Board Self-Assessment:2014 Benchmark Report

NCMA Governance CommitteeDoris Gray, Chair

2

Survey

• First time using updated annual survey• 23 surveys distributed; 20 surveys completed (87%

response rate)• Performance of the Board• Nine (9) areas of board responsibility• Compare our responses to association benchmarks,

and our data from last year

3

Survey Results

• 9 areas measured1. Mission2. Strategy3. Public Image and Advocacy4. Board Composition5. Program Oversight6. Financial Oversight7. Executive Director Oversight8. Board Structure9. Meetings

Avg. Score

Bench: 3.08

2014: 3.45

2013: 3.05

2012: 3.35

*1.1 Supporting the association's mission.

*1.2 Periodically reviewing the mission to ensure it is appropriate.

*1.3 Using the association's mission and values to drive decisions.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

1. Mission

201220132014Benchmark

5

Comments on 1. Mission

I think that diversity is a great attribute, and I am glad that the BOD has different perspectives, that's what makes this BOD so strong!

As part of every discussion on an action for Board approval the relationship to the NCMA mission should be part of the discussion.

I appreciated the BOD's enagement and willingness to work as a team! Couldn't have asked for better support. rjb

It probably would be a good thing to discuss each and be more focused on these at the beginning of each BOD.

Stay focused on strategic issues.

Need to do a better job of engaging the board from April to June.

The board really focused on this at all meetings - just keep moving forward with it

Perhaps a session (facilitated by the President?) that helps some let go of the past and evolve toward a new era of Governance, separate from participation in the Association and its mission.

Get out to more local chapter meetings and gain insights from the members.

Map committee goals to specific mission areas.

Board is consistently working to improve governance and Con-Ops.

Some members seem to have a more difficult time associating the board decision with the mission or strategy. We can make it clearer to them.

Avg. Score

Bench: 2.86

2014: 3.08

2013: 2.52

2012: 2.89

*2.1 Assessing and responding to changes in the association's environment.

*2.2 Understanding the needs of the association's members and stakeholders.

*2.3 Using the strategic planning process to set the association's strategic direction in partnership with the Executive Director.

*2.4 Focusing regularly on strategic and policy issues versus operational issues.

*2.5 Tracking progress toward meeting the association's strategic goals.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

2. Strategy

201220132014Benchmark

7

Comments on 2. StrategyBoth Operational and Strategic planning are important. this BOD addressed both this year. Strategic planning team should involve BOAs and other strategic thinkers in order to address all questions and gain more perspectives.

There needs to be a more defined relationship between the strategic plan and the other operations of NCMA.

Only suggestion is continued improvement upon a 'strategy to task' lash-up. I'm confident Larry and team will head in that direction, esp. with a better understanding of the full association battle-rhythm. rjb.

Not sure the executive director is as connected to the BOD as he is to the President (past, present and elect)

Getting better visibility into each committee's specific goals and their progress toward them

Stay focused on strategic issues

Doing a much better job of making decisions based on our strategic plans/goals but need to start working on tracking the progress.

Not sure how we used feedback from the Chapters to stay in touch. i know Mike visited several stakeholders across the federal Gov and Mary Beth is in constant contact with the chapters

The SPWG recommendation to review the strategic plan periodically and at appropriate times for future boards is the right start. Had the SPWG not revised the strategic plan early in the year, the body of knowledge would not have made the progress it did toward a professional standard.

Strategic Planning could have been more aligned this year. I think we're on the right track with a new schedule proposed at the March meeting.

I think the Board spent a little too much time studying itself this year (in terms of board size, committees etc.). I'd like to see us focus more on strategic issues with import for the whole organization in the year to come.

We need a better means of ascertaining the needs of the members and stakeholders.

