Analysis of the Draft Law:
Greetings. As a lawyer specializing in administrative and cultural legislation, I have analyzed the submitted draft Law on Amending the Law of Ukraine “On the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation” (UCF). Below is a detailed breakdown.
### 1. Essence of the Draft Law
This project is aimed at optimizing the institutional structure and procedural mechanisms of the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation. Specifically, the draft law clarifies the powers of the governing bodies (Supervisory Board and Directorate), introduces mechanisms for supporting long-term projects (from 12 to 36 months), and strengthens anti-corruption control over the activities of the Foundation’s management. The document also adapts internal procedures for expert selection and funding to modern transparency requirements.
### 2. Structure of the Project and Key Changes
The project introduces systemic amendments to the Law “On the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation” and corresponding amendments to the Law “On Prevention of Corruption.” Structurally, the changes cover:
* **Clarification of terminology:** The concept of “long-term project” has been introduced, and the definitions of “grant” and “project” have been updated.
* **Governing bodies:** Approaches to forming the Supervisory Board have been changed (in particular, regarding the representation of public associations), and the procedure for the early termination of the powers of the Head of the Foundation and members of the Supervisory Board has been clarified.
* **Funding procedures:** The possibility of financing projects in tranches has been introduced, and the procedure for monitoring the use of funds has been changed.
* **Anti-corruption block:** Members of the Supervisory Board and the UCF Directorate are officially included in the list of subjects covered by the Law “On Prevention of Corruption.”
### 3. Main Provisions for Experts, Business, and Citizens
For stakeholders, the following aspects are the most important:
* **For business and grant recipients:** A legal possibility appears to implement long-term projects (up to 3 years), which will allow for the planning of more complex cultural products. Funding conditions have also been changed, emphasizing the possibility of co-financing with both residents and non-residents.
* **For legislators and experts:** The grounds for the early termination of the powers of Supervisory Board members have been significantly detailed, including “loss of trust” due to public displays of discrimination or propaganda for the aggressor state.
* **For the public:** Mandatory publication of project lists at all stages (submitted, those that passed technical selection, rating list, list of concluded contracts) is introduced, which increases the level of the Foundation’s accountability.
* **Anti-corruption safeguard:** An important change is the direct application of the requirements of the Law “On Prevention of Corruption” to members of the Supervisory Board, which aligns the requirements for them with other public officials and creates a clear mechanism for resolving conflicts of interest.
***
Analysis of the Explanatory Note:
Greetings. As a lawyer, I have analyzed the provided draft of amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation.” Here are the key points that will help you understand the essence and consequences of this document.
### 1. Essence of the Draft Law
This draft law is aimed at a comprehensive “reboot” of the managerial and procedural mechanisms of the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation’s (UCF) activities. The document proposes to clearly delineate the powers of governing bodies, optimize project competitive selection procedures, and introduce stricter anti-corruption standards for the Foundation’s management.
### 2. Why is its adoption sought?
In the opinion of the developers from the Ministry of Culture, the current law, adopted back in 2017, no longer meets modern challenges. The main motivation is to “plug the holes” in procedures:
* Current rules for electing the Supervisory Board and conducting online rating voting require improvement to avoid chaos and ensure the legitimacy of representatives.
* There is a legal vacuum regarding long-term project financing and actions in the event of the early termination of the powers of the Head of the Foundation.
* It is necessary to more clearly define “who is responsible for what” among the management (Directorate, Executive Director, Supervisory Board) to avoid competence conflicts.
### 3. Main Consequences for Stakeholders
For various influence groups, this project entails both regulatory stability and new obligations:
* **For business and cultural institutions:** The main achievement will be the creation of legal grounds for financing long-term projects, which will make it possible to plan work on a longer horizon than one fiscal year. A more transparent and understandable competitive selection process is also expected.
* **For citizens and the expert community:** Public control is strengthened. A mechanism is introduced for the early termination of the powers of Supervisory Board members if they perform their functions improperly.
* **For Foundation officials (Directorate and Supervisory Board):** This is the most important aspect — these individuals officially become subjects covered by the Law “On Prevention of Corruption.” This means stricter control over their activities, mandatory declaration, and personal responsibility for corruption risks.
In summary, this is a technical but extremely important “repair” of the Foundation’s legislative framework, which aims to make its work less vulnerable to managerial crises and corruption risks.
***
Analysis of Other Documents:
### 1. The Author’s Position on the Draft Law
The author of the project is the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, represented by Prime Minister Serhiy Koretskyi, which indicates full official support for this legislative initiative by the government. The government views these changes as a necessary tool for modernizing the activities of the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation (UCF), strengthening anti-corruption mechanisms, and optimizing the processes of financing cultural projects.
### 2. Main Provisions of the Draft Law
This draft law is a comprehensive step toward transforming UCF management. For different stakeholder groups, I have highlighted the key changes to note:
* **For business and applicants:** Clear definitions of the concepts of “grant,” “project,” and “long-term project” (for a term of up to 36 months) are introduced. An important innovation is the possibility of co-financing projects with the participation of both residents and non-residents, which opens new opportunities for attracting investments in creative industries.
* **For experts and the public:** The procedure for forming the Supervisory Board is changing. Transparent online rating voting is introduced to elect representatives of cultural institutions and public associations. Stricter requirements regarding active experience over the last two years have been established for candidates.
* **Anti-corruption block:** The requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption” are extended to members of the Supervisory Board and the UCF Directorate. A clear mechanism for the early termination of the powers of Supervisory Board members due to “loss of trust” is introduced, which includes acts of discrimination, actions in favor of the aggressor state, or cooperation with it.
* **For legislators and regulatory bodies:** The role of the Supervisory Board in managing the Foundation is strengthened, particularly through mandatory approval of Directorate decisions on projects the cost of which exceeds 150 minimum wages. An audit of UCF activities can now be initiated by both the Supervisory Board and the relevant ministry, but no more than once a year.
* **Operational activity:** The Executive Director is granted powers regarding the appointment of deputies and the management of current activities, while the term of the contract with the Executive Director is clearly limited to 5 years. Priority areas of the Foundation’s activities must now be coordinated with the relevant ministry by October 1 of each year.
Overall, the project appears to be an attempt to balance the Foundation’s autonomy with the requirements of state financial control and public accountability. I recommend paying special attention to the transitional provisions, which oblige the Cabinet of Ministers to bring all regulatory acts into compliance with these changes within six months, which will require operational work by the government apparatus.
