Survey Results & analysis for NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (July 10, 2011)

Executive Summary This report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (July 10, 2011). The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 15 day period from Monday, July 11, 2011 to Tuesday, July 26, completed responses were received to the survey during this time. Survey Results & Analysis Survey: NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (July 10, 2011) Author: Cambria Tidwell Filter: Responses Received: 19

1)1). Was there a quality agenda?

2)Comments: I believe it had a good balance of topics. new agenda structure helps focus discussions on strategic issues first. This was by far the best agenda I've seen in the past year.

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

4)Comments: Sometimes it was unclear what was tactical and what was strategic. The agenda had a good mix but the discussion on chapters ended up confusing and long. the President did a great job of focusing the issues and clearly the issues were important and had been worked hard.

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: I would really have liked to have seen read aheads on the strategic topics. Not a lot; just enough to spur some advance thinking. Material on chapter issues should have been a read ahead and better organized. Otherwise everything was fine. Student Chapter discussion was weak without read ahead material. Was helpful.

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: Chapter relations presentation was confusing and poorly presented. Some confusion around the univestity and student chapter situation. The discussion around the University Chapters needed to be developed further before discussing at Borad only one decision was asked of the board, but there was sufficient information provided. The chapter issues were unclear as to what the Board was to vote on and how all the information connected, but eventually we got what we needed.

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: Some board members seemed disengaged and uninterested, but overall, yes.

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: Good facilities. The strategic planning session, Board meeting and Committee meetings stretched out over too much time. It was very difficult to break away from job responsibilities for such a long period of time.

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: Some issues didn't appear to be well understood.

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

18)Comments:

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: too much time spent on student chapter discussion at the end of the day. Almost no value added.

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

22)Comments: Good discussions at this Board meeting. The long discussion on committees was necessary to fully inform the board for a vote, but it seems that it could have been less complicated. I am still not sure about the Tucson chapter

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: General comment: The board and committee meetings could be condensed into one, or two-days. Between the travel, meetings, and World Congress, one could be away from home/office for 8 days.