Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
MLA Report Card 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

MLA Report Card 2012

369
views

Published on

Know performance of Mumbai MLAs.

Know performance of Mumbai MLAs.


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
369
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • !) The weightage for Perception of Public Services was further divided into a hierarchy of 4 levels to meet the desired objective. Level 1 included facilities which are more critical to state government whereas Level 4 included facilities that are more critical to central government. Level 1 – This level included areas like Power supply, Law & Order situation & Instances of crime. It was given a weightage of 8 points Level 2 – This level included areas like Availability of food through ration shops & Pollution problems. It was given a weightage of 5 points Level 3 – This level included areas like Hospitals & other Medical facilities & Appropriate Schools & Colleges. It was given a weightage of 4 points Level 4 – This level included rest of the areas like Condition of Roads, Traffic Jams & Congestion, Availability of public gardens, Availability of public transport facilities, Water Supply, Water logging problems & Cleanliness & Sanitation facilities. It was given a weightage of 3 points 2) Broad Overall Measures : included opinions on Satisfaction with the MLA and Improvement in Lifestyle.
  • Individuals involved in developing this report card strongly believe that they cannot just wait and remain mute spectators when time is demanding action from them. All of them have come together to develop this report card with a over-arching belief in the Constitution of India and the opportunity it creates for improved and efficient governance – the mean towards achieving the high ideals of the constitution – Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The Four Lion Torch The four lions of the Ashoka Pillar, symbolizing power, courage, pride and confidence are the ethos behind the Indian Republic as embedded in our Constitution. They have topped the list by on an objective ranking system as explained earlier in this report card, performing more efficiently relative to their peers.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Parameters for Rating MLAs (1/4) Parameter MarksPast1 8Present 2 52Perception (through an opinion poll of 14,561 people) 40Negative for new FIR cases after 2009 election 3 Minus 5Negative for pending Charge Sheet 3 Minus 5 Total 100RTI Data Source: 1 Election Commission of India’s Website; 2 Vidhan Bhavan andCity & Suburban Collector Offices; 3 Mumbai Police.2
    • 2. Parameters for Rating MLAs (3/4) Past Parameter (Marks)Education Qualification 1A minimum of 10th Pass - 1; if not – 0Income Tax 2!) Possessing PAN Card - 12) Disclosing income in affidavit – 1Criminal Record 5If 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 - 02) Other criminal cases than the above mentioned – 3 3
    • 3. Parameters for Rating MLAs (2/4) Present Parameter (Marks)Sessions Attended 10Based on percentage of attendance. 1) 100% to 91%- 10; 2) 90% to 76% - 8; 3) 75%to 61% -6; 4) 60% to 51% - 4; and 5) below 50% - 0Number of Questions Asked 16Against Group Percentage Rank.16 being the top most percentile and so on to the lowest for 1Importance of questions asked 21Weightage is given to issues raised through the questions depending on whether theybelong to the State List, Central List or are in the domain of Municipal Authority.In the aggregate scale (out of 100) the following weightage is given: Constituency(including City) gets 5; State gets 15; and National gets 1Total Local Area Development Funds Utilised during Dec2009 to 5March2012Calculation for the current financial year is done for the sanctioned fund of Rs. 3.75crore approved till March 2012.1) 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 4
