| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 697.1 | Time Commitments... | AOSG::GILLETT | But that trick never works! | Wed Sep 15 1993 11:05 | 16 |
|
Some additional fun facts for your information:
In the minutes, 17 of the 18 meetings have certain adjournment
times listed. Based on these 17 meetings, here's some idea
of the time commitments directors are asked to make:
28-April-1992 through 27-July-1993
Total Hours Met: 52:55
Longest Meeting: 4:30 (6/30/92)
Shortest Meeting: 0:05 (5/4/93)
Average Meeting: 3:06
./chris
|
| 697.2 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Wed Sep 15 1993 12:00 | 3 |
| That's only meeting time. Since I currently serve on 2 Boards of other
groups I can say I'm sure they are putting in more than 3 hours a
month.
|
| 697.3 | Commitment? | STAR::BUDA | I am the NRA | Wed Sep 15 1993 13:14 | 39 |
| RE: Note 697.0 by AOSG::GILLETT
>Director Total Total Late Early
> Attended Absences Arrivals Departures
>
>G. Mann 18 0 3 8
>T. McEachin 15 3 1 1
>P. Milbury 16 2 3 8
I looked at the list and the above three names 'highlighted' themselves
above the others.
Gail and Paul seem to have problems planning their time to follow up on
their commitment to DCU and its members. Both have left early and
arrived late a TOTAL of 11 times of a possible 18. That is 61% of the
time...
Paul does not show up for 13% of the meetings.
Paul has attended the complete meeting 28% of the time... This needs to
be followed up to understand how much of the meeting time he has missed.
If he left 5 minutes of 11 meetings, this is much less of a worry. If
he missed 45 minutes a meeting, then he needs to analyze if he is
SERVING the membership.
Tom has missed 17% of the meetings and been early/late 11% of the time.
I consider this to be on the edge of following his pledge to serve DCU.
If he were to miss or be late to many other meetings, then he should
consider if he has the time.
All 3 of these people need to look at their commitment to DCU BOD. It
concerns me greatly that they are not following their commitment of time
and energy.
I would urge any BOD member who does not have the time to either change
their schedule to meet their commitment or resign.
- mark
|
| 697.4 | Excellent point! | STAR::BUDA | I am the NRA | Wed Sep 15 1993 13:17 | 14 |
| RE: Note 697.2 by PATE::MACNEAL
> That's only meeting time. Since I currently serve on 2 Boards of other
> groups I can say I'm sure they are putting in more than 3 hours a
> month.
You bring up an excellent point. I also serve on two other BOD's. You
find the people who attend the meetings faithfully are the ones who do
most of the work. The ones who do not attend or show up late or leave
early do quite a bit less so the rest of the BOD picks up their load.
Good point!
- mark
|
| 697.5 | thanks for posting, Chris | BROKE::NIKIN::BOURQUARD | Deb | Wed Sep 15 1993 13:44 | 8 |
| I find these metrics interesting and I especially like that you did *not*
attempt to interpret them. I will review these metrics when we vote next.
I invite you to continue to post these metrics.
Thanks again.
- Deb
|
| 697.6 | | AOSG::GILLETT | But that trick never works! | Wed Sep 15 1993 14:09 | 7 |
| re: .5
Geez, I never realized that folks really disliked my interpretations!
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
./chris
|
| 697.7 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | DCU 3Gs -- fired but not forgotten | Mon Jun 27 1994 14:52 | 32 |
|
[Abstentions in the 29-Apr-94 minutes got me to wondering, so I looked
back through the minutes in note 2.*. Abstentions can say just as much
as non-attendance about the effectiveness of our elected directors. The
abstentions recorded below are unexplained; that is, they do not result
from a vote where the abstaining director is directly affected, such as
election to various board positions, and they are not accompanied by an
explanation, such as raising issues of procedure or legality.]
[This reply picks up on attendance updates that were posted in
787.*. This looks like a better place for an ongoing attendance watch.]
