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.
3SECTION 1 INTRODUCTIONâEFFECTIVENESS OF BOARDS OF DIRECTORS Determining the effectiveness of a board of directors (board) responsible for policymaking and oversight for a nonprofit public enterprise such as a transit system depends on a number of perspectives with regard to what is to be evaluated, who will do the evaluation, and the level in the overall social, economic, and political environment at which the policymaking board operates. The system diagram shown in Exhibit 1 illustrates the variables that ultimately affect the performance characteristics that are to be evaluated by transit boards. The diagram portrays the numerous factors that can affect a boardâs effectiveness. However, the most immediate improve- ments the board can undertake are limited to its own actions. The broader category of effort that boards exert to achieve intended results is called âBoard Actions Behaviorâ in the diagram to include patterns of actions and effort to alter atti- tudes that may improve the boardâs effectiveness. Another important measure of board effectiveness is board results. Typical measures of board results include the proportion of meeting time spent on substantive discussions, the effective- ness of committee structures, and agenda prioritization. However, few of these measures attract unanimous support, and fewer still are universally assessed. This is largely because of a focus on inputs and organization rather than on outputs (in the form of decisions and policymaking leader- ship for the organization). Although there are few questions in the assessment tool pertaining to board attributes, the education or skills of the board members, or their qualifications to represent particular constituencies (such as the mobility impaired or economi- cally disadvantaged), these characteristics are generally not directly affected by a sitting board, and they are therefore not considered in board effectiveness measurements. However, some may argue that many boards and many individual board members are consulted regarding upcoming board appointments. Those boards that do advise their appointing agencies about the skills and characteristics that are needed in future appointees to the board may decide to add such characteristics to the self-assessment. However, an expert panel that selected the evaluation criteria concurred that boards generally do not affect appointments and decided that board attributes should not be a board effectiveness assess- ment factor.
4Enabling Statute Board Attributes Public, Media, Policy- Maker Support Funding Constraints Transportation Environment Built Environment Board Results Board Actions Behavior Staff and Operations Effectiveness External Influences Agency Performance Board Effectiveness Assessment System Exhibit 1. Board effectiveness assessment system.