Survey Results & analysis for

NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (November

13, 2011)

Executive SummaryThis report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (November 13, 2011) . The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 16 day period from Monday, November 14, 2011 to Tuesday, November 29, 2011. 18 completed responses were received to the survey during this time.

Survey Results & AnalysisSurvey: NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (November 13, 2011)

Author: Cambria Tidwell

Filter:

Responses Received: 18

1) 1). Was there a quality agenda?

2) Comments:

Comments:

Yes, I believe we're really delving into how we perform our oversight of the association as the Board, and mature the overall process with which we govern.

Liked saving the consent agenda until last so we could focus on key content first.

3) 2). Did the agenda have the right mix of strategic and tactical topics/issues?

4) Comments:

Comments:

spent a little too much time on committees discussion.

5) 3). Was Board member read-ahead material distributed in sufficient time before the meeting to allow the participants to prepare for the meeting?

6) Comments:

Comments:

It would be most helpful to have slides in addition to the "book".

7) 4). For actions where votes were required of the Board, was sufficient, fact-based material presented to allow the Board member to make an informed decision?

8) Comments:

Comments:

Personal comment: Penny and her team did a phenomenal job assessing the overlaps 'tween committees and recommending efficiencies. I believe the conversation would have proceeded more smoothly if we'd taken the time to highlight the identified overlaps, gaps, etc. first, and then discuss how new committees, merged committees, NCMA staff functions, etc. would cover all of the taskings we have to manage in the Association.

9) 5). Did Board members arrive at the meeting prepared to address the topics listed in the agenda to enable constructive and meaningful discussions with facts and supporting information?

10) Comments:

Comments:

God discussion on the committee structure.

11) 6). Was the meeting held in a location and atmosphere that was free of distractions and discomfort so that participants could concentrate on the meeting?

12) Comments:

13) 7). Were meeting support items available for use and operable (computers, projector, screen, soft copy presentations, white board, good markers, erasers, easel, paper, etc.) and did at least one person know how to work them?

14) Comments:

15) 8). Were the right people and resources available at the meeting to adequately address the items listed in the agenda?

16) Comments:

17) 9). Were action items from the last meeting reviewed and the results of the actions reported?

18) Comments:

Comments:

I would recommend that the action items from the prior meeting be included in the read-ahead as a separate stand-alone paper to ensure the actions are well known and specifically addresssed. They were quickly reviewed during the Board meeting but they were not all discussed (e.g., Professional Advocacy Committee action).

19) 10) Was the meeting controlled such that:

19.1) 10a) It started and ended on time(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

19.2) 10b) Sufficient time was spent on each topic(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

19.3) 10c) Inputs from everyone were solicited(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

19.4) 10d) People learned, understood positions presented, cooperated, and the Board was able to obtain consensus (for the most part)(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

19.5) 10e) Everyone was respected and treated professionally(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

20) Comments:

Comments:

Good discussion and surfaced many perspectives that needed to be discussed.

I'm an efficiency zealot. I think we could have reached consensus on the Committee issue had we broken it out and presented it differently. The info was available; we just couldn't scratch the itch of several folks who had different concerns. I think we ended up spending more time than needed on the issue.

Best meeting we have had in a long time

21) 11). If the meeting was prolonged, did the topic of discussion merit extending the meeting beyond the scheduled time for adjournment?

22) Comments:

23) 12). Was there a "comfort" break provided and refreshments supplied or allowed to be brought in?

24) Comments:

25) 13). Were accurate action items recorded and read at the end of the meeting for concurrence by the Board members?

26) Comments:

Comments:

Action items should be quickly distributed as a stand-alone document after the meeting - no need to wait for minutes.