Avg. Score

Bench: 2.90

2014: 3.32

2013: 2.53

2012: 2.87

3.1 Building a positive public image of the association.

3.2 Networking to establish collaborations and partnerships with other organizations.

3.3 Maintaining an open dialogue with the association's members related to public image and advocacy issues.

3.4. Articulating and approving broad, overarching positions on industry or professional issues.

3.5 Advocating on behalf of the association and its members.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

3. Public Image and Advocacy

201220132014Benchmark

9

Comments on 3. Public Image and Advocacy

Attend more conferences and meet/greet members, provide more support and ask for constant feedback.

How this is done through the chapters needs to be addressed and encouraged.

Continued commitment from each BOD member in sharing the message and vision of NCMA. I've shared with Larry and Mike that a reminder at the beginning of the year on BOD expectations, as well as frequent reporting on expected achievements, will carry weight. rjb.

Mike Fischetti is doing a great job unceasing the association's visibility with key leaders.

Stay in touch with the members needs

Mike's outreach was outstanding and gave the Board the data necessary to act with current information. This should continue into the next year.

How do we engage members in promoting NCMA's image and professional advocacy other than the Leadership Summit?

Avg. Score

Bench: 2.61

2014: 2.85

2013: 2.50

2012: 2.96

*4.1 Examining the board's current composition and identifying gaps, e.g., in professional expertise, influence, ethnicity, age, gender.

*4.2 Effectively orienting new board members.

*4.3 Utilizing the skills and talents of individual board members.

*4.4 Identifying and cultivating potential board members as part of a succession planning process.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

4. Board Composition

201220132014Benchmark

11

Comments on 4. Board CompositionUtilize existing and new BOD members based on their abilities. Rotate BOD members through committees. Make sure that a Chair person is excited about being a Chair and leads every single meeting.

Leadership should articulate how it makes committee assignments.

It is critical to ensure that BOD members are being developed and provided the opportunity to chair committees.

Concerned that some believe that the BOD is not representative of the 'upper crust', and that the general membership should not 'vote' for the BOD candidates.

Track people that have the capability to serve now or in the future and ensure they are getting visibility and grooming.

I do not think all board members utilzed enough.

Need to take more of a strategic approach of how we groom and select/elect board members and how we utilize their talents.

Cultivating more senior leaders to serve - very difficult but may lead to board imbalance. Board is certainly aware of this and is working the issue hard

I am concerned there is too much turnover going into next year. The candidates that applied are, for the most part, very young and do not have the professional standing I would have anticipated for the organization. I believe more Board members should be nominated to join the Board vice the election process.

This year committee assignments seem to have been made more at the whim of the President more so than in past years or based on expertise or member preferences. There are clearly personal relationships that drive assignments or not. This also goes to the succession process.

I think we could do better at driving who serves on the Board according to the Association's needs vs. the lackluster voting population.

Avg. Score

Bench: 2.87

2014: 3.22

2013: 2.65

2012: 3.23

*5.1 Ensuring the board receives sufficient information related to programs and services.

*5.2 Ensuring the association has adequate infrastructure, such as staff, facilities, volunteers and technologies.

*5.3 Determining whether the association has in place appropriate policies and procedures governing the activities of its chapters.

*5.4 Identifying standards against which to measure organizational performance e.g., industry benchmarks, competitors or peers.

*5.5 Monitoring the quality of the association's programs and services.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

5. Program Oversight

201220132014Benchmark

13

Comments on 5. Program Oversight

NCMA staff has done an outstanding job keeping the BOD up to date on all developments, needed changes, etc.

There needs to be a determination of what data is needed and how it will be collected to manage the organization.

Great report presented by ED at each BOD meeting

Quality is hard to judge as the metrics measure revenue. What is not developed based on the data is the growing revenue product areas with a strategy to leverage additional revenue in the future. For example, certification is increasing - what products or services are needed to leverage this market even more?

I don't know that I've seen benchmarks regarding the programs we provide, only our Financials.

Avg. Score

Bench: 3.10

2014: 3.62

2013: 3.24

2012: 3.73

*6.1 Ensuring the annual budget reflects the association's priorities and addresses key budget risks.