    • 4. Importance of Question Step 1: Issues are given certain weightages depending on them being prime functions of the State Legislature or of the Municipal bodies or the Centre. Step 2: Further questions asked are categorised into:  City and Constituency based  State based  Nation based Based on the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Back Overall weightage is given in the ratio of 5:15:1 in the above categories. 5
    • 5. Parameters for Rating MLAs (4/4) Perception Parameter (Marks)Perception of Public Services 20Score on Public ServicesAwareness & Accessibility 6Score on Awareness amongst people about their representative, their political partyand ease of access to the representativeCorruption Index 10Score on perceived personal corruption of the representativeBroad Measures 4Score on overall satisfaction and improvement in quality of life 6
    • 6. 7
    • 7. Key Highlights of MLA RC 2012   2011 2012 Total Scores 1959.25 2034.84 Maximum Score 75.43 72.51 Minimum Score 47.01 53.73 Average Score 61.23 63.59 Spread 28.42 18.788
    • 8. Reasons for movement in ranks between years 2011 and 2012 MLA Name Party Rank 2012 Main Reason Rank 2011 Move Yogesh Amrutlal Sagar BJP 1 Questions Asked, Peoples Perception 4 3 Mangesh Sangle MNS 2 New Crimininal Record (FIR) 1 -1 Amin Amir Ali Patel INC 3 Attendance, Peoples Perception 10 7 Madhukar Balkrishna Chavan INC 4   7 3 Jagannath Achanna Shetty INC 5 Questions Asked 2 -3 Ramesh Singh Thakur INC 6 Questions Asked, Quality of Questions 12 6 Bala Dagdu Nandgaonkar MNS 7 Attendance 14 7 Subhash Rajaram Desai SS 8 Peoples Perception 6 -2 Kalidas Kolambkar INC 9 Peoples Perception 8 -1 Vinod Ghosalkar SS 10 Attendance 15 5 Milind Bhupal Kamble NCP 11   9 -2 Aslam Ramzan Ali Shaikh INC 12 Questions Asked, Quality of Questions 29 17 Rajhans Singh INC 13 Peoples Perception 25 12 Nawab Malik NCP 14 Questions Asked 5 -9 Sardar Tara Singh BJP 15 New Crimininal Record (Chargesheet) 3 -12 Mangal Prabhat Lodha BJP 16 Attendance 11 -5 Baldev  Basantsingh Khosa INC 17 Questions Asked, Quality of Questions 27 10 Krishnakumar Shripad Hegde INC 18   20 2 Shishir Shinde MNS 19 Questions Asked 31 12 Ravindra Dattaram Waikar SS 20   17 -3 Ramchandra Kadam MNS 21 Questions Asked 30 9 Ashok Bhau Jadhav INC 22 Questions Asked 13 -9 Annie  Sitambalam Shekhar INC 23 Quality of Question 21 -2 Pravin Darekar MNS 24   19 -5 Gopal Shetty BJP 25 Quality of Question 22 -3 Abu Asim Azmi SP 26 Attendance, Quality of Question 26 0 Prakash Sawant SS 27 Attendance, Questions Asked 16 -11 Kripashankar Singh INC 28   23 -5 Nitin Sardesai MNS 29 Questions Asked 18 -11Sidikki Ziyauddin Abdul Rahim (Baba) INC 30 Attendance 28 -2 Prakash Manchhubhai Maheta BJP 31 Peoples Perception 32 1 Chandrakant Handore INC 32 Questions Asked, Attendance 24 -8
    • 9. Attend Question Quality Perceive Perceive Perceiv Crimin Rank Mo Score Mov ance s Asked of d d ed al ve eme Questio Perform Accessi Corrup Record me nt ns er bility tion nt MLA Name Scor es Ran Scores Ran Scores Ran Scores Ran Score Score Ran Score Ran (10) k (16) k (21) k (20) k s (6) Rank s (10) k s (5) k 2012 2011 2012 2011Yogesh Sagar 8 20 12.38 8 12.67 13 12.85 21 2.95 24 8.05 6 5 1 1 4 3 72.51 71.16 1.35Mangesh Sangle 8 20 15.47 2 12.44 19 13.51 13 3.90 9 7.95 7 0 16 2 1 -1 72.15 75.43 -3.28Amin Patel 10 1 8.26 16 11.93 27 13.73 6 4.31 3 7.35 14 5 1 3 10 7 71.25 62.53 8.72Madhukar Chavan 10 1 7.22 18 12.23 22 13.67 9 4.28 5 7.47 12 5 1 4 7 3 71.01 67.82 3.19Jagannath Shetty 10 1 6.19 20 12.01 26 14.09 2 4.01 7 6.96 28 5 1 5 2 -3 69.00 71.46 -2.46Ramesh Thakur 8 20 7.73 17 12.65 15 13.89 3 3.16 20 7.70 8 5 1 6 12 6 68.59 62.17 6.43Bala Nandgaonkar 10 1 16.00 1 12.71 12 14.38 1 3.76 11 6.38 30 -7 29 7 14 7 66.98 61.96 5.02Subhash Desai 10 1 14.96 3 12.98 4 12.34 26 3.44 18 7.25 20 -5 20 8 6 -2 66.53 68.33 -1.80Kalidas Kolambkar 