"I did not plan to resign": Vasyl Telpis's explanation escalated the scandal at "Mykolaivvodokanal"

The former technical director of the municipal enterprise “Mykolaivvodokanal”, Vasyl Telpis said that after many years of service he did not plan to leave the company, and that he signed a resignation letter because of psychological pressure from the new leadership. According to the anti-corruption officer, the circumstances of his departure from the water utility are now included in the materials of a criminal proceeding.

Written explanations by Vasyl Telpis, dated 14 April 2026, were published on 21 June 2026 by the company’s anti-corruption officer, Ihor Bloshko. He noted that he did so with the permission of the former technical director.

The published information indicates that Vasyl Telpis did not intend to resign voluntarily. According to his account, the resignation letter followed a conversation with the new CEO during which he was made to understand that there would be no further cooperation.

From working since 1985 to a sudden dismissal

Vasyl Telpis had worked within the Mykolaiv water utility structure since 1985, rising from a process engineer at the treatment facilities to managerial positions. After the long-serving company director Borys Dudenko died on 15 October 2025, he temporarily performed the duties of general director.

At the end of January 2026, following a competition, the new head of the enterprise was chosen: Hennadiy Izyumov, who previously worked in the water supply sector in Mariupol. Nineteen candidates took part in the competition, and Vasyl Telpis did not submit his candidacy. On 3 April 2026 the former technical director submitted a resignation letter. At first it was publicly reported that he left the company of his own accord. However, Vasyl Telpis himself explained that he wrote it after a conversation with the new head, who said he did not see the possibility of further cooperation. According to the specialist, he was also refused a transfer to another position within the company.

Describing the conversation with the new CEO and his attempt to remain employed at the enterprise, Vasyl Telpis said:

“The director said that he did not see further cooperation with me, so I said: “Then I will write the resignation.” Then I asked whether I could transfer to another section within the water utility — he refused that as well. He said that he personally had no complaints against me, but said: “This is not my decision.” I understood that it was the Supervisory Board.”

The director and the supervisory board gave different versions

The issue of Vasyl Telpis‘s dismissal became one of the main topics during the new director’s meeting with company employees on 15 April 2026. Part of the staff said that the experienced specialist was effectively forced to submit a resignation, being warned about a possible reduction of his position. Then Hennadiy Izyumov assured those present that he personally had not made the decision to dismiss the technical director.

Answering employees’ questions about the personnel decision, General Director Hennadiy Izyumov said:

“I did not fire him. He was dismissed by the Supervisory Board. I report to the Supervisory Board.”

Later, the chair of the Supervisory Board, Hanna Montavon, publicly refuted that version. She explained that the position of technical director is not among the roles whose appointment and dismissal fall within the authority of the Supervisory Board.

The board’s competence includes the positions of general director, anti-corruption officer, head of internal audit, risk manager, compliance officer and corporate secretary. Thus, according to the Supervisory Board’s official clarification, the decision regarding the technical director should have been made by the company’s executive management.

In a May interview Hennadiy Izyumov described the situation differently. He stated that after a “man-to-man talk” Vasyl Telpis himself submitted a resignation by mutual agreement, which the director signed. This version contradicts both the explanations of Vasyl Telpis himself and the words of Hennadiy Izyumov spoken to the staff on 15 April, when he placed responsibility for the decision on the Supervisory Board.

The staff opposed the new management

The dismissal of Vasyl Telpis became part of a broader conflict between the new management and employees of the municipal enterprise “Mykolaivvodokanal”. After the meeting on 15 April 2026, part of the staff criticized the new director’s competence, problems in communication with employees and unclear personnel decisions. Employees proposed appealing to the city mayor, Oleksandr Sienkevych, asking him to investigate the situation and consider replacing the head.

On 17 April the deputy group “Sanation” also appealed to the mayor asking to create a working group and carry out an internal investigation into the circumstances of Vasyl Telpis‘s dismissal.

On 21 April employees recorded a public video appeal warning of risks to the operation of the strategic municipal enterprise. The new management, in turn, explained the conflict as resistance from part of the staff to tightened control over equipment, fuel and working hours.

Ihor Bloshko reported psychological pressure

The anti-corruption officer Ihor Bloshko said that he accepted written explanations from Vasyl Telpis while clarifying the reasons for his dismissal. According to him, the former technical director’s explanations provide grounds to question the voluntariness of the personnel decision.

Publishing the document and recalling the conflicting explanations of the director and the head of the Supervisory Board, Ihor Bloshko wrote:

“With the permission of the dismissed technical director of “Mykolaivvodokanal”, a professional and a respected person, Telpis Vasyl Stepanovych, I present his explanations which I accepted while investigating the reasons. Draw your own conclusions about the lawfulness of the dismissal; I only want to recall the public explanations of the water utility’s leadership regarding those circumstances — how the officials lied to one another. The chair of the Supervisory Board, Ms Montavon, said the Supervisory Board had nothing to do with it, while the newly appointed general director, Mr Izyumov, said it was an instruction from the Supervisory Board and then contradicted himself by saying that he and Telpis reached an agreement ‘by mutual consent.’”

Ihor Bloshko also said that after his appeal and the personal complaint of Vasyl Telpis to the State Service of Ukraine on Labor regarding alleged mobbing, the company’s management, in his words, was not held accountable.

Speaking about the appeal to the State Labor Service and the criminal proceeding, the anti-corruption officer said:

“It should be noted that following my appeal and the personal appeal of Vasyl Telpis to the State Service on Labor to bring the company’s management to responsibility for MOBBING, nothing was done. Now this fact is also included in the materials of a criminal proceeding under Articles 364 and 172 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Employees of the state service will also have to come for questioning to the investigator, and the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Mykolaiv region will have extra work) All the crap will come out even if they try to hide it. Even the refusal of Mykolaiv mayor Oleksandr Sienkevych to my appeal to create a commission to check the activities of the new management will not hide such facts.”

According to Ihor Bloshko, the criminal proceeding concerns alleged violations under Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — abuse of power or official position — and Article 172 — gross violation of labor law.

At the same time, the existence of a criminal proceeding alone does not prove the guilt of specific officials. The final legal assessment of the circumstances must be given by investigators, prosecutors and the court. The case number, the procedural status of the persons involved and the official position of law enforcement were not provided in the public statement.

Explaining why he continues to publicly report on events at the enterprise, Ihor Bloshko emphasized:

“The main task of anti-corruption work is the systemic prevention, detection, cessation and investigation of corruption offences, as well as addressing the consequences of corruption and minimizing its impact on public administration and society. This work is based on building TRANSPARENT, INTEGRITY-BASED mechanisms in government bodies. This is what I do, including for the public via Facebook, fulfilling my official duties at this enterprise.”

At the time the explanations were published, no new comments from Hennadiy Izyumov, Hanna Montavon, Mayor Oleksandr Sienkevych or the State Labor Service specifically addressing Ihor Bloshko‘s statements had been released.

Earlier we wrote:

• The thieves were not found: an employee stored cans of diesel at a pumping station — “Mykolaivvodokanal”
• At the treatment facilities in Mykolaiv they stole electricity to charge personal cars, — “Mykolaivvodokanal”
• GPS saw everything: Izyumov explained why part of Mykolaivvodokanal’s staff were outraged
• A crisis of trust at “Mykolaivvodokanal”: the enterprise asks NAPK to check anti-corruption work
• 100 days of change at “Mykolaivvodokanal”: the new management promises an end to the “emergency mode”