Myth 1. Public hearings and public consultations are the same thing

Truth. No, these are different tools in terms of procedure and are used for different purposes

Generally speaking, public hearings are face-to-face meetings between residents and officials and council members to discuss local issues. Public consultations, on the other hand, are a more lengthy and multifaceted process of public engagement, involving both raising public awareness of the subject under discussion and various channels for feedback, including the collection of suggestions via correspondence and public meetings.

According to Mykhailo Shelep, Adviser at the Regional Office of U-LEAD with Europe in Rivne Oblast, there are at least two kinds of public hearings. The first is a form of direct participation by residents in addressing issues of local importance. The second is part of a wider public consultation process, for example, in urban planning and other areas.

And this is where communities tend to make a common mistake: they try to apply the same procedure to every issue. However, whilst for “traditional” public hearings (as defined in the Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Government in Ukraine”) the local self-government body itself sets out the procedure in the community’s Charter, certain areas are subject to a separate procedure laid down by law, which cannot be disregarded.

Myth 2. Public hearings should be conducted in accordance with the procedure established for general meetings of residents

Truth. The law does not impose strict requirements on “traditional” public hearings, so there is no need to replicate the procedures used for general meetings

Some of the most common mistakes involve “blindly” copying the public hearing procedure from general meetings. According to Mykhailo Shelep, the law sets more stringent conditions for general meetings of residents: different age limits, eligibility criteria, voting rules, and a requirement to collect personal data.

Public hearings are subject to far fewer requirements: their validity is not dependent on the number of participants, there is no need to collect personal details, and the voting procedure is not specified. Thus, the local council itself determines the detailed procedure for public hearings.

“This is due to the fact that a general meeting makes decisions, whereas a public hearing serves to generate proposals. The outcomes of these events are also quite different,” said the speaker. For this reason, the procedure for holding “traditional” public hearings should be made simpler than that prescribed for general meetings of residents.

Myth 3. This tool is for registered adult residents only

Truth. Public hearings involve a more diverse pool of participants than other forms of public engagement

“Traditional” public hearings are open to residents of the community. The law has recently introduced a definition of what constitutes a “resident”. Both those citizens of Ukraine who have declared or registered their place of residence in a certain community and those citizens whose actual place of residence/stay is confirmed by a certificate of registration of an internally displaced person are considered to be residents of the community.

Furthermore, residents aged 14 and over are also entitled to initiate and participate in public hearings.

For many communities, this is not a minor issue, but a fundamental shift in the approach to deciding who to involve in such public events. This can have a significant impact on both the way information is presented and the methods used to disseminate it.

Myth 4. Public hearings are not allowed under martial law

Truth. Public hearings are mandatory for certain matters; however, safety precautions should be observed

The Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” stipulates that elections, national and local referendums, strikes, mass gatherings and demonstrations are prohibited under martial law. However, these restrictions do not apply to the forms of community participation in decision-making on local matters as defined in the Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Government in Ukraine”. In other words, public hearings are not prohibited.

Moreover, the legislation specifies certain matters which the local council is prohibited from deciding without holding public hearings. For example, this includes adopting the Charter of Community, approving the budget, adopting policy documents and other matters of local importance. However, when organising a public hearing, due consideration should be given to the safety situation in the community.

Another option under the current circumstances is to hold public hearings online or in a hybrid format. Mykhailo Shelep cautioned that the switch from in-person meetings to a remote format should have a good reason behind it, rather than being a way of artificially restricting people’s access to events like this. After all, public hearings are intended to “maintain public trust in local authorities”, not the other way round.

Myth 5. All you need to do is hold a meeting and draw up the minutes

Truth. Following the public hearings, the proposals are to be considered and a decision taken by the authorities

One of the practical focuses of the information session addressed the steps to be taken by the local authorities following the event. The speaker emphasised:

“The big problem is that local councils often ‘hold public hearings and draw up minutes’, yet fail to adopt any decisions based on the outcomes of those hearings.”

However, according to him, that is precisely what the law requires. If proposals have been made, they must be considered, a decision reached, and the outcome published, accompanied by explanations of what has been accepted, what has been rejected, and why.

Mykhailo Shelep pointed out that many communities already have experience of holding public hearings on budget matters, yet there is no record of local council decisions regarding the consideration of proposals arising from these hearings. The latter is, in fact, the true gauge of whether the hearings were truly meaningful.

“After all, public hearings are a real tool for residents to influence decision-making. They need to understand that, say, their suggestions or comments have been factored in when planning the local community budget,” said the speaker.

Myth 6. Public hearings are always complicated, time-consuming and bring the council’s work to a standstill

Truth. Public hearings will serve as a useful tool for interaction between the authorities and residents, provided that the procedure is clear

Mykhailo Shelep believes that public hearings will not be intimidating for officials if a clear and effective mechanism for their implementation is put in place. It is also important to give residents time to get used to this tool for public participation.

Problems with holding public hearings often arise because the procedures for organising them are overly complicated, or because the regulations are not adapted to the context in which they are applied. This happens when requirements typical of general meetings are blindly transplanted into public hearings, or when procedures are copied from other communities without being adapted to the local circumstances. All in all, it feels as though every public event is almost a separate “special operation” in itself.

In reality, however, the law merely sets out a legal framework, whilst the local council itself determines the majority of the organisational details: who organises the public hearing, how it is conducted, how residents are informed, who takes the minutes, how proposals are recorded, what number of participants is sufficient, when an online format is permissible, and so on.

In this regard, keep in mind that the purpose of a public hearing is to get residents involved in resolving issues of local importance. For this reason, they should be organised in a way that is convenient and accessible to the public.

“The timing, the way information is communicated and the explanation of the issue directly influence how actively people engage and whether they will be able to put forward meaningful suggestions,” stressed Mykhailo Shelep.

In conclusion, the speaker noted that local authorities should stop fearing this mechanism and start using it as part of the management process and as a straightforward procedure, whereby people see more than just the fact that a meeting has taken place, but also a response to their suggestions. That is when the myths surrounding public hearings end and local self-government truly begins.