10 1 3.60 25 12.84 9 13.02 20 3.77 10 7.55 10 5 1 9 8 -1 66.47 65.88 0.59Vinod Ghosalkar 10 1 13.92 5 12.77 10 13.13 17 3.56 17 7.35 14 -5 20 10 15 5 66.37 61.39 4.99Milind Kamble 10 1 2.58 26 12.95 5 13.49 15 3.05 21 8.13 3 5 1 11 9 -2 65.23 64.46 0.77Aslam Shaikh 10 1 9.79 13 12.99 3 12.25 27 3.63 16 7.49 11 -2 17 12 29 17 64.62 54.71 9.91Rajhans Singh 8 20 4.13 23 11.75 29 13.26 16 2.44 30 9.10 1 5 1 13 25 12 64.23 56.63 7.60Nawab Malik 10 1 2.58 26 12.95 5 13.11 18 2.85 25 7.12 23 5 1 14 5 -9 64.07 69.27 -5.20Sardar Tara Singh 10 1 12.90 7 12.47 17 13.65 11 3.98 8 6.19 31 -5 20 15 3 -12 63.91 71.22 -7.30 10
    • 10. Attend Question Quality Perceive Perceive Perceiv Crimin Rank M Score Mo ance s Asked of d d ed al ov ve Questio Perform Accessi Corrup Record e me ns er bility tion m nt en t MLA Name Scor es Ran Scores Ran Scores Ran Scores Ran Score Score Ran Score Ran (10) k (16) k (21) k (20) k s (6) Rank s (10) k s (5) k 2012 2011 2012 2011Mangal PrabhatLodha 8 20 11.34 10 12.77 11 12.45 25 3.00 23 7.31 18 -2 17 16 11 -5 63.52 62.47 1.05Baldev Khosa 8 20 1.54 29 12.04 24 12.71 22 5.13 1 8.05 4 5 1 17 27 10 63.20 55.13 8.07KrishnakumarHegde 10 1 4.13 23 12.92 7 10.90 32 2.05 32 7.38 13 5 1 18 20 2 62.59 59.03 3.56Shishir Shinde 8 20 10.83 11 12.66 14 13.66 10 4.15 6 7.63 9 -5 20 19 31 12 62.51 52.18 10.33Ravindra Waikar 10 1 14.45 4 12.87 8 11.62 30 2.81 27 7.04 24 -7 29 20 17 -3 62.35 60.58 1.77Ramchandra Kadam 10 1 11.86 9 12.46 18 12.63 24 3.69 12 7.34 17 -7 29 21 30 9 62.10 52.97 9.13Ashok Bhau Jadhav 10 1 5.66 21 11.78 28 13.73 6 4.31 3 7.35 14 -2 17 22 13 -9 61.50 62.07 -0.56Annie Shekhar 8 20 1.02 30 13.33 1 13.56 12 3.35 19 7.24 21 5 1 23 21 -2 61.39 58.76 2.64Pravin Darekar 8 20 13.41 6 12.51 16 12.71 22 5.13 1 8.05 4 -10 32 24 19 -5 60.54 59.33 1.21Gopal Shetty 10 1 9.28 14 12.09 23 13.75 4 3.64 13 7.01 25 -5 20 25 22 -3 60.52 58.73 1.79Abu Asim Azmi 10 1 6.70 19 13.23 2 13.75 4 3.64 13 7.01 25 -5 20 26 26 0 60.08 56.13 3.95Prakash Sawant 6 30 10.32 12 12.40 20 13.70 8 2.52 29 8.33 2 -5 20 27 16 -11 59.16 60.61 -1.45Kripashankar Singh 6 30 2.06 28 11.74 30 13.05 19 3.03 22 7.31 19 5 1 28 23 -5 58.93 58.09 0.84Nitin Sardesai 10 1 8.77 15 12.27 21 11.62 31 2.15 31 6.98 27 -5 20 29 18 -11 57.36 59.59 -2.23Ziyauddin Sidikki 10 1 0.51 31 10.45 32 12.02 28 2.83 26 5.86 32 5 1 30 28 -2 57.11 54.90 2.21Prakash Maheta 8 20 5.15 22 12.01 25 13.50 14 3.63 15 7.19 22 -5 20 31 32 1 55.33 47.01 8.32ChandrakantHandore 6 30 0.00 32 11.25 31 11.92 29 2.68 28 6.69 29 5 1 32 24 -8 53.73 57.27 -3.54 11
    • 11. MLA Name Total Question MLA Name Total QuestionAbu Asim Azmi 157 Mangesh Eknath Sangle 923Amin Amir Ali Patel 296 Milind Bhupal Kamble 38Annie  Sitambalam Shekhar 24 Nawab Malik 38Ashok Bhau Jadhav 136 Nitin Vijaykumar Sardesai 337Aslam Ramzan Ali Shaikh 422 Prakash Manchhubhai Maheta 117Ziyauddin Abdul Rahim Sidikki  22 Prakash (Bala) Vasant Sawant 424Baldev  Basantsingh Khosa 27 Pravin Yashwanr Darekar 681Bala Dagdu Nandgaonkar 1165 Rajhans Dhananjay Singh 77Chandrakant Handore 8 Ramchandra Shivaji Kadam 515Gopal Chinaiya Shetty 392 Ramesh Singh Thakur 270Jagannath Achanna Shetty 137 Ravindra Dattaram Waikar 750Kalidas Nilkanth Kolambkar 74 Sardar Tara Singh 645Kripashankar Singh 35 Shishir Krishnarao Shinde 455Krishnakumar Shripad Hegde 77 Subhash Rajaram Desai 868Mangal Prabhat Lodha 486 Vinod Ramchandra Ghosalkar 716Madhukar Balkrishna Chavan 191 Yogesh Sagar 546 12 Total 11049
    • 12. Total Score Average Rank Average ScorePolitical Party Name Inc. Inc. Inc. 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 (%) (%) (%) BJP (5) 311 316 1.67 14 18 22.22 62.12 63.16 1.67 INC (14) 846 894 5.57 18 16 -10.84 60.46 63.83 5.57 MNS (6) 361 382 5.59 19 17 -9.73 60.24 63.61 5.59 NCP (2) 134 129 -3.31 7 13 78.57 66.87 64.65 -3.31 SP (1) 56 60 7.04 26 26 0.00 56.13 60.08 7.04 SS (4) 251 254 1.40 14 16 20.37 62.72 63.60 1.40 13

    ×