Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Board Self-Assessment: June 2011 Benchmark
Report
NCMA Governance Committee
Survey • Survey conducted by BoardSource• 2nd year using this survey• 23 surveys distributed; 19 surveys
completed (83% response rate)• Checklist of Practices• Performance of the Board• Nine (9) areas of board responsibility• Compare our responses to
association benchmarks, and our data from last year
• Degree of Consensus
Summary Results • 9 areas measured• Exceed benchmark in all areas• 7 areas improved, 2 declined from
FY2010___________________________________
1. Mission2. Strategy3. Public Image and Advocacy4. Board Composition5. Program Oversight6. Financial Oversight7. CEO Oversight8. Board Composition9. Meetings
1. Mission
3.64
3.27
3.23
2.68
3.23
3.47
3.05
3.68
3.11
3.05
3.31
3.02
2.89
2.61
3.04
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
1.1. Supporting theassociation's mission.
1.2. Agreeing on how theassociation should fulfill its
mission.
1.3. Periodically reviewingthe mission to ensure it is
appropriate.
1.4. Articulating a vision thatis distinct from the mission.
1.5. Using the association'smission and values to drive
decisions.
2010 2011 Benchmark
Bench: 2.97
2011: 3.27
2010: 3.21
We exceed benchmark on all items.
Comments on 1. Mission• Keep to what makes NCMA strong - concentrate
on serving the Chapter member• We have done some really good working this year
on developing the mission and getting some action items identified; however we now need to develop the vision of where do we want to go in the long run and develop the plan for how we'll get there then see if our mission items still sync.
• We could do better at linking the goals of the committees to the mission & values of the Association.
• Specific action items assigned to individuals to lead (not just committees?) to accomplish progress (specifically in the area of obtaining greater government participation.)
• The Board has done a wonderful job at taking on these areas this past program year.
2. Strategy
3.27
3.09
3.18
3.05
3.00
2.71
3.37
3.26
2.95
3.11
3.26
2.42
3.04
2.68
2.97
2.90
2.74
2.63
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
2.1 Setting the association's strategicdirection - in partnership with the
chief executive.
2.2 Focusing regularly on strategicand policy issues versus operational
issues.
2.3 Understanding the needs of theassociation's members and
stakeholders.
2.4 Assessing and responding tochanges in the association's
environment.
2.5 Engaging in an effective strategicplanning process.
2.6 Tracking progress toward meetingthe association's strategic goals.
2010 2011 Benchmark
Bench: 2.83
2011: 3.06
2010: 3.05
Comments on 2. Strategy• The Association must link strategic goals to specific
tactical activities. This does not occur yet. The Association also may be losing touch with its members and chapter base, as new BOD members have no depth of prior experience or knowledge.
• I have to rate #2.6 as just OK for this year, but I believe we are on a path toward fixing this problem
• Board has discussed changes in the environment and possible approaches for future, but seems to be having some difficulty arriving at a strategy.
• I think that board needs to utilize surveys to understand clearly what its membership needs.
• Believe we will improve as strategy is executed operationally over the next 1 to 2 years.
• need improvement in measuring progress towards goals, but it is being addressed
• We've done some good work on the mission and now need to spend some quality time on how we will go about implementing.
• Need to better assess performance
3. Public Image and Advocacy
3.50
3.36
3.18
3.10
3.23
3.36
3.47
2.95
2.95
3.00
3.11
3.16
3.27
2.70
2.73
2.77
3.01
2.67
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
3.1 Building a positive public image ofthe association.
3.2 Networking to establishcollaborations and partnerships with
other organizations.
3.3 Maintaining an open dialogue withthe association's members related topublic image and advocacy issues.
3.4. Articulating and approving broad,overarching positions on industry or
professional issues.
3.5 Advocating on behalf of theassociation and its members.
3.6 Defining the role of board membersrelated to critical association activities
e.g. who serves as the officialspokesperson, access to media.
2010 2011 Benchmark
Bench: 2.86
2011: 3.11
2010: 3.29
We exceed benchmark on all items.
Comments on 3. Public Image and Advocacy• There still needs to be more focus on
Government - Industry Dialogue• Board could project a more public profile
while still maintaining impartiality on specific contracting policy issues.
• We can do better. Some of the above areas are achieved because of the private/personal positions many of the BOD members encumber. However, I'm not really certain the BOD as a collective body do all the above to the degree possible. Rather, the BOD seems to defer to the ED. Is that good/bad? It simply 'is.'
• Strong leadership and communication between the BOD, EC members and the BOD. Create methods for obtaining membership feedback.
4. Board Composition
3.68
3.36
3.68
3.50
3.50
3.41
3.76
3.50
3.23
3.58
3.37
3.53
2.79
3.21
3.05
3.53
3.06
2.74
2.81
2.71
3.38
2.51
2.68
2.54
2.89
2.45
2.81
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
4.1 Ensuring the current board has the capacityto effectively govern and lead the association.
4.2 Examining the board's current compositionand identifying gaps, e.g., in professional
expertise, influence, ethnicity, age, gender.
