Vilnius council's board dismissal decision faces backlash

A recent decision by Vilnius municipal administration to abruptly dismiss the supervisory boards of five city-controlled companies has ignited a firestorm of criticism, with opponents decrying the move as a unilateral action that jeopardizes years of work establishing professional and independent management.

The decision, which was initially slated for the end of October but faced significant backlash, prompted the administration's director, Adomas Bužinskas, to announce a retreat from the plan. However, critics argue that the very attempt to dissolve the boards creates a dangerous precedent. They question the meaning of board independence if such bodies can be dissolved by a single administrative decision just days before new regulations take effect.

Vytautas Mitalas, a vocal critic, expressed anger, stating, "Municipal companies are not private UABs where the owner can change boards one morning and only then inform others. These are the companies of Vilnius residents. They manage the property of Vilnius residents and provide the city with essential services daily."

“

Municipal companies are not private UABs where the owner can change boards one morning and only then inform others. These are the companies of Vilnius residents. They manage the property of Vilnius residents and provide the city with essential services daily.

Mitalas highlighted the decade-long effort to professionalize the management of these companies, recalling a time when they were rife with political appointments and unclear responsibilities. "We cleaned the boards of politically dependent individuals and sought people who would come to them not for a party ticket, but for their knowledge and experience," he said, emphasizing the difficulty in attracting business professionals to municipal roles previously seen as political influence zones.

The move is seen as sending a discouraging message to employees and potential professionals, suggesting that decisions can be made behind closed doors without consultation. This approach, critics argue, erodes trust and contradicts the goal of fostering competent, independent governance that prioritizes the city's interests and the efficient use of public funds.

“

We cleaned the boards of politically dependent individuals and sought people who would come to them not for a party ticket, but for their knowledge and experience.