During the days of Rosh Hashanah, Uman recalled the mayor: the first such case in Ukraine

In Uman, a mechanism that had existed in Ukrainian legislation for many years was activated, but it had never reached such a result before. Residents initiated the procedure to recall the city mayor, collected the necessary number of signatures, the territorial election commission verified them, and the party from which the mayor ran for election made the final decision.

As of September 8, 2026, Iryna Pletnyova, who led Uman for almost six years, is no longer the city mayor. This is the first case in Ukraine where the legally provided procedure for recalling a mayor by popular initiative has gone all the way to the termination of powers.

For Israel, this story coincided with a special moment. The decision was made literally before Rosh Hashanah 5787, when tens of thousands of Jewish pilgrims were already arriving in Uman. By September 11, their number reached approximately 50,000 people. It turned out to be unusual: during one of the most challenging periods of the year for the city, Uman was left without an elected mayor and came under the leadership of an acting official.

Author: אנטון פשדינסקי

What is Uman and how is the mayor elected there

From Israel, Uman is most often seen through the neighborhood around the tomb of Rabbi Nachman and the annual pilgrimage on Rosh Hashanah. But Uman itself is much larger than this area. It is the administrative center of the Uman district in the southwest of the Cherkasy region, almost in the central part of Ukraine. The city lies on the important Kyiv — Odesa route; it is about 210 kilometers to Kyiv by road.

The Uman city territorial community includes Uman itself and the village of Polyanecke. The state decentralization portal indicates 77,624 residents and an area of 67.2 square kilometers for it.

Meanwhile, the part of Uman that tens of thousands of Israeli pilgrims see annually occupies only a few blocks.

The tomb of Rabbi Nachman (here it is on Google Maps https://maps.app.goo.gl/vJWfvqJfT81huqjb9 ) is located at the current official address of Hryhoriy Kosynka Street, 1. In 2025, the site received the status of a national monument.

Geographically, this is not the outskirts of the city, but neither is it its administrative center. Sobornosti Square, the city hall, and the main city institutions are located to the west. The tomb is located approximately a kilometer east-southeast of Uman’s central square, in the direction of the Sofiyivka Park.

Therefore, the pilgrimage quarter can be imagined as a separate zone adjacent to the central part of the city.

Its core is very compact. Within a radius of several hundred meters from the tomb are concentrated synagogues, prayer rooms, mikvahs, hotels, guest houses, rental apartments, shops, and kosher kitchens. The main life of the pilgrims revolves around Hryhoriy Kosynka and Tourists Streets, as well as the adjacent streets of Volodymyr Monomakh and Mykola Leontovych Lane.

Tourists Street is well known to many Israelis by its old name Pushkin Street. The former Belinsky Street is now called Hryhoriy Kosynka Street. The old names still live in the conversations of pilgrims, carriers, and property owners.

From the tomb of Rabbi Nachman to Tourists Street is only a few dozen meters. Therefore, this area effectively becomes the center of all life on Rosh Hashanah.

During the holiday, tens of thousands of visitors do not spread evenly across Uman. Most try to settle as close to the tomb as possible. As a result, an area of just a few blocks turns into almost a separate city within a city.

Here people move around the clock, temporary dining and kosher points operate, prayer halls are open, and dances and festive gatherings take place on the streets. Housing near the tomb fills up first, and the load on water, cleaning, roads, and security sharply increases.

During Rosh Hashanah, the transport scheme also changes. In 2026, from September 4 to 17, a special entry and movement regime operates in Uman. Additional checkpoints are in place for transport, some streets are closed, and direct car access to the tomb area is restricted.

For pilgrims arriving from the M-05 Kyiv — Odesa highway, entry is organized through controlled directions. Many walk the last few hundred meters to the central pilgrimage zone.

If you greatly simplify the map for the Israeli reader, it looks like this: Sobornosti Square and the city hall are to the west, the tomb of Rabbi Nachman is about a kilometer to the east, and the main mass of pilgrims lives and celebrates around Tourists and Hryhoriy Kosynka Streets.

