1. Survey Results & analysis for NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (July 12, 2009)

2. Executive Summary This report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (July 12, 2009). The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 9 day period from Tuesday, July 14, 2009 to Thursday, July 23, 2009. 19 completed responses were received to the survey during this time. Survey Results & Analysis Survey: NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (July 12, 2009) Author: Cambria Tidwell Filter: Responses Received: 19

3. 1)1). Was there a quality agenda?

4. 2)Comments: I really hate not using all of our time. We get together so infrequently, that it seems a shame not to spend the entire time available on strategic discussions. Very well organized agenda. I was not in attendance but after four years of BOD meetings I would find it inconsistent with the usual NCMA program quality.

5. 3)2). Did the agenda have the right mix of strategic and tactical topics/issues?

6. 4)Comments: Much improvement and focused discussion with good advance materials - just still a little more on tactical side versus strategic and would like to see more longer range strategic discussions One comment I do have is that most all member of all committee represent the eastern seaboard and mid Atlantic regions. So by not having a mix let alone not the right mix of industry and sector representatives, you can hardly say with a straight face that the topics and issues critical to the association are being presented.

7. 5)3). Was Board member read-ahead material distributed in sufficient time before the meeting to allow the participants to prepare for the meeting?

8. 6)Comments: Difficult to read as each item has to be opened individually. Also, no "summary" of the actions - e.g. I would not ask about the Singer letter if I had known the history - would be good to have a note - frequent correspondence or whatever There was enough time; however, I'd suggest combining docs to reduce the # of clicks to access content and reduce the amount of time to download it all. Maybe put all consent content into one zip file so we access it only one time. Then all the content for decisions into another zip file. That would save a lot of time and would help us prioritize. Also, combine attachments into key docs to reduce overall # and transition to a template type format with general overview then bullet points that highlights only key actions taken by each committee - simplify and reduce formality to ensure a quick read.

9. 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?

10. 8)Comments: Rebate program was very vague and in very early stages - until it is fleshed out and criteria established - hard to say what we are voting on. Once criteria is established - the needs to be discussion and debate on it's merits etc.. before going forward. Might be helpful to transition to a template approach that highlights key data and actions as some of the Briefs included a lot of fluff content which no one has time to read. Challenge to a board brief is primarily based on a test of reasonableness at the time. I believe the BoD still has a ways to go in terms of its knowledge of Association operations.

11. 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?

12. 10)Comments: I thought the Board members seemed well prepared & informed for this meeting. Yes, it appeared that everyone had read the content. I still believe that a number of members are more in the mode of deciding based on the reasonableness of the facts represented. There are only a few occasions where facts are in dispute. Don't known I was not in attendance.

13. 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?

14. 12)Comments: Nice conference/ meeting - but by Sunday, very long run - especially with committee meetings on Tuesday- any way to consolidate? The facility suited our needs, and the room wasn't cramped. very nice facility. Excellent location Don't know, but the staff usually provides superior locals for the BOD meetings.

15. 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?

16. 14)Comments: I would have appreciated an easy internet connection in the meeting room, but survived without one. Mtg went very smoothly. They usually are.

17. 15)8). Were the right people and resources available at the meeting to adequately address the items listed in the agenda?

18. 16)Comments: Refer to comments on Item No. 2

19. 17)9). Were action items from the last meeting reviewed and the results of the actions reported?

20. 18)Comments: Don't know, but they usually are

21. 19)10) Was the meeting controlled such that:

22. 19.1)10a) It started and ended on time(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

23. 19.2)10b) Sufficient time was spent on each topic(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

24. 19.3)10c) Inputs from everyone were solicited(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

25. 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:)

26. 19.5)10e) Everyone was respected and treated professionally(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

27. 20)Comments: Good meeting. Not in attendance.

28. 21)11). If the meeting was prolonged, did the topic of discussion merit extending the meeting beyond the scheduled time for adjournment?

29. 22)Comments: Not in attendance.

30. 23)12). Was there a "comfort" break provided and refreshments supplied or allowed to be brought in?

31. 24)Comments: Not in attendance but this is usually the case.

32. 25)13). Were accurate action items recorded and read at the end of the meeting for concurrence by the Board members?

33. 26)Comments: In summary, the Board meeting was very professionally and efficiently run. Don't know.