Financial crossings – without
traffic lights
May 9, 8:49
After a publication that got a lot of public attention about
Kherson city officials wanting to overstate the amount of
budget expenses for the installation of traffic lights in
Kherson, any information connected to road infrastructure
has become subject to the attention of investigative
journalists.
So here we are again – reaction to the publication about
another installation of traffic lights in one of the seaside
cities in Kherson region. In fact, the reaction started before
February 2014 and has been going on until now. Let’s get to
the details…
We decided to find out how things are going with the
expenses on the development of road infrastructure in our region: maybe somebody has a desire
to waste local budget money and buy something very expensive or unnecessary.
We followed up with action. We sent a corresponding request to the regional department of the
State Traffic Inspection and found out that besides Kherson, the pleasure of the road innovation traffic lights - is available only in the Kakhovkas, Tsiurupynsk and Henichesk. No other cities in
our region have working traffic lights.
Following the old investigation scheme that proved effective, we sent corresponding letters to
these cities (Kakhovka, Nova Kakhovka, Tsiurupynsk and Henichesk) with requests to provide
detailed estimates for the installation of their traffic light units and to the regional department of
the State Traffic Inspection asking for a map of these units.
Let us note that we have no complaints about the Kherson regional State Traffic Inspection since
they provided everything right away and even offered to send more requests to them… But the
rest of the story is epic:
Kakhovka: In their response to the journalistic request, the executive board of the Kakhovka
city council wrote about capital repairs to three traffic light units in 2008 for the amount of UAH
130,524 and about the installation of two units in 2009 for UAH 124,480 - at the crossing of
Sverdlova and Melytopolskaya streets (UAH 49,004) and at the crossing of K. Tsetkyn and
Melytopolskaya streets (UAH 75,276).
The numbers confused us. Why did the repair of three traffic light units in 2008 (including unit
#1 – 6 automobile and 6 pedestrian lights, #2 – 8 automobile and 8 pedestrian and #3 – 8
automobile and 4 pedestrian) cost more than the installation in 2009 (during the financial crisis)
of two new units (each including 8 automobile and 8 pedestrian lights)? It is obvious that the
poles are the same. There was no need to buy new ones, no need to pay for their installation, the
cables probably were the same, maybe even the boxes were the same too, and there is not even a
guarantee that they changed all of the light bulbs in them.
However, the answers to our questions are gone with time – they referred to the fact that the term
of document storage in the archive according to Cabinet of Ministers resolution #41 dated July
20, 1998 on the Chief Archive, which was in effect at the time, has expired. And Kakhovka does
not have the breakdown of expenses.
Nova Kakhovka: According to information from the State Traffic Inspection, there are four
traffic light units in Nova Kakhovka: two put into operation in 2007 and two more in 2008.
Remembering the answer from Kakhovka about the document storage term, we decided to only
inquire about only the ones installed in 2008. We were hoping for good luck and good luck we
found – they did give us a breakdown of the expenses… but not the ones we asked for. We asked
for the expenses for everything – for the installation and equipment, but they only provided
expenses for installation. However, keeping in mind the answer from Kakhovka, we did not
argue since we might not have gotten this information either.
We did not find any obvious violations, plus it was hard to orient to 2008 prices since Ukraine
survived the financial crisis after that and there has been inflation in the last five years.
Tsiurupynsk: In Tsiurupynsk they installed one traffic light unit in 2008 that included 4
automobile and 4 pedestrian lights. The situation was the same: the prices were from 2008 and
now it is 2014. But we got confused by facts that are not dependent on time – for some reason
they were using 365 meters of cable, on which they spent UAH 11,450, even though the
perimeter between the lights at this crossing could be no more than 50 meters. By the way, there
was only 160 meters of suspension cable purchased to hang the light. Therefore, it appears that
on just one hanging light, even if we consider that there was 50 meters of cable, they could have
saved at least UAH 10,000 according to the prices in June 2008. If we think for a second: that, at
that time, was the equivalent of USD 3,000, which was worth an entire used automobile!
Henichesk: This is the very city that started all of our interest in the traffic light investigation.
Just recently, in the fall of 2013, Henichesk received a new traffic light unit for UAH 195,000 +
UAH 29,982 + UAH X,000.
This seaside city was the first where we sent a journalistic request, but just like it happens all the
time, it was the last one that we got at least some answers from.
The first request for access to public information was dated November 7, 2013 and the last
answer from Henichesk was dated January 8, 2014. It was exactly three months that a journalist
was looking for the breakdown of expenses.
At first, to our legal request for a copy of a full breakdown of expenses for the installation of the
traffic light unit, the city executive board provided only the figures that the general contractor, a
company from Kyiv (!), Rostok, Ltd. paid to subcontractor ZHEK-1 for installation work – UAH
29,982. The logical question was: why didn’t the city council order the work from their
communal enterprise and instead acted through the Ltd. company? The second question is how
much of the city budget was allocated to this Ltd. company (in the beginning of our “Henichesk
story”, we marked this number as “X”)?
At the same time, the executive board of the Henichesk City Council said that they do not have a
breakdown of expenses since the Ltd. company that performed the work for the city did not
provide it, even though according to the agreement between the commercial entity and ZHEK, it
should have… What can we say – public money is being spent on pure trust… We are not
talking about the fact that the Henichesk City Council violated Article 22 of the Law of Ukraine
“On Access to Public Information,” which states that if information is not present or its location
is not known, it is obligated to send the request to the owner of the information. In addition, the
Law of Ukraine “On Local Governance” also has provisions about the absence of appropriate
reporting on budget expenses.
The estimate for expenses for this traffic light unit does exist, but the executive board cannot
provide it to us without the approval of the entity that ordered it – the communal company on
capital construction and exploitation of the Kherson Regional Council. In this way, it also
violated Article 6 of the same law, which states that it cannot limit access to information about
budget expenses and cannot deny giving copies of such documents.
The second request was totally ignored by the Henichesk city executive board even though we
stated that by its action the city council was preventing journalistic activities.
The third request with a threat to file a court case based on several articles of several laws and
with reminders on personal responsibility for ignoring such requests got a response from
Henichesk. Probably nobody wanted to take personal responsibility for violating the law or
maybe their lawyer did not want to go to court.
But we hope that just their natural desire for
justice and honesty was awakened. The executive
board answered in their typical manner – it told us
where we should go. Of course they did not use
profanity, but sent another useless answer – go
write to the communal enterprise of the Kherson
Regional Council that ordered the work… I will
not repeat again how many laws and articles they
violated with such a response. Besides, in their
answers neither to the first nor to the third
requests did they mention the address of
the communal enterprise that we needed
to refer to.
But this is why we are called investigators
– we found the address ourselves. And we
sent in a request. Even though we were
already ready for a long-term court
process, the answer did come. And it was
exactly like what we asked for.
We sat down to analyze it. We were amazed right from the very beginning since it appeared that
among the items included in the breakdown of expenses from the communal enterprise of the
regional council, the work necessary for the installation of the traffic light units were included as
well. A third question comes up – then what did Communal Enterprise ZHEK-1 do for UAH
30,000 + X (money paid to the Ltd. company)?
There is no question about price of the actual equipment for the traffic light units – everything
seems more-or-less within market prices.
Conclusion: In Kherson region, only a few cities can boast of having such elements of road
safety as traffic light units. For those regional officials where these traffic lights do exist – they
are not just road infrastructure objects, but an area for violating Ukrainian legislation and
personal enrichment.
Author: Artem Sopov, with the support of
http://pik.ua/news/url/finansovye_perekrestki_bez_svetoforov