This is why the arrival of 40–50 thousand people so significantly changes life in Uman. With a permanent community population of about 77 thousand people, the city effectively gains the population of a small Israeli city for a few days — and almost all of it is concentrated in a very small area.

This is important for understanding the role of the mayor. In normal times, the city government deals with utilities, roads, schools, hospitals, and the budget. On Rosh Hashanah, this is supplemented by street closures, cleaning, water supply, sanitation, trade, the work of emergency services, and coordination with Ukrainian police, rescuers, and Israeli structures.

And against this background, it becomes clearer why the story with the mayoral elections looks unusual.

77 thousand residents — this is not 77 thousand voters and certainly not 77 thousand participants in the voting. This figure includes children and other residents who do not have the right to vote, and some voters simply do not come to the polls.

In the 2020 Uman mayoral elections, 18,233 people participated. Their votes were distributed among several candidates.

In Ukraine, the city mayor is elected directly by the residents, separately from the city council deputies. At the same time, the system in effect in 2020 depended not on the total population but on the number of voters in the community.

For communities with fewer than 75 thousand voters, a relative majority system was in place: the one who received more votes than each of the opponents won. It was not necessary to gain 50%.

In communities with 75 thousand voters or more, an absolute majority system was applied. If no one received more than half of the votes, the two leaders went to a runoff.

Therefore, Iryna Pletnyova legally became the mayor of Uman in 2020, receiving 6,074 votes — 33.3% of those who voted. Her closest competitor received 4,156 votes, the next one — 3,837. Pletnyova took first place, and a second round was not required under the rules in effect at the time.

For the Israeli reader, the difference is noticeable here. In Israel, a candidate for the head of local authority must receive not only more votes than competitors but also at least 40% of the valid votes. If no one reaches this threshold, the two leaders go to a runoff.

Therefore, Pletnyova’s result of 33.3%, sufficient for victory in Uman, would mean a second round in Israel.

Pletnyova ran from the party “Za Maybutnye” — “For the Future”. In its current form, this political force was formed in 2020 around a parliamentary group of the same name in the Verkhovna Rada and made a noticeable bet on regional candidates and local councils.

In Uman, alongside Pletnyova was another important politician — People’s Deputy Anton Yatsenko.

Before being elected mayor, Pletnyova was listed as his assistant-consultant, and Yatsenko himself headed the “Za Maybutnye” list in the Uman city council elections.

A few years later, former political allies would find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict.

And those very 6,074 votes that brought Pletnyova to power in 2020 would become one of the main figures in the procedure for her recall six years later.

How can a mayor be recalled in Ukraine

A city mayor cannot be removed by a simple petition, internet voting, or because several deputies declared their work unsatisfactory.

The recall procedure by popular initiative is provided for by Article 79 of the Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Government” and goes through several mandatory stages.

First, a meeting of voters must take place. It adopts a proposal for recall and creates an initiative group. Then this group collects signatures. The territorial election commission verifies them. If the required number of valid signatures is not present or the procedure is violated to the extent that the result cannot be recognized, the process ends there.

But even a sufficient number of signatures does not automatically mean that the mayor immediately loses office.

Here the Ukrainian system takes an unusual turn. If the city mayor was elected as an independent candidate, the city council decides the issue. If a party nominated the candidate, the materials are transferred to the highest governing body of that party.

Pletnyova had the second option: she was nominated by “Za Maybutnye”.

Who initiated Pletnyova’s recall

Legally, the procedure was initiated by the voters of Uman themselves.

On July 26, 2026, a meeting of residents of the Uman city territorial community took place, where participants supported the proposal to recall Iryna Pletnyova and created an initiative group to collect signatures.

But the political story began earlier.

One of the most active public supporters of the recall was Anton Yatsenko. As early as June, he spoke about the need to launch the procedure, reported on the preparation of the initiative group, and invited residents to join the organization.

Before the meeting itself, Yatsenko also publicly urged Uman residents to come and participate.

Therefore, it is important to distinguish two things here. Formally, the procedure was launched by a meeting of voters. Politically, Yatsenko was one of the main people who publicly promoted and organized it.