BoD meeting attendance record, 28-Apr-1992 to 29-Apr-1994:
Total Late Early Voting
Director Absences Arrivals Departures Abstentions Grade [1]
--------------- -------- -------- ---------- ----------- ---------
P. Gransewicz 0 0 0 0 BENCHMARK
T. Dawkins 0 1 1 1 -3
P. Kinzelman 2 0 0 0 -8
L. DeMauro-Ross 2 1 0 1 -10
G. Mann 1 3 8 1 -16
P. Milbury 2 3 9 2 -22
T. McEachin 4 1 1 7 -25
[1] Grading assessment; -4 per total absence; -1 per late
arrival, early departure or unexplained voting abstention.
|
| 697.9 | | NOVA::FISHER | now |a|n|a|l|o|g| | Fri Jan 20 1995 07:42 | 4 |
| I read the assessment and am at a loss to figure how
C. Gliiett [sic] gets "-10".
ed
|
| 697.10 | | NPSS::BADGER | Can DO! | Fri Jan 20 1995 08:10 | 12 |
| I *think* your formula is WAY off base. how can a person who abstains
from a vote fair worse off than someone who misses two meetings!!!!!
and do you have more information than us that can tell you that an
abstained vote was unexplainable.
Also, I don't know how you can consider it 'fair' to weight the process
via total # of meetings.
I would rather see apples and apples and compare the SAME time period.
Its OK to present the facts, but your editorial is questionable.
ed
|
| 697.11 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Missed Woodstock -- *twice*! | Fri Jan 20 1995 08:28 | 57 |
|
He's been to four meetings and abstained from one vote; the minutes
don't explain the abstention.
(-1)/4)*38 = -9.5, rounded to -10.
When he has attended 38-40 meetings, and assuming he keeps attending
and voting, his mark will eventually become -1; after only eight
meetings his grade will be -5, equal to the highly respected Mr.
Gransewicz. However, if he maintains his current average of one
unexplained abstention every four meetings, his grade will remain -10.
The normalization (dividing by number of meetings this person could have
attended, then multiplying by the largest number of meetings anyone could
have attended) levels the playing field for people with different lengths
of service, while maintaining grades that are consistent with those
previously reported.
This algorithm also allows directors to recover from past attendance
and abstention records. For example, if Mr. McEachin had maintained the
same behavior for the second 19 meetings as for the first 19, his grade
would now be roughly -50 instead of -25.
I'm open to other suggestions, but it seems to me that this approach
serves to keep me informed of the efficacy of our directors in a
balanced and fair manner.
Below is a repeat of .8, withouth the egregious butchering of
Mr. Gillett's surname.
-------------
[I added a new field to show the number of meetings that occurred
while each board member was a board member, then divided totals
by this number, to make the ratings fair over different lengths
of tenure.]
BoD meeting attendance record, 28-Apr-1992 through 28-Nov-1994:
Late Early Voting Total
Director Absent Arriv. Depart. Absten. Meetings Grade [1]
--------------- ------ ------ ------- ------- -------- ---------
D. Garrod 0 0 0 0 4 BENCHMARK
T. Dawkins 0 1 1 2 38 -4
P. Gransewicz 1 0 0 1 38 -5
P. Kinzelman 2 0 0 0 38 -8
C. Gillett 0 0 0 1 4 -10
G. Mann 1 3 8 2 38 -17
T. McEachin 4 1 1 7 38 -25
[1] Grading assessment; -4 per absence; -1 per late arrival,
early departure or unexplained voting abstention;
divided by total meetings that could have been attended by
that member; x38.
|
| 697.12 | alternatives | WRKSYS::SEILER | Larry Seiler | Fri Jan 20 1995 11:30 | 34 |
| I encourage anyone who disagrees with the formula in .11 to define
their own formula and post the results. It would be interesting
to see how the rankings change. It would also be intersting to see
precisely how different people value different characteristics.
Here are some ideas for things to consider (or not consider) in
a Director Involvement ranking. Note -- I'm not saying that all
of these are GOOD ideas! I'm posting them to encourage thought.
Don't consider meetings more than 3 years ago (with the idea that
recent behavior is more important than behavior long ago).
Measure all directors over the same period (well, this probably
gives too short a period at the moment, but...)
Don't consider abstentions (minutes don't always say if there was
a reason) or else count them as less important.