*6.2 Monitoring the association's financial health, e.g., against budget, year-to-year comparisons, ratios.

*6.3 Reviewing the results of the independent financial audit and management letter.

*6.4 Establishing and reviewing the association's investment policies.

*6.5 Ensuring that insurance carried by the association is reviewed periodically e.g., general liability, directors' and officers', worker's compensation.

*6.6 Ensuring the association has policies to manage risks, e.g., reserves, internal controls, personnel policies.

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.50

6. Financial Oversight

201220132014Benchmark

15

Comments on 6. Financial Oversight

No improvement necessary. Finance and Audit teams have done an outstanding job!

Implement a direct management relationship between the strategic planning process and the management process.

Oustanding job to all involved. Great work.

I think we do a great job on the Financials, but I don't recall seeing a review of the Association’s insurance needs.

Some of these topics (like insurance, investments) are not questions that all of us can answer.

Avg. Score

Bench: 3.17

2014: 3.13

2013: 2.88

2012: 2.70

*7.1 Cultivating a climate of mutual trust and respect between the board and Executive Director.

*7.2 Establishing priorities and setting performance goals by mutual agreement with the Executive Director.

*7.3 Giving the Executive Director enough authority to lead the staff and manage the association successfully.

*7.4 Discussing and constructively challenging recommendations made by the Executive Director.

*7.5 Formally assessing the Executive Director’s performance and ensuring compensation is approved in accordance with Association policy.

*7.6 Planning for the absence or departure of the Executive Director (e.g., succession planning).

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

7. Executive Director Oversight

201220132014Benchmark

17

Comments on 7. CEO Oversight

No improvements necessary

There needs to be more transparency in these areas for the Board to see.

I could have personally done better by documenting all performance expectations of the ED. I'm continuing to work that prior to transitioning to Larry. rjb

Not sure how we are doing succession planning

I did not see succession planning for Mike, but I hope he is not leaving. Moving academic outreach to the staff is a good decision.

No way to know what has been done for ED succession planning, mostly a mystery

I don't recall ever seeing performance goals for the ED, nor do I recall any mention of succession planning.

Avg. Score

Bench: 2.98

2014: 3.44

2013: 2.83

2012: 3.25

*8.1 Carrying out the board's legal duties of care, loyalty, and obedience.

*8.2 Defining responsibilities and setting expectations for board member performance.

*8.3 Implementing steps to improve governance and the performance of the board.

*8.4 Periodically reviewing and updating the bylaws, board policies, and board procedures.

*8.5 Following and enforcing its conflict-of-interest policy.

*8.6 Reviewing its committee structure to ensure it supports the work of the board.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

8. Board Structure

201220132014Benchmark

19

Comments on 8. Board Structure

No improvements necessary

The need for each committee should be reviewed about every 2 years.

Stay watchful of board members promoting themselves. Make sure committees are relevant. Example University Outreach

We are really coming along in this area of governance.

Avg. Score

Bench: 3.06

2014: 3.37

2013: 2.94

2012: 3.36

*9.1 Fostering an environment that builds trust and respect among board members.

*9.2 Preparing for board meetings (e.g., reading materials in advance, following up on assignments).

*9.3 Establishing and enforcing policies related to board member attendance.

*9.4 Using effective meeting practices, such as setting clear agendas, having good facilitation, and managing time well.

*9.5 Engaging all board members in the work of the board.

*9.6 Efficiently making decisions and taking action when needed.

*9.7 Monitoring board activities to identify and address discriminatory or non-inclusive behaviors.

*9.8 Ensuring that minutes of meetings and actions taken by governing bodies and authorized committees are documented.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

9. Meetings

201220132014Benchmark

21

Comments on 9. Meetings

Expectations for board member participation needs to be articulated at each board meeting.

Make sure all Board members are fully utilized

I think the Board was very cohesive and worked well together.