This was already an open conflict of former allies.

Pletnyova later said that Yatsenko was trying to regain lost influence over the city council. The People’s Deputy himself rejected such an interpretation and claimed that he was merely supporting the right of residents to use the mechanism provided by law.

Why did residents sign for the recall

The organizers of the campaign spoke not about one problem. Complaints accumulated around several areas of the city government’s work.

Among them were the cost of water and utilities, city transport, the state of the water supply system, the work of educational institutions, and decisions on municipal property.

Separately, the issue of closing during the war seven kindergartens and two preschool units was raised. Residents who supported the recall asked why the city could not maintain their operation or equip the necessary shelters.

Pletnyova responded that some problems arose long before she came to the city hall. This was especially true for water.

Uman does not have a sufficient underground source of its own and receives water from about 136 kilometers away. Transportation, infrastructure, and energy costs affect the cost price, so it is impossible to reduce the entire tariff to one decision of the city mayor.

There is also another topic here — Pletnyova’s foreign trips.

Opponents used them as an argument in the debate about what the city government should be doing during the war. Yatsenko publicly criticized the mayor’s foreign trips, and in February 2026, the issue reached an official deputy request about the trips.

Earlier, at the end of 2025, Yatsenko also sharply criticized Pletnyova’s trip to California. She herself presented foreign work as diplomatic and working contacts of the city.

For the Israeli reader, a particularly careful explanation is required here because among Pletnyova’s trips was an official visit to Israel in July 2024.

To present it simply as a vacation or tourist “voyage” would be incorrect.

A delegation from Uman, headed by the city mayor, arrived in Israel. City representatives visited the Knesset, met with Israeli politicians, and discussed topics directly related to Uman: the annual pilgrimage, security, the development of the area around Rabbi Nachman’s tomb, and the “Little Jerusalem” project.

Among the meetings were contacts with Minister of Culture and Sports Miki Zohar, Minister of Religious Services Michael Malkieli, Minister of Internal Affairs Moshe Arbel, Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Minister of Economy Nir Barkat.

For the mayor of Uman, working interaction with Israel itself looks quite explainable. Every year, the city receives tens of thousands of predominantly Israeli pilgrims. The municipality has to coordinate transport, sanitation issues, security, and the work of emergency services with Israeli diplomats, police, and religious structures.

The Israeli direction continued literally until the last days of Pletnyova’s tenure.

On August 31, 2026, about a week before her powers ended, she met in Uman with the Israeli ambassador to Ukraine, Roi Rosenblit. The parties discussed cooperation and joint initiatives.

Therefore, it is more correct to write not that Pletnyova was “recalled for trips to Israel.” The initiators criticized her foreign trips in general, and the confirmed visit to Israel had an official program and was related to the specifics of Uman itself.

It is no less important to separate political claims from proven violations. Land, budget, kindergartens, tariffs, trips — all this figured in the public debate around the mayor. But the mere participation of these topics in the recall campaign does not mean the presence of a court decision on Pletnyova’s wrongdoing.

The people’s recall is a mechanism of political and legal responsibility. A criminal conviction is not required to initiate it.

From 6,710 signatures to the required threshold

After the meeting on July 26, the formal stage began.

Signatures were collected from July 29 to August 17. The initiative group submitted 6,710 signatures to the territorial election commission.

On September 7, the commission completed the verification. 6,421 signatures were recognized as valid, 289 were not counted due to identified problems with the documentation and other grounds.

Thus, the commission accepted almost 96% of the submitted signatures.

Here is a small but important legal clarification.

After the announcement of the results, many reports used the formula: Pletnyova received 6,074 votes in the elections, therefore, 6,074 signatures were required for the recall.

But Article 79 of the law is formulated differently.

The number of signatures must exceed the number of votes by which the city mayor was elected.

Pletnyova received 6,074 votes. Therefore, the minimum threshold was 6,075 valid signatures.

The commission confirmed 6,421.

It turns out that the necessary minimum was exceeded by 346 signatures.

