Survey Results & Analysis for NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (July 18, 2010)

Executive Summary This report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (July 18, 2010). The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 12 day period from Sunday, July 18, 2010 to Friday, July 30, completed responses were received to the survey during this time. Survey Results & Analysis Survey: NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (July 18, 2010) Author: Cambria Tidwell Filter: Responses Received: 16

1)1). Was there a quality agenda?

2)Comments: Might have taken some time to flesh out some of the contentious issues from last year (eg, BMA) and put more discussion to it rather than delegating to the Strat committee. Might also have simply chewed over some of the discussion from the previous two days to assess how it could apply this year. We're together for a limited time... make the best use of it. Appreciated the strategic planning discussion. Very good discussion.

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

4)Comments: Liked doing the discussion first then consent agenda. Agree - icluding the 2 strategic planing sessions which were very well done and helpful - looking forward to working on those issues Considering the strategic planning sessions before the Board meeting, the mix was appropriate. Otherwise, the Board agenda would have been light. The strategy discussions the two days before helped keep us focused on key issues, along with the reorganization of the agenda with consent agenda items at the end The topics were well balanced and afforded effectively decision making and dialogue.

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:

It would be good if we could encourage the combination of attachments into one doc (where applicable) to speed up review time. Appreciated your ing the Zip file - much easier. Would have liked a little more time to review it, but realize that some items likely come in relatively close to the time of the Board meeting. The year end briefs were sent out in sufficient time - some of the board briefs were a little difficult to understand what was done in terms of strategic objectives which lays a good foundation for further work already begun in this area Ample time was provided.

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: I thought the discussion on the SOCO memo was a bit rambling and disjointed. The resulting vote was shortsighted. The issue isn't about voting on fixing a letter... the issue is about setting forth a long-term plan to encourage Govt participation. We find ourselves voting on (somewhat) trivial issues rather than chewing over the meaty issues.

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:

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: Very cold room But the room was exceptionally chilly! but the rooom was cold :-(

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: Wireless would have been nice.

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: Some of the issues we debated at the last board wrt Strategic Objectives and their appropriateness seemed to be swept to the Strat Plannign committee for deliberation. Recommend a slide listing all previous action items (as taken from the minutes) and their resolution be prepared after each Board 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:)

20)Comments: Discussion at times went far too long and too deeply into detail with more opinion than fact.

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: We had to take our own "comfort breaks", and remaining breakfast items were not brought into the room.

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

26)Comments: Scratching my head on this. Not certain we really tasked the board/committees appropriately or sufficiently.