No system foolproof, work should speak for itself

The Chandigarh Municipal Corporation is a represented by elected representatives. The  term of the MC House is for five years but the Mayor is elected is every year, which is inadequate to act upon the plans. Every Mayor envisages his or her own plans, delaying the ongoing projects, which results in cost overruns. Therefore, every Mayor should get at least two and a half years to effectively execute his ideas and ensure the completion of projects on time. 

SS Arora, Mohali

---

Mayor should have five-year tenure 

With an increase in the city population and stress on civic amenities, the one-year tenure is inadequate to meet the challenges. This delays ongoing projects due to a change in priorities with the replacement of the Mayor. Therefore, the Mayor should have a five-year tenure to achieve better results as far as civic amenities are concerned. Moreover, this will help fix accountability and increase official efficiency. 

Vidya Sagar Garg, Panchkula

---

Brief lead to corruption

Short tenure gives ample scope of corruption. A Mayor should have at least two and a half years. It’s unfortunate that projects initiated by one Mayor are discontinued by another. Hence, the tenure of the Mayor should be extended for the delivery of services on time.   

MPS Chadha, Mohali

---

Stay with present arrangement

Mayors from the biggest party in the MC House work like a dictator, ignoring valuable suggestions from their own party leaders and residents. They spend their quota of funds only on the development of their own wards while inaugurating other useless works, just to oblige members of the Finance and Contract Committee, which approves proposals. In such a situation, when a Mayor spends his quota of funds on development works in his own ward, his tenure should not be extended. 

AS Ahuja, Chandigarh      

---

One-year term inadequate

The one-year tenure is inadequate as the Mayor won’t be able to do justice to his duties. It is beyond comprehension and unthinkable for a Mayor with short tenure to monitor the ongoing projects. Owing to the paucity of time and other constraints, it is impossible for a Mayor to look into every project, resulting in the cost escalation. The policy of replacing the Mayor every year is ridiculous. It is just a ploy to satify councillors. The Mayor should have a tenure of two and a half years. It will help fix the accountability and ensure the completion of projects on time. 

Bhupinder S Sealopal, Mohali  

---

Avoid self-glorification 

The present arrangement is working nicely. It satisfies councillors and keeps them together. They can do wonders if they stay away from self-glorification. A Mayor should be judged by his or her work, not by the number of projects inaugurated by him or her. Increase in tenure will only lead to no-confidence motions and MC House disruptions, jeopardising the development agenda.

Bharat Bhushan Sharma 

---

Takes time to deliver

I am of the opinion that the one-year tenure is quite insufficient for a Mayor. It takes time to understand shortcomings of the system and the working of MC departments. The tenure of the Mayor should be at least two and a half years. He is responsible for revenue generation and needs to finalise projects beforehand, which takes time. So, the Mayor should have longer tenure. 

Tarlok Singh, Mani Majra

---

Extend tenure

The current arrangement is inadequate. It takes time to plan and execute. After completing all formalities, proposals are forwarded to the Administration for approval and funds. This process takes a lot of time, for which one-year tenure is insufficient. The Mayor’s tenure should be at least two and a half years so that city residents could judge his or her performance fairly. 

Balbir Singh Batra,   Mohali

---

Canvassing consumes  too much time 

I strongly believe that the term of the Chandigarh Mayor should be extended to two and a half years or five years. A single year to perform is tool less. Half of the time vanishes in election campaigning. They do not spend all of their time for the progress of the city.

Arshia Mittal, Ambala City

---

One year not enough to redress issues 

The present tenure is inadequate to deal with the issues pestering city residents. The city needs a professional, experienced and hardworking Mayor to maintain its status and planned development. The present arrangement only helps politicians keep their flock together. By the time the Mayor comes in control of the situation, his or her term ends. Moreover, the person holding the posts spends on the development of his or her ward only. The term of the Mayor should be extended to          five years. 

Wg Cdr Jasbir Singh Minhas (retd)

---

Give ample opportunity  

The one-year tenure seems to be insufficient for the Chandigarh Mayor. In one year, the Mayor may not be able to introduce himslef to various branches of the Municipal Corporation, forget about serving people. So, according to me, the term should be either extended to two and a half years and or five years. It will give the Mayor enough time to serve people. It will also fix the accountability of the person holding the post of the Mayor. So, the tenure of the Chandigarh Mayor should be increased. 

Bir Devinder Singh Bedi

---

Revenue generation hit

The one-year tenure renders the present arrangement useless. It harms the city more. Revenue generation also suffers. The term should be extended to five years to make the Mayor responsible and fix his or her  accountability. Good Mayors often repeat their term and become popular worldwide. 

Ashok Kumar Goel,  Panchkula 

---

Keep current set-up intact 

The present arrangement is a ploy to keep councillors united and loyal to the party. This arrangement gives the taste of power to the maximum number of councillors. However, it made the overall development of the city possible as they focus on their wards first. Its negative implication is that the person holding the post acts as per his or her whims and fancies. They do not bother about people. Nevertheless, the present system should stay. This system should be implemented all across the country. 

Rajiv Boolchand Jain, Zirakpur

---

Emulate other states 

The present tenure is too less to judge the performance of a Mayor. Every major project has a gestation period of six to eight months. The UT authorities should study the model followed by neighbouring states.

In Punjab, the tenure of the Mayor is five years while in Himachal Pradesh it is two and a half years. 

The Mayor should enjoy five-year tenure like other states.  

Sanjay Chopra, Mohali

---

Focus on serving people

The current tenure is not inadequate if one wants to serve people. Capable people may not require longer duration. An oak tree stands for 300 years but  falls a useless log. A lily lives for a day but remembered for its beauty. A good Mayor stands chance or re-election. 

Sohan Lal Gupta, Patiala

---

Longer term will cut efficiency

In the present scenario, five different councillors don the role of the Mayor during the tenure of the MC House. The current arrangement necessitates the fulfilment of promises as the Mayor always remains on his or her toes to get the work done. Perhaps, a longer tenure will make the Mayor lazy and reduce efficiency. 

Harish Kapur,  Chandigarh

---

Rise above party politics

The current one-year tenure is too less for a Mayor to perform. It takes time to settle down. The remaining period is spent on internal bickering. Where is the time to plan and act. People have seen more controversies that any solid work. The Mayor has not been able to rise above the party politics,losing moral authority. So, I feel  the tenure of the Mayor must be increased to at least two and a half years. This will give the person holding the position enough time to plan and execute development works. People will also take the Mayor seriously and he or she will feel a sense of accountability. Let the  Mayor  rise above the party politics and have the powers to deal with the indisciplined  councillors. Lets make this post more potent and  meaningful for Chandigarh residents.

Col R D Singh (retd),  Ambala Cantt

---

Leaves little time to perform

Any elected councillor, irrespective of his or her political allegiance, is unable to make a mark and get re-elected just because the term of the Mayor is too short. After taking over as the city Mayor, even the most efficient individuals need a couple of months to settle down and perform. Moreover, at the fag end of the tenure, the person holding the position of the Mayor slows down a bit. It would be appropriate of the person holding the position gets at least two years to serve.

SC Luthra, Chandigarh

---

Performance matters 

The current arrangement is adequate to perform. Those who want to do something for society can do it in a short span. The present tenure is enough to perform. A harworking mayor may get re-elected. One’s work speaks for itself. 

Opinder Kaur Sekhon, Chandigarh