clear deadlines and formats for reporting, along with accountability for non-compliance. That way, mayors wouldn’t have a way around this duty — they’d have to report to those who put them in office.”
Public reporting is more than just a formality — it is an opportunity for residents to assess the mayor’s performance, ask questions, and influence community priorities. At the same time, it is a valuable tool for local authorities to hear from residents, consider their views in decision-making and policy development, and strengthen trust in local governance. Until the law is properly amended, active civic involvement — submitting inquiries, attending meetings, and demanding transparency — remains the most effective way to turn mayoral reporting into a genuine accountability tool rather than a symbolic gesture.