Survey Results & analysis for

Survey Results & analysis for

NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (March 24,

2012)

Executive SummaryThis report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (March 24, 2012) . The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 9 day period from Monday, March 26, 2012 to Wednesday, April 04, 2012. 16 completed responses were received to the survey during this time.

Survey Results & AnalysisSurvey: NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (March 24, 2012)

Author: Cambria Tidwell

Filter:

Responses Received: 16

1) 1). Was there a quality agenda?

2) Comments:

Comments:

The topics were very good and there was good discussion.

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

4) Comments:

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:

good distribution

I would like the charts too.

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:

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:

As always, all Members should do their homework beforehand, which could minimize some of the discussion.

Many missing Board Members. This issue should be addressed.

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:

Comments:

Several folks had to leave early to catch a flight, which leads me to believe we should start the meeting earlier if that's the case and work through lunch when appropriate so that we can complete all business before individuals have to leave.

Great room

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:

Comments:

Given the vacant ED position, yes.

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:

Comments:

All Board members should be encouraged to arrange travel to ensure they can remain for the entire session, as well as if it were to go beyond the scheduled completion time and thus minimize any sense of rush at the end.

Like that debate of ideas is welcomed as it enables us to get the best outcomes for the org.

Some board members dominate the discussion

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:

Had to leave prior to end of meeting