The city council failed to dismiss Montavon: what was happening around the supervisory board of "Mykolaivvodokanal"

During the session of the Mykolaiv City Council on August 24, 2026, deputies considered the issue of terminating the powers of the chair of the supervisory board of MKP “Mykolaivvodokanal” Hanna Montavon. Separately during the discussion, a dispute arose over whether the reason for dismissal — allegedly unsatisfactory performance — should be recorded in the decision.

Deputy Fedir Panchenko proposed to supplement the draft decision with the corresponding wording. He explained his position by saying that Hanna Montavon was supposed to present a report to the deputies, but, according to him, she said she would not do so.

— We cannot force her or hold her against her will. And basically, what can we do to her other than dismiss her. But if we see such an attitude toward us, nothing prevents us from dismissing her while adding a note about unsatisfactory performance. As they say, the attitude to work determines the feedback, — said Fedir Panchenko.

The city council secretary Dmytro Falko reacted to the deputy’s proposal.

— Interesting idea, — reacted Secretary Dmytro Falko.

Deputy Olena Kiselova asked who exactly has the authority to dismiss the chair of the supervisory board.

— Who dismisses?, — asked Deputy Olena Kiselova.

Dmytro Falko replied that this is the authority of the city council.

— The city council, — replied Dmytro Falko.

Deputy Serhiy Kantor pointed out that the city council did not directly appoint the chair of the supervisory board.

— She wasn’t appointed by them. The chair was elected, — added Deputy Serhiy Kantor.

At the same time, Serhiy Kantor agreed that the proposed amendment could be considered but emphasized the need for its legal justification.

— This amendment needs a legal justification so that we don’t run into a problem, — noted Serhiy Kantor.

Fedir Panchenko stated that without a report from Hanna Montavon herself, the deputies do not have enough information to assess her performance.

— To assess satisfactory or good work results, the person should come and explain what they have done. If there are no explanations and they say they will not come and will not report, where will we get the information?, — said Deputy Fedir Panchenko.

Olena Kiselova in response pointed out that the results of the city council’s voting are effectively recorded in the session materials.

— The problem is that whatever we vote for, it will not be reflected anywhere except in the session, — said Olena Kiselova.

Fedir Panchenko replied with a critical remark about public assessment of work.

— They work for good visuals, for CVs — that’s where it will end up, — replied Fedir Panchenko.

The proposed amendment was supported by 21 deputies. During further discussion, Deputy Director of the Housing and Communal Services Department Ihor Nabatov emphasized that personnel changes in the supervisory board could matter for the ongoing operation of the enterprise itself.

— I wanted to add that, in fact, it doesn’t matter whether you vote with that wording or without it. It’s about the possibility of the enterprise continuing to operate as a whole. If we cannot make the necessary changes, a situation may arise in which part of the enterprise’s powers will be in question because one of the supervisory board members will not exercise their powers. There is a deputy, but how long will that continue?, — said Ihor Nabatov.

Dmytro Falko separately drew attention to the absence of an employment obligation in such relations.

— Besides, we don’t have an employment obligation here. A person performs duties for two weeks, and then we have no levers, — added Dmytro Falko.

During the discussion it was also mentioned that Hanna Montavon worked with the enterprise under a civil-law contract, not under an employment contract.

Serhiy Kantor insisted that the city council’s decision should reflect an assessment of the supervisory board chair’s work.

— We’re not against it. We want there to be consequences for the person. There were questions about the water utility, we listened to her, she said something… She spent our money, and the result is zero, — declared Serhiy Kantor.

Mayor Oleksandr Senkevych joined the discussion. He urged deputies not to turn the discussion of a personnel decision into a personal conflict and stressed the need to ensure the enterprise’s continued operation.

— It seems to me we’ve drifted from the purpose of the draft decision into some squabbles with an individual we are removing. We’re effectively making the enterprise a hostage of the decision. The main idea is the work of the enterprise; it is one of the first in Ukraine to go through this process, we’re in a pilot project. Corporatization doesn’t happen overnight. We tried it out. It’s a working process; if the person didn’t fit, they didn’t fit. We let them go and continued working. The essence of this decision is to dismiss one member of the board and appoint another, — said Mayor Oleksandr Senkevych.

A proposal was also put forward by Olena Kiselova. She drew attention to the need to revise the supervisory board regulations in the future, taking into account the board’s experience.

— The draft decision is sensible and appropriate. We are not examining the reasons why it happened; every person has the right to resign. There is a procedure: one person is replaced by another. Regarding the remarks that were made, that’s what Oleksandr Fedorovych is saying. We have regulations on the water utility’s supervisory board that we approved. If we want to take into account the experience gained in that short period of the board’s work, then we need to outline and refine those changes. Even if a crazy idea arises — if the person is under a civil-law contract and receives payments, but for disrespectful reasons resigns, I understand there may even be some recourse to recover payments made for their remuneration. But right now we are formalizing the replacement of one person by another so that the supervisory board can work, — said Olena Kiselova.

Deputy Andriy Yantar proposed to go even further — not just terminate Hanna Montavon‘s powers, but record a negative assessment of her work in the decision.

— And that’s it, let her go not of her own accord, but with a black mark, — said Andriy Yantar.

Oleksandr Senkevych in response urged deputies to refrain from emotional wording and return to the essence of the decision.

— It’s like who will publish first on Instagram that they divorced: a man who says he didn’t like her, or a woman who says the man is a fraudster. Let’s remove the emotions and get to the point, — replied Mayor Oleksandr Senkevych.

Before the vote, the mayor also said that the experience of this situation could be taken into account when further improving the supervisory board’s rules. In particular, he said that the regulations could be amended to require a board member to report when their powers are being terminated.

— We are writing history with you. We are creating a constitution of corporate governance, including for Ukraine. By the way, I checked — the supervisory board of the water utility in Lviv hasn’t dismissed anyone yet, so we were the first to try this out, — said Oleksandr Senkevych.

Although the amendment about unsatisfactory performance was supported by 21 deputies, the final draft decision to dismiss Hanna Montavon did not receive the required number of votes: 26 deputies voted in favor, and 4 abstained.

Thus, during this session the city council did not terminate the powers of the chair of the supervisory board of “Mykolaivvodokanal”. Separately, the question of assessing her work prompted a lengthy discussion about the city council’s powers, the legal formalization of a personnel decision, the civil-law nature of the contract, and the future operation of the enterprise itself.

Earlier the activity of the supervisory board of “Mykolaivvodokanal” was already considered by the city authorities. In particular, in April 2026 it was reported that the board consisted of 5 members, and the total monthly remuneration for their work amounted to UAH 177,500.

Previously we wrote:

• Who donated UAH 2.37 million — not specified: what was found in Hanna Montavon’s declaration
• “We’ll replace the networks for 20 years”: in Mykolaiv they again did not name the date when drinking water would appear
• Mold, toilets and “don’t breathe”: the city council showed the decline of “Mykolaivvodokanal”
• UAH 1.3 million for insurance: in Mykolaiv they want to protect the supervisory board of the water utility
• Supervisory board of Mykolaivvodokanal: 5 members, UAH 177.5k per month and the authority to dismiss the director