Odessa City Council rightly named a defendant

Last September an entry appeared outlining the systemic corruption that killed once again in Odessa.

Naturally as is so often the case, attention turned to those individuals upon whom blame (and perhaps punishment) would fall.  Little thought, let alone expectation of City Hall ending up in court as a defendant was given.

Rarely would a reader find a City or Oblast Council named as a defendant in a case such as this despite systemic corruption and systemic governance failures oft having a role in horrendous and/or fatal outcomes for the Ukrainian public.

That, until 2nd July (some 10 months after the tragic events) continued to be the case with regard to the above linked incident.

However, Odessa City Council, due to its systemic corruption and incompetence, has now been named and accepted as a defendant.  Judge Viktor Chaplitsky accepted the petition of the legal team representing the victims that Odessa City Council should be held accountable for its collective and systematic failures.

The families are seeking a collective total of UAH 3.9 million (which appears to be a particularly small sum) in compensation for “moral damages”.  (No doubt somebody will have to explain what morals are to many of those within City Hall).

A drop in the ocean for the City budget to be sure.

Naturally there will probably be no (further) resignations nor any further individual accountability in this case.

The integrity of those at City Hall is not sufficient among its senior figures to even consider resignation.  After all the Mayor is facing at least 3 criminal investigations, without further accepting any personal leadership responsibility failings for this incident.  Thus many at City Hall will quietly be happy to have the City pay UAH 3.9 million to avoid any individual accountability – but otherwise accept collective responsibility (while continuing to say they personally are not at fault to anybody prepared to listen).

Nevertheless, the naming of Odessa City Hall as a defendant is worthy of a few lines – for local governance is rarely collectively held accountable in judicial proceedings for its calamitous failures.