4.3 Adhering to the association's bylawsregarding board composition, duties, voting
rights and qualifications.
4.4 Identifying and cultivating potential boardmembers.
4.5 Using an effective process for nominatingand electing board members.
4.6 Effectively orienting new board members.
4.7 Establishing and enforcing policies for lengthof board service, e.g., length of terms and
number of terms.
4.8 Planning for board officer succession.
4.9 Utilizing the skills and talents of individualboard members.
2010 2011 Benchmark
Bench: 2.75
2011: 3.21
2010: 3.51
Comments on 4. Board Composition• continue efforts to involve potential board members in activities to get
them exposure and experience• Need to overcome hurdles inhibiting more participation by members
from the government community. The BOD could be accused of being a tool of industry.
• Improvement areas include: 1. Figuring out whether the role of the board is status/influencing or working board to complete tasks? Seems to be leaning toward status/influencing which is fine - just need to ensure tasks are managed by staff then. Seems like our policies re rotating and bringing in new board members evolve as favorites roll off the board and some want them maintained which minimizes the intent of the policy which is to ensure new blood/thinking in the organization. How are we growing new board members? What are we doing?
• I believe that assignment of board subject area chairs is still too relationship based. I do not see a mechanism or one that has been transparently articulated that reflects a process for aligning individual desire/preference, capability, experience with subject area
• Question 4.6 is scored based upon 2011 procedure. The plan for 2012 is excellent
• Right now there is not a good balance between government and industry. we need to target more government involvement. it seems as the years go by there are more motions to have the Exec committee elct more members to the Board than the association. First need to get membership excited about elections and get them to vote.
• Some Board members don't fully participate in their committee assignments. This is where much of the work is done. Board members need to fully understand their commitment to serve. It's more than just attending Board meetings.
5. Program Oversight
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.36
3.18
2.95
3.32
3.53
3.63
3.68
3.47
2.79
2.95
3.32
3.04
3.08
2.95
2.82
2.46
2.55
2.67
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
5.1 Being knowledgeable about the association'sprograms and services.
5.2 Ensuring the board receives sufficientinformation related to programs and services.
5.3 Ensuring the association has adequateinfrastructure, such as staff, facilities, volunteers
and technologies.
5.4 Monitoring the quality of the association'sprograms and services.
5.5 Identifying standards against which to measureorganizational performance e.g., industry
benchmarks, competitors or peers.
5.6 Measuring the impact of critical programs andinitiatives.
5.7 Determining whether the association has inplace appropriate policies and procedures
governing the activities of its chapters, affiliatesand branches. Select NA if there are none.
2010 2011 Benchmark
Bench: 2.80
2011: 3.34
2010: 3.31
We exceed benchmark on all items.
Comments on 5. Program Oversight• New Board members are far more accomplished in their
profession, but less knowledgeable of NCMA than in the past. A performance assessment process has not been defined or implemented.
• 5.5 We have a lot of completion work to do in this area. We have some good ideas within the PSE Committee but not much coming out as finished published products
• The Board could do a better job identifying relative measures of success for programs by aligning program outcomes and outputs with the committee's actual work.
• To my knowledge, no internal "IG" in place to perform the above. Loose assessment of chapter/program health via Graalman and frequent informal communication.
• If Board evolves to one of influence then we'll need to add Staff to manage tasks.
6. Financial Oversight
3.50
3.50
3.64
3.45
3.45
3.32
3.41
3.52
3.58
3.58
3.74
3.67
3.50
3.50
3.47
3.72
3.21
3.16
3.27
3.25
2.91
2.80
2.84
3.31
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
6.1 Ensuring the annual budget reflects theassociation's priorities.
6.2 Reviewing and understanding financialreports.
6.3 Monitoring the association's financial health,e.g., against budget, year-to-year comparisons,
ratios.
6.4 Reviewing the results of the independentfinancial audit and management letter. (Select
"Not Applicable" if no audit is done.)
6.5 Establishing and reviewing the association'sinvestment policies.
6.6 Ensuring that insurance carried by theassociation is reviewed periodically e.g., general
liability, directors' and officers', worker'scompensation.
6.7 Ensuring the association has policies tomanage risks, e.g., reserves, internal controls,personnel policies, emergency preparedness.
6.8 Complying with IRS regulations to completeForm 990 or 990-EZ, if applicable.
2010 2011 Benchmark
Bench: 3.09
2011: 3.59
2010: 3.47
We exceed benchmark on all items.
Comments on 6. Financial Oversight• Most of the financial oversight is performed by Board
committees; overall Board is provided an overview and summary of issues.
• Would like to see greater investment in CMLDP growth.• We have cash! I suggest the EC have a "business" discussion in
regards to which programs to invest this cash in order to maximize income and training availability to the members.
7. CEO Oversight
3.32
3.59
2.91
3.27
3.36
3.44
2.53
2.06
1.61
3.32
3.79
3.16
3.28
3.28
3.50
3.12
3.00
2.11
3.41
3.52
3.12
2.96
2.86
3.12
3.23
2.45
1.92
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
7.1 Cultivating a climate of mutual trust andrespect between the board and chief
executive.
