Public Transportation Board Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Handbook (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

14 SECTION 4 ADMINISTRATION OF SELF-ASSESSMENT Previous sections have emphasized that the format of the self-assessment will likely be a function of board concerns about maintenance of confidentiality and the level of trust among directors (i.e., that there will not be any leakages of the results of the assessment outside of the board). The confiden- tiality and trust issues will likely be paramount in determining the administration of the process with regard to (1) initiation and organization of the process, (2) leadership of process exe- cution, (3) collection and compilation of results, (4) review and discussion of results, and (5) follow-up (improvement actions). These aspects of the process are discussed in more detail below. Initiation and organization of process. Anyone can initiate the self-assessment process through access to the Handbook via TCRP, through referrals from other directors or boards, or through APTA industry affiliations (transit board member seminars and workshops). Preferably, the entire board or sig- nificant portions of the leadership will have a mutual interest in pursuing the effectiveness assessment. However, ultimately, one individual will normally introduce the concept, often by accessing the Handbook and bringing it up for board review and discussion. The introduction of the Handbook may come from inside the board (chair, committee, or member), within the board hierarchy (staff, if applicable), or outside the board (management or board consultant, advisor, mentor, etc.). The person who introduces the Handbook should be viewed as impartial and as not having an agenda that is outside of the issues germane to board performance effectiveness. Leadership of process execution. The self-assessment process will require a designated leader to, at the very least, provide self-assessment forms to the directors. A completely oral assessment process would not require any collection of writ- ten self-assessments from directors or associated compilation of results, but only a discussion of the assessment criteria by the board. For more formal assessments, in which directors complete and submit written assessments (Level I, II, or III), there will need to be a designated recipient. The recipient may or may not be responsible for compilation of the results, depending on the formality of the process and the confiden- tiality provisions in effect. For example, the recipient of the self-assessments could be a designated staff member, but the compilation might be done by a director or subcommittee of directors. Regardless of the means used to collect and com- pile results, there will need to be a person designated to col- lect results who has the ability to remind directors of the sched- ule for returning the completed assessment forms. Inevitably, there will be a need for reminders and follow-up by the assessment leader. The reminders and follow-up should be consistent with the confidentiality requirements of the process (e.g., use of e-mail reminders would probably be inconsistent with a completely confidential self-assessment). Collection and compilation of results. The compilation of results can range from rough, disposable notes to analyses using statistical packages and supporting graphics. Board expressions of confidentiality will be influential in determin- ing the level of detail of the presentation of the results. Review and discussion of results. Depending on confiden- tiality limitations, the results may be reviewed at executive session, at a board retreat, in a seminar, and so forth. The board should fully understand how susceptible any formal results may be to being accessed through open sessions, sun- shine laws, or FOIA stipulations before the results are com- piled. To a large degree, the interest of the board in the assessment results will dictate how much time is devoted to their review and discussion and whether an outside facilitator is used to guide the process. The board should consider the most effective way to constructively present the results to the directors. This means considering whether the results should be presented in oral and/or written form and whether a desig- nated director (or directors) or an outside facilitator or confi- dant known and trusted by the board should do the presenta- tion. In many respects, what the board does with the results in terms of review and discussion is the substance of the self- assessment process. The board should expect to devote a suf- ficient amount of time to the results of the self-assessment— an amount that is congruent with the expectations and the level of detail of the assessment (Level I, II, or III). If the results of the self-assessment are not given an appropriate amount of review, the self-assessment can become an acad- emic exercise that is devoid of value in assessing the board’s perceived effectiveness and its perception of where it needs to be in terms of considering steps (remedial actions) to improve board effectiveness.

15 Follow-up (improvement actions). Follow-up to the assess- ment is the responsibility of the board. There are a number of follow-up alternatives described in the Handbook (refer to the section above titled “What About Follow-Up to the Assess- ment?”). However, the key issue is that the board must collec- tively come to an understanding of what kind of follow-up (if any) it wishes to pursue. The board can pursue follow-up infor- mally in executive session—potentially aided by a standing or designated subcommittee—or through the use of outside, pro- fessional resources. More formal approaches to follow-up may attract undesired public attention to the issue of concern; using industry initiatives (such as APTA transit board member sem- inars, etc.) may address the concern more discreetly. The board has a wide range of latitude to choose follow-up measures to improve board effectiveness, including encouraging individ- ual directors to pursue self-study and attendance at transit industry forums that are geared to policymaking oversight bodies.