Award a bonus point for each vote contrary to the majority (this
suggests independent thinking, something we want to encourage?)
Give points for each time a comment is reported in the minutes, on
the idea that participation in discussions is important (note, this
is not a good idea because the minutes are not complete enough to
make this fair -- but participation is what we're trying to measure,
isn't it?)
Final idea: ue the table that Bill posted, and either take his formula
with a grain of salt or ignore it entirely and look only at the raw
data that he reports.
Enjoy,
Larry
|
| 697.13 | different way of looking at it.. | NPSS::BADGER | Can DO! | Fri Jan 20 1995 12:30 | 51 |
|
BoD meeting attendance record, 28-sep-1994 through 28-Nov-1994:
tree of APPLES Vs. tree of apples
Late Early Voting Absent Total
Director Absent Arriv. Depart. Absten. vote Meetings
[1]
--------------- ------ ------ ------- ------- ---- --------
D. Garrod 0 0 0 0 0 4
T. Dawkins 0 1 0 0 0 4
P. Gransewicz 0 0 0 0 0 4
P. Kinzelman 0 0 0 0 0 4
C. Gillett 0 0 0 1 0 4
G. Mann 0 0 1 1 3 4
T. McEachin 0 0 0 0 0 4
TOTAL possible votes [open session] possible: 19
I added a new column "votes missed". arriving late or leaving early
deprives a director of a chance to be on record on a particular issue.
weighting, or scoring their record makes it too easy for an unimformed
person to make an unrational judgement.
useing an abstaned vote as a measure is wrong unless the director was
dodging an issue. for the vote that Mr. Gillett abstained, there was
NO record of discussion. before I hung that over Mr. Gillett's head,
I'd send him a simple note asking him why. by note voting, it didn't
appear that he was avoiding an issue.
in order to compare voting records of the two directors up for
re-election [if they choose to run again], I'd compare them with
directors IN OFFICE for the SAME PERIOD OF TIME.
BoD meeting attendance record, 28-Apr-1992 through 28-Nov-1994:
state of oranges Vs. STATE OF ORANGES
Late Early Voting Total
Director Absent Arriv. Depart. Absten. Meetings Grade
--------------- ------ ------ ------- ------- -------- -----
T. Dawkins 0 1 1 2 38 -4
P. Gransewicz 1 0 0 1 38 -5
P. Kinzelman 2 0 0 0 38 -8
G. Mann 1 3 8 2 38 -17
T. McEachin 4 1 1 7 38 -25
but even this is too easy an answer.
ed
|
| 697.14 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Missed Woodstock -- *twice*! | Thu Jan 26 1995 09:27 | 31 |
|
.11 is updated as follows:
1) Mr. Gillett explained his abstention of 28-Nov: as an advocate for
one of the members appointed to the Credit Appeals committee, Mr.
Gillett felt his abstention appropriate.
2) Mr. McEachin was absent from the 19-Dec meeting. (He was also absent
from the 12-Jan meeting; however, the meeting seems to have been
called on short notice.)
BoD meeting attendance record, 28-Apr-1992 through 12-Jan-1995:
Late Early Voting Total
Director Absent Arriv. Depart. Absten. Meetings Grade [1]
--------------- ------ ------ ------- ------- -------- ---------
D. Garrod 0 0 0 0 6 BENCHMARK
C. Gillett 0 0 0 0 6 BENCHMARK
T. Dawkins 0 1 1 2 40 -4
P. Gransewicz 1 0 0 1 40 -5
P. Kinzelman 2 0 0 0 40 -8
G. Mann 1 3 8 2 40 -17
T. McEachin 5 1 1 7 40 -29
[1] Grading assessment; -4 per absence; -1 per late arrival,
early departure or unexplained voting abstention;
divided by total meetings that could have been attended by
that member; x40.
|
| 697.15 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jan 26 1995 09:55 | 2 |
| Director McEachin appears not to demonstrate much interest in the DEFCU.
|
| 697.16 | | IMTDEV::BRUNO | | Thu Jan 26 1995 12:03 | 5 |
| >>Director McEachin appears not to demonstrate much interest in the DEFCU.
Well, he's certainly not jockeying for re-election.
Greg
|