And this is one of the most interesting features of the whole story. In 2020, relatively low turnout and votes fragmented among candidates were enough for Pletnyova to become mayor with 6,074 votes. Six years later, the law used this very result as a benchmark for her possible recall.

Why 6,421 signatures did not yet mean automatic dismissal

After verification, the commission could not simply announce: “the mayor is removed.”

Pletnyova was elected from the “Za Maybutnye” party, so the issue had to be transferred to its highest governing body.

This is where the structure of the Ukrainian procedure differs significantly from the intuitive scheme “residents voted — the mayor left.”

Residents launch the mechanism. The initiative group collects signatures. The commission verifies them and determines whether the legislative threshold has been overcome. But in the case of a party candidate, the final legal point is made by the political force that nominated this candidate.

On September 8, 2026, in Kyiv, the “Za Maybutnye” congress supported the recall of Iryna Pletnyova.

From this day, her powers ceased.

Therefore, the phrase “Uman residents recalled the mayor” essentially conveys the meaning of what happened, but legally it simplifies the procedure a bit. It would be more accurate to say: voters initiated the recall and collected the necessary number of signatures, the commission confirmed the result, and the final decision was made by the party.

NAnews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency

Why this is called the first such case in Ukraine

Ukrainian mayors have previously ended their work prematurely. Some left on their own, in other cases conflicts with councils arose, or other grounds provided by law were in effect.

The Uman story differs in mechanism.

Here the procedure began precisely from below — with a meeting of voters and the collection of signatures. Then it passed the verification of the territorial commission and reached the party’s decision.

Therefore, it is more accurate to say not “in Ukraine, a mayor was removed for the first time,” but “in Ukraine, for the first time, the procedure for recalling a city mayor by popular initiative was successfully brought to the termination of powers”.

And this is what makes Uman a precedent for other Ukrainian cities.

But behind the “popular initiative” there is also a political conflict

Reducing what happened solely to a story about dissatisfied residents would be too simple.

Anton Yatsenko and Irina Pletneva were previously in the same political system. She was his assistant, then became a candidate from ‘For the Future’, and Yatsenko himself headed the list of this political force in the city council.

By 2026, the alliance had dissolved.

Yatsenko actively supported the recall. Pletneva responded that the deputy was trying to regain control over city politics.

That is why 6421 signatures cannot be ignored — they passed verification and exceeded the threshold set by law. But the other side cannot be ignored either: the procedure unfolded against the backdrop of a serious struggle for influence in Uman.

This does not cancel the people’s initiative. It just makes the story significantly more complicated than the beautiful formula ‘citizens got tired and removed the mayor’.

Pletneva goes to court: can she regain her position

For Irina Pletneva, the decision of the ‘For the Future’ congress was not necessarily the final point. She stated that she intends to challenge both the conclusions of the territorial election commission and the subsequent decision of the party on the recall.

According to her version, violations could have arisen even during the collection of signatures: some of them were allegedly collected by people not part of the initiative group, among the signatories could be residents without the corresponding right to vote, and in one case, the data of a person who died in 2025 appeared. So far, this is Pletneva’s position, not facts established by the court.

For the court, the main thing will not be the mere presence of claims, but how much the violations could have affected the outcome of the procedure. The law does not require checking every signature: the commission must selectively check at least 10% of the array. Therefore, the argument that only part of the signatures was checked is insufficient in itself.

The key arithmetic is simple. A minimum of 6075 valid signatures was required for the recall, the commission recognized 6421. To lower the result below the established threshold, Pletneva needs to achieve the exclusion of at least 347 already counted signatures.

But the dispute may not only be about numbers. If the court establishes serious violations of the procedure itself — in the creation of the initiative group, the collection of signatures, their verification, or the formulation of decisions — this can also become a basis for canceling the commission’s decisions.

Pletneva separately claimed that she did not receive the documents from the TEC before the party congress and could not fully prepare an appeal to the court. She may also question the legality of the subsequent party decision, as it was the one that ultimately terminated her powers.

The mere fact of filing a lawsuit does not return her to the position. Until the decisions are overturned by the court, Rostislav Zavoloka remains acting city head.

