Survey Results & analysis for

Board Brief 2009-36, Attach 1

Survey Results & analysis for

NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (November

22, 2008)


Executive SummaryThis report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (November 22, 2008) . The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 23 day period from Sunday, November 23, 2008 to Monday, December 15, 2008. 15 completed responses were received to the survey during this time.

Survey Results & AnalysisSurvey: NCMA Board of Directors Assessment Checklist (November 22, 2008)

Author: Cambria Tidwell

Filter:

Responses Received: 15


1) 1). Was there a quality agenda?


2) Comments:


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


4) Comments:

Comments:

I would prefer to see a review of progress against each goal presented at each meeting. Are we identifying all the necessary tactical objectives and tasks against our goals. Not that we have resources to implement them, but at least know where we stand. I feel as though we are getting a small snapshot of the potential and only those actions that we choose to present.

Some tactical items were not on the agenda for discussion by the full board and should have been. When they were raised from the floor, the topic was quickly shut down by the President. There needs to be more attention paid to ensuring that the agenda reflects the desires of the board members, and I don't think we have much of a process to do that.


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:

I could use more time and would REALLY appreciate if it could be sent to me in email - I know that's old fashioned -- I just don't have time to keep checking myriad of web sites.

The Board should have had a chance to review the Governance and CMCAB briefings before the meeting


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:

Comments:

Didn't have Drew's report

The vote on the certification board and certification program options was premature. The board brief was not sufficient for a board vote.

See remarks question #3


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:

Not all Board members attend the meetings or conferences, so not all views are heard.


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:

Knowing that such a large LDP component was to join us, a slightly larger room with more air conditioning would have been helpful


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:


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


18) Comments:

Comments:

I don't recall that this was done.


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:

strategic planning discussion time was too short.

Give Leadership Dev people time for input. Awkward to have them just sit there.

Although having LDPs at the meeting is a good idea for developing future leaders and participation, discussion is probably inhibited due to consideration of their time as well as an aversion to talking openly in front of so many spectators.

Some board members feel that the opinions of certain board members are given more deference by the Executive Director and President.


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


22) Comments:

Comments:

Felt rushed


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:

There was no re-cap of action items prior to the end of the meeting. The draft minutes will provide the answer to this question.

We did not review action items

Documents

Survey Results & analysis for