7.2 Giving the chief executive enoughauthority to lead the staff and manage the
association successfully.
7.3 Discussing and constructivelychallenging recommendations made by the
chief executive.
7.4 Formally assessing the chiefexecutive's performance.
7.5 Establishing priorities and settingperformance goals by mutual agreement
with the chief executive.
7.6 Ensuring that the chief executive isappropriately compensated.
7.7 Ensuring compensation of the chiefexecutive is approved by the full board or
authorized body of the association.
7.8 Ensuring there is a process forreviewing the compensation of key
employees.
7.9 Planning for the absence or departureof the chief executive, e.g., succession
planning.
2010 2011 Benchmark
Bench: 2.95
2011: 3.17
2010: 2.90
Comments on 7. CEO Oversight• Succession plan being drafted; Board needs to actively
question CEO - some improvement recently.• We do not have a succession plan in place and the Board does
not actively engage with the Executive on future programs enough. Executive rightly presses on with issues and
• agendas.• I'm not aware of any succession plan for the key leaders of
NCMA and do think having this in place is a good idea.• Most of the matters directly involving the Executive Director
are handled by a Board Committee and specifics are not discussed with Board more broadly.
• The Chief executive's performance needs to be more formally linked to Association performance, as defined by Strategic goals and tactical performance objectives.
8. Board Structure
3.73
3.14
3.50
3.36
3.50
3.32
3.27
3.45
3.84
2.79
3.58
3.42
3.63
3.44
3.42
3.37
3.31
2.59
3.17
2.74
2.89
3.17
2.83
2.86
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
8.1 Carrying out the board's legal duties ofcare, loyalty, and obedience.
8.2 Defining responsibilities and settingexpectations for board member
performance.
8.3 Respecting the distinct roles of thechief executive, board and staff.
8.4 Implementing steps to improvegovernance and the performance of the
board, e.g, evaluation, education.
8.5 Periodically reviewing and updating thebylaws, board policies, and board
procedures.
8.6 Following and enforcing its conflict-of-interest policy.
8.7 Reviewing its committee structure toensure it supports the work of the board.
8.8 Using standing committees and ad hoctask forces effectively.
2010 2011 Benchmark
Bench: 2.95
2011: 3.44
2010: 3.41
We exceed benchmark on all items.
Comments on 8. Board Structure• Reduce the number of committees. example, no reason for
Asset management committee. Reduce the number of Board Members. 23 is too many.
• OCI is a concern, in that some Board members appear to be involved as a personal resume enhance or organizational promotion, without visible dedication to the business of the Board itself. Other areas show continued improvement.
• Some Board Members are not performing to their commitments so what actions do we take? How does that work?
• I think Board does a very good job of managing itself and the Association's policies and procedures.
9. Meetings
3.32
3.23
3.45
3.45
3.23
3.18
3.50
3.05
3.45
2.95
3.47
2.68
3.53
3.68
3.74
3.42
3.74
3.47
3.63
3.00
3.28
2.55
3.01
3.21
3.20
3.22
3.13
2.86
3.28
2.77
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
9.1 Fostering an environment that builds trust and respect among boardmembers.
9.2 Establishing and enforcing policies related to board member attendance.
9.3 Preparing for board meetings, e.g., reading materials in advance, following upon assignments.
9.4 Using effective meeting practices, such as setting clear agendas, havinggood facilitation, and managing time well.
9.5 Allowing adequate time for board members to ask questions and exploreissues.
9.6 Efficiently making decisions and taking action when needed.
9.7 Understanding the need to base decisions on the collective good of theassociation.
9.8 Monitoring board activities to identify and address discriminatory or non-inclusive behaviors.
9.9 Ensuring that minutes of meetings and actions taken by governing bodies andauthorized sub-committees, such as the executive committee, are documented.
9.10 Engaging all board members in the work of the board.
2010 2011 Benchmark
Bench: 3.05
2011: 3.44
2010: 3.28
We exceed benchmark on all items.
Comments on 9. Meetings• I think we could have more focus on the needs of the membership.• The last Board meeting was in March but yet we still have 3.5 months
left in the year. It seemed that during the meeting, any meaningful discussion/topics were deferred for the new board. Why? Otherwise, it was just a feel good meeting, review the overall operations, thanks to all for a great job, blah, blah, blah... and not much value added. Suggest the board meetings be spaced out quarterly vs. Nov-Jan-March
• Committees and the EC need to improve documentation. • Several board members have poor attendance record, but recently
have been contacted about it.• What is our policy if Board Members do not participate in meetings? Not
all Board Members are meeting their committee commitments so what action occurs?
Practice Areas # of Yes
# of Q's
% of Yes
% of Yes
Bench
1 Organizational Practices
5 7 71% 73.3%
2 Oversight Practices 11 11 100% 83.2%
3 Board Practices 7 7 100% 68.7%
4 Chief Executive Supervision
4 4 100% 80.3%
