Survey Results & analysis for

NCMA Board of Directors Assessment (March 23, 2013)

Executive SummaryThis report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled NCMA Board of Directors Assessment (March 23, 2013) . The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 15 day period from Thursday, March 28, 2013 to Thursday, April 11, 2013. 17 completed responses were received to the survey during this time.

Survey Results & AnalysisSurvey: NCMA Board of Directors Assessment (March 23, 2013)

Author: Karen Secker

Filter:

Responses Received: 17

1) 1). Was there a quality agenda?

Comments:

This meeting was particularly robust and "board-like" in its agenda.

This was a content rich agenda with very relevant budget concerns outlined for discussion.

I felt that we had an extremely good and productive meeting.

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

Comments:

I don't believe we were strategic enough in our discussions about the direction of the Association, given the current environment today in the Government.

A little more advanced information about the Conference reduction and impact to NCMA's budget may have been of use to have a better discussion on Dues increase and path forward.

CMLDP discussion was excellent as a somewhat tactical issue, balanced by strategic budget challenges

Most of the discussion was tactical, largely driven by the budget issues, so maybe no choice but to be tactical.

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

Comments:

prelim was one week ahead, final updates were two days. The final updates did not clearly show what was added or changed. You had to read the final in its entirety.

Read-aheads came a bit late this time. If committees don't have their report in time, let the committee chair be responsible for sending them out to the BoD members or bring copies to the meeting. I think it would be helpful to arrange the read aheads in the zip file in the same order they are in the agenda...makes it easier to follow.

A little tight for some briefings

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?

Comments:

The most controversial vote (membership fee increase) had less information available, and none of it in advance.

The bylaws as I was able to read them conflicted with the process of 'electing' the president. We only approved a panel selection. THere was no election 'by the board'. The same for the 'board' selected BOD members. A committee did this not the board. We need to either change the bylaws or follow them.

We need to do a bit more homework on the CMLDP issue and what our "next steps" may be.

I do not think there was adequate information before hand to have a discussion on the Dues increase

It might be nice to outline all items for Board decision in the agenda. As I read the committee reports several decisions were embedded in the reports.

More information about the budget impact on certain issues should have been provided sooner.

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?

Comments:

Some board members seemed to be unprepared and delayed discussion and the meeting unnecessarily.

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?

Comments:

I liked having a specific session put aside as a BOD-only meeting. There were no conference distractions.

Great use of free facilities

Great room and location

Venue was convenient and comfortable.

SAIC provided an excellent facility for the meeting. We should consider doing this again if it saved money.

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?

Comments:

The infrastructure support was excellent.

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

Comments:

Two Board Members left early to get their planes and missed the most important vote, which could have changed the outcome.

17) 10) Was the meeting controlled such that:

17.1) 10a) It started and ended on time(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

17.2) 10b) Sufficient time was spent on each topic(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

17.3) 10c) Inputs from everyone were solicited(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

17.4) 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:)

17.5) 10e) Everyone was respected and treated professionally(10) Was the meeting controlled such that:)

Comments:

BoD needs to be firm on end of meeting so out-of-town members can plan for flights, if necessary.

Same comments on Budget as above

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

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

Comments:

Good job

An earlier break would be nice.

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

Comments:

There were no action items captured for report back to board. Not applicable should have been an answer

I suggest the action items be sent to all BoD members right after the Board meeting.

Do not believe this took place

25) Do you believe the Board of Directors did lose significant engagement with NCMA members by seperating the Board of Directors meeting from ADTF?

Comments:

Not only was this a bad move but it made it almost impossible for our committee to include regular members in our game plan. The university outreach committee needs the involvement of members across the country to connect with universities and chapters to tie into our plan... very bad move here.

Bad approach

This is the ONLY quality time in which we can interact with larger segments of the membership effectively and efficiently. As an elected member, it is the only time.

The turnout at ADTF was not strong enough that I would characterize the lack of engagement with members as significant.

I agree but don't feel that it is a problem.

27) Did the Board of Directors meeting lose significant engagement of board members by separating it from ADTF?

Comments:

Having BoD with conference provides more time for Board meeting (members not leaving to catch flights). Needs to be balanced with cost of meeting.

see previous