Survey Results & analysis for NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (November 4, 2012)

Executive Summary This report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (November 4, 2012). The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14 day period from Monday, November 12, 2012 to Sunday, November 25, completed responses were received to the survey during this time.

Survey Results & Analysis Survey: NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (November 4, 2012) Author: Karen Secker Filter: Responses Received: 18

1)1). Was there a quality agenda?

Comments: Meetings are always well run and very efficient! I was disappointed that all committe reports were not shared with other committees. How else can we judge or benchmark how out committee is doing. Yes you can take something off of the consent agenda, but board interaction on each committee can yield benifits for all of us. not much substance was discussed. The agenda was meaty and the timing was very good.

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

Comments: This was my second meeting as a member of the BOD. I felt that the mix was very good. Too much discussion on the CMLDP program. The Board should get a recommendation on the way ahead, not fix the program.

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

Comments: There were a lot of committee reports. I quickly reviewed them, but it might help to briefly summarize the activities vice discussion by exception. Slight impact by uncontrollable weather conditions.

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?

Comments: NOT MAN VOTES

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?

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?

Comments: The meeting location was excellent.

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?

Comments: Not many used them,

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

Comments: Great to have the NCMA staff there, particularly Sam for this meeting.

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

Comments: The big discussion last BOD was on the Tysons Corner chapter, no detailed what happend to who, or when it will happen. Criminal charges not filed, why? What detailed finding came of it? I was surprised one action was not closed from the closed session, but hopefully it will be resolved next meeting.

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:)

Comments: 10c) There was one issue where we missed an opportunity to engage the CMLDP candidates. The issue was why did young professionals not support an activity we sponsored? I was not certain the staff was prepared for the CMLDP discussion. This is an important program for NCMA and we need an unbiased assessment of the status and potential need for changes.

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

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

Comments: Need to provide what is stated on agenda. Probably should have scheduled a break, after a few people left one was called.

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

Comments: I think it would be better if the action items were prepared in a slide format and then shown at the end of the meeting to the BoD to get agreement on the wording of the Action Items and the owners

27)Do you believe the Board of Directors would lose significant engagement with NCMA members if the Board of Directors meeting was separated from ADC?

Comment Responses: this is the only time we can interact However, we do have other opportunities I like the meetings held concurrently ADC not our largest conference. BoD members should be attending both.

28)Do you believe the Board of Directors meeting would lose significant engagement of board members if it was separated from ADC?

Comment Responses: I will not attend any event with no BOD ADC not our largest conference. no reason to separate? The networking is good w/members