In the Kaluga region, the deputy of the Maloyaroslavets district assembly, associated with the Communist Party, Alexander Lependin, became the focus of attention after not rising during a state anthem performance. Authorities promptly summoned him to the local military enlistment office for an ethics commission review, an action described as a data verification step and part of standard procedural checks. A regional official confirmed that the subpoena was issued to verify personal data, including address and dependents, and to assess eligibility for service under a contract. The deputy himself indicated to media outlets that the purpose of the visit on March 15 was to confirm details and to review possible medical constraints that might affect readiness for service. He stated that, despite the notification from the military commissioners, he would not be eligible for service due to health concerns, and he noted that the inquiry was routine rather than punitive.
According to Lependin, the ethics committee had already convened on the matter, with a decision expected within about a month. He expressed doubt that the review would result in his removal from office, suggesting that the outcome would instead be a form of censorship or political pressure rather than a punitive measure. Earlier in the year, when the situation first arose, Lependin publicly asserted that he would not resign from his post amidst the controversy. He also flagged potential defences through legal channels and indicated that he might document the proceedings for accountability. Commentary from the period emphasized that the deputy anticipated a political rather than a personal consequence, aligning the event with broader tensions between the regional administration and opposition voices. The deputy also reflected on the conversation with media outlets that covered the incident and suggested that the response might hinge on political strategy as much as on legal or health considerations.
Lependin later explained that he did not foresee any animosity from those present during the incident, noting that attendees did not challenge his explanation. He cited medical reasons for his inability to stand, including leg impairments he claimed were disclosed in his medical documentation. He wondered aloud how regional authorities would respond to such medical notes and questioned whether local officials would enforce or challenge his explanations through official channels or law enforcement. He asserted that the situation involved a broader controversy tied to his stance on the administration and the opposition, and he hinted at pressure from a local hospital chief who held public influence. The deputy described his stance as part of a larger pattern where opposition voices faced scrutiny from the leadership in the district.
Community accounts on the incident were first shared by a local information center on a social platform, which highlighted that Lependin remained seated during the national anthem while Vyacheslav Parfenov, the district head administrator, presided over the event. The notice stressed that listeners are expected to stand for the anthem and that rules also require men to remove hats. The post suggested the potential for fines under relevant regulations, though it noted that medical conditions could legally justify not standing during the anthem. A separate media interview attributed to Lependin clarified that his decision was due to congested legs from a prior training session rather than a political stance. He described a day of intense leg exercise and suggested that his physical condition at the moment of the ceremony prevented full participation. He asserted that Acts of remembrance for fallen soldiers had occurred in that setting, but he framed his own conduct as non-defamatory and respectful overall.
Parfyonov, the district head administrator, contested Lependin’s account, stating that the deputy had attended the meeting on foot, and suggested that if physical discomfort prevented attendance, it would be reasonable to abstain from attendance at the report. Parfyonov argued that the deputy’s minutes of silence in memory of soldiers involved in special operations could be seen as an attempt to avoid discrediting troops, and he implied that the deputy’s actions reflected a broader pattern of disagreement with the ruling party and authorities. The district head pledged to pursue the matter through the courts if necessary, indicating a belief that Lependin’s conduct warranted legal scrutiny and accountability. The overall narrative reflected a clash between political factions, concerns about procedural integrity, and the personal dimensions of public service in a regional context.
Overall, the episode underscores tensions between regional leadership and opposition voices, raising questions about procedural fairness, medical exemptions, and the role of political discourse in public life. The incident continues to be a reference point for discussions about how officials balance personal health considerations with civic duties and how such events influence public perception of governance in the district. The involved parties faced a moment of reputational testing as the ethics review progressed, with observers watching closely for how the administration would respond to findings and what precedent might be set for future accountability measures.