Theoretically, Pletneva can ask the court for temporary relief of the lawsuit — for example, to suspend the effect of the disputed decisions until the end of the proceedings. But the court is not obliged to satisfy such a request.

If the decisions of the TEC and the party remain in force, the recall will be final. However, if the court recognizes the procedure as illegal and cancels the grounds for termination of powers, Pletneva can theoretically seek reinstatement without new elections.

That is why the Uman story can already create a second precedent: the first — a successful recall of the mayor by popular initiative, the second — a judicial response to the question of what happens if such a completed procedure is then recognized as illegal.

Who now leads Uman

The personnel story here coincided with the recall almost day to day.

On September 7, the former secretary of the Uman City Council, Ekaterina Tereshchenko, resigned voluntarily. The deputies elected Rostislav Zavoloka, the head of the ‘Servant of the People’ faction in the city council, as the new secretary.

There is an interesting detail: his candidacy was proposed by Irina Pletneva herself.

After the termination of the city head’s powers, it is the council secretary who assumes his functions. Therefore, Zavoloka now leads Uman.

Under normal conditions, after the early termination of powers, the question of extraordinary elections should arise. The law provides for an appeal to the Verkhovna Rada with a petition for their appointment.

But Ukraine is under martial law. Holding local government elections during this period is prohibited.

Therefore, electing a new mayor of Uman right now is impossible.

And the word ‘acting’ in such a situation can mean quite a long term.

Why all this is especially important to Israel right now

Uman occupies a completely unusual place in Israeli-Ukrainian relations.

Every Rosh Hashanah, tens of thousands of Jews, primarily followers of Breslov Hasidism, come here to pray at the grave of Rabbi Nachman.

In 2026, the political change of power coincided almost exactly with the beginning of this huge annual pilgrimage.

The decision to recall Pletneva was made on September 8. Rosh Hashanah 5787 began on the evening of September 11. By the middle of that day, about 50,000 pilgrims were already in Uman.

To understand the scale: this is more than half of the permanent population of the entire Uman community.

At such a moment, the question ‘who is now leading the city’ ceases to be a Ukrainian municipal detail.

Municipal authorities have to simultaneously deal with traffic and street closures, water, cleaning, trade, sanitation, safety, shelters, emergency services, and coordination with Ukrainian and Israeli structures.

NAnews has already reported how Israeli police officers arrived in Uman and began joint patrols with Ukrainian colleagues.

We also wrote about how representatives of the Breslov community thanked Ukraine for the opportunity to maintain the pilgrimage during the war.

And for Israelis who decided not to go to Ukraine this year, there appeared their own ‘alternative Uman’ near Kinneret.

Therefore, the change in city leadership occurred for Uman at perhaps the most difficult moment of the year: the temporary population increased by tens of thousands of people, and with it, the load on municipal services sharply increased.

What the Uman case changes for all of Ukraine

The institution of recalling the city head did not appear in September 2026. The law existed before.

Another thing has changed: now there is a real example of when this norm worked to the end.

Repeating the Uman path is not easy. It is necessary to gather a lawful assembly of voters, create an initiative group, meet deadlines, collect more valid signatures than the mayor once received votes, pass the territorial commission’s verification, and in the case of a party candidate — also achieve a decision from the party’s highest body.

Uman went through this chain.

But turning what happened into a perfectly clean story of direct democracy is also not worth it. Here simultaneously exist real dissatisfaction of part of the citizens, 6421 confirmed signatures, Pletneva’s political conflict with Yatsenko, intra-party struggle, and the former mayor’s claims to the procedure.

Now a court may be added to this.

However, one fact cannot be changed: the mechanism, which for years could be perceived almost as a theoretical norm of Ukrainian legislation, turned out to be working.

And this happened not just anywhere, but in Uman — a city that in these same days was hosting about 50,000 Jewish pilgrims.

Therefore, the story that began as a Ukrainian municipal conflict simultaneously became a political precedent for all of Ukraine and a quite practical issue for tens of thousands of Israelis.