Why we need to monitor our Elected Representatives (ER’s)
Steady decline in the quality of governance in the last three decades.
Growing frustration amongst citizens.
Elections – the only time when citizens get a ‘real’ say.
Looking at the growing deficiency in governance and the increasing needs of the citizens, Praja has decided to come out with a document to keep track of the performance of the ERs on an ongoing basis.
This report card can also become the basis of a constructive dialogues between citizens, ERs & government.
The Constitution as a Basis for monitoring of Elected Representatives
ERs derive their powers for functioning through the Constitution.
They are mandated to Attend Sessions, Raise people’s Issues, Debate, Participate in Discussions and Pass legislations.
The Constitution, in particular, the 1 2 th Schedule of the Constitution that was introduced through the 73 rd and 74 th Amendments of the Constitution, and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act, 1888, defines the powers and rules of functioning of the Municipal Councillors , hence only the Constitution & the MMC Act can provide the parameters for their monitoring.
Parameters for Rating Municipal Councillors (1/4) RTI Data Source : 1 Municipal Secretary , MCGM (MCGM Head Office and BEST) and Assistant Engineer (Maintenance), MCGM (from all the 24 Administrative Wards of MCGM); 2 Election Commission Department, MCGM; 3 Mumbai Police. Period under consideration – April 2010 to March 2011 Parameter Marks Past 1 7 Present 2 63 Perception (through an opinion poll of 28,707 people) 30 Negative for new FIR cases after 2007 election 3 Minus 5 Negative for pending Charge Sheet 3 Minus 5 Total 100
Parameters for Rating Municipal Councillors (2/4) Back Past Parameter (Marks) Education Qualification A minimum of 10th Pass - 1; if not – 0 1 Income Tax Possessing PAN Card – 1 1 Criminal Record If the candidate has zero cases registered against her/him, then 5; else as below: 1) Criminal Cases Registered containing the following charges: Murder, Rape, Molestation, Riot, Extortion - 0 2) Other criminal cases than the above mentioned – 3 5
Parameters for Rating Municipal Councillors (3/4) Back Present Parameter (Marks) Sessions Attended Based on percentage of attendance in the General Body Meeting, Ward Committee and various committees such as Standing, Works, Improvements, etc. 15 Number of Questions Asked Based on percentile. Highest getting 15 and so on to the lowest. 15 Importance of questions asked Based on questions asked related to Obligatory duties , Discretionary duties as per the Mumbai Municipal Act, 1888 or based on subjects under the power of State/Central governments. 18 Issues raised compared to Citizen's Complaints Based on issues raised by councillors compared with complaints of citizens as collated by the corporation for all the 24 administrative wards. 10 Total Local Area Development Funds Utilised during April’2010 to March'2011 Calculation is done on the amount spent of the total Rs. 35 lakhs. 1) 100% (or more) to 91%- 5; 2) 90% to 76% - 4; 3) 75% to 61% -3; 4) 60% to 51% - 2; and 5) below 50% - 0 5
Parameters for Rating Municipal Councillors (4/4) Perception Parameter (Marks) Perception of Public Services Score on Public Services 11 Awareness & Accessibility Score on Awareness amongst people about their representative, their political party and ease of access to the representative 5 Corruption Index Score on perceived personal corruption of the representative 7 Broad Measures Score on overall satisfaction and improvement in quality of life 7
Ranking pages of Municipal Councillors Grade A – Between 100% to 80% Grade B – Less than 80% to 70% Grade C – Less than 70% to 60% Grade D – Less than 60% to 50% Grade E – Less than 50% to 35% Grade F – Less than 35%
Interesting facts from the Mumbai Report Card Municipal Councillors 2011 ( Period under consideration – April 2010 to March 2011)