2014 membership survey results for the texas lone … membership survey report.pdftexas lone star...

2014 Membership Survey Results

For the Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA

July 2014

"to make the right decisions you need to ask the right questions and

get the right information"

Consultants to private clubs: helping clubs succeed!!

P.O. Box 874

Atlanta, GA 30301 404-229-0718

www.ferreiracompany.com

Table of Contents Page Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... i List of Appendices ............................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 4 Research Methodology ......................................................................................................... 4 Research Objectives .............................................................................................................. 5 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 6 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 6 Results ................................................................................................................................... 7 Demographic Comparison of Actual Members to Survey Respondents .............................. 7 Interpretation of Graphs and Information ............................................................................. 8 Classifications of Survey Respondents ................................................................................. 9 Overall Assessment of the Chapter ..................................................................................... 14 Importance of TLSC Areas ................................................................................................. 16 Satisfaction with TLSC Areas ............................................................................................ 18 Regional Meeting Topics .................................................................................................... 21 General Regional Meeting Issues ....................................................................................... 26 Statewide Meeting Topics .................................................................................................. 28 General Statewide Meeting Issues ...................................................................................... 33 Types of Programs .............................................................................................................. 35 Website and Newsletter ...................................................................................................... 38 Pricing ................................................................................................................................. 40

Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA 2014 Membership Survey Report Page ii

Issues ................................................................................................................................... 44 Educational Topics ............................................................................................................. 47 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 50

A. Copy of the Questionnaire B. Summary of Responses to Open Ended Questions or Other Comments to Questions

28, 33, 41, 52, 69, 86, and 96

Appendix C (Under separate cover) Actual Responses to Question 28:

What would increase your attendance level and participation at REGIONAL meetings? Actual Responses to the other portion of Question 33:

Other cities for the statewide meetings to be held at. Actual Responses to Question 41:

What would increase your attendance level and participation at STATEWIDE meetings? Actual Responses to the other portion of Question 52:

Other preferred types of programs. Actual Responses to Question 69:

What would increase the value of your TLSC membership? Actual Responses to the other portion of Question 86:

Other preferred educational topics. Actual Responses to Question 96:

If the survey has not touched on a topic that is important to you, please list any additional comments and suggestions that would enhance your experience in the TLSC and improve the level of communication from TLSC.

Appendix D (Under separate cover)

Crosstabulation Tables: (region, length of membership in TLSC, length of membership in CMAA, age, gender, club position, CCM certification status, club type, and total club revenue).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA 2014 Membership Survey Overview An online questionnaire was made available to all Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA members in May of 2014. A total of 149 members (out of 287 possible respondents) completed an online survey for an overall response rate of 52%. [In 2006 a total of 164 surveys were returned out of 239 possible respondents for a 68% response rate and in 2001 a total of 144 surveys were returned out of 275 possible respondents for a 52% rate.] Demographics of Respondents Approximately 41% of the respondents indicated they were in the North region, while 37% were from the South, 15% were in the Central region, and 7% were from the West. The average length of TLSC membership was 6-10 years. The average length of CMAA membership was 11-15 years. The average age of respondents was 40-49 years old. Approximately 89% of the respondents were males. Approximately 74% of the respondents indicated they were the COO/GM or Club Manager. Almost 43% of the respondents indicated they had their CCM certification. Approximately 79% of the respondents indicated they were in a country club. The average total Club revenue was more than $10 million. General Approximately 99% of the respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that they would recommend the TLSC to other club managers and/or colleagues and they were pleased with TLSC. Most respondents (96%) also agreed that the TLSC was a good value for what they pay in dues, while 94% were satisfied with the social and interaction capabilities at meetings and the educational programs offered at meetings. More than 96% of the respondents indicated the following as being very important or important to them: professional development, education, communication, networking, and management resources. Other areas frequently indicated as being important by over 82% of the respondents were: relationship between University student chapters and TLSC; just lunch, just breakfast, just dinner events; affiliation with national CMAA; social activities; and job prospecting. Respondents were satisfied with many of these areas. Fewer respondents were satisfied with the relationship between University student chapters and TLSC. Regional Meetings The day of the week most preferred for regional meetings was Monday. The other days somewhat preferred were Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Lunch was the time of day most preferred for regional meetings. Other times also preferred were: breakfast, mornings, afternoon, dinner and evenings. The number of regional meetings preferred by most respondents was 4 to 6, while some preferred 1 to 3. The most frequently preferred months for regional meetings were: January, August, February, March, September, and November. Many respondents preferred the regional meetings be both half-day sessions (3 to 4 hours) and 1.5 to 2 hours sessions in length.

Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA 2014 Membership Survey Report Page 2

Regional Meeting Issues Many respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the following: Regional meetings should have a social activity and/or interaction time as well as

educational and business sessions. There should be one or two meetings with allied associations, i.e., PGA, GCSAA, TARO,

HFTP, USTPA, etc. Once a year there should be a meeting that the manager and his/her club's president or a

board member are invited to attend. Regional meetings to be on the same day month to month, i.e., 2nd Monday of each month. Local regions should have holiday social(s), i.e., Christmas parties. Participating in golf should be offered at a country/golf club that is hosting a regional

meeting Statewide Meetings A two day session was preferred for statewide meetings by most of the respondents. The most frequently reported days of the week preferred by respondents for state meetings were: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday. Many of the respondents preferred three statewide meetings per year while some preferred two annual meetings. The most frequently preferred months for statewide meetings were: July, August, January, and November. The most frequently preferred cities for statewide meetings were: Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, and Corpus Christi. Statewide Meeting Issues Many respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the following: Statewide meetings should have a social activity and/or interaction time as well as

educational and business sessions. Statewide meetings should rotate to different regions. Many also agreed that participating in golf should be offered at a country/golf club that is

near the location of the statewide meeting. There should be one or two meetings with allied associations, i.e., PGA, GCSAA, TARO,

HFTP, USTPA, etc. Once a year there should be a meeting that the manager and his/her club's presidents or a

board member are invited to attend. Statewide meetings should be at a destination location that is appealing to the entire family

and children. Types of Program The types of programs most respondents preferred were six credit CMI workshop and a single presenter/speaker. Many of the respondents also preferred a roundtable with one moderator and managers participating; online educational opportunities-statewide education session broadcasts; online educational opportunities-webinars; a panel discussion with 3 or 4 managers presenting and a question period; online educational opportunities-regional education session broadcasts; and demonstration, i.e., meat cutting, food preparation, experimental meal, etc.


Website and Newsletter Many respondents agreed that they were satisfied with the newsletter and they were satisfied with the TLSC's website. Fewer respondents agreed that TLSC should mail a printed copy of the newsletter, in addition to making it available electronically, even though there are costs for printing and mailing it. E-mail and the website were the most preferred methods of communication by all respondents. Many also preferred the newsletter/bulletin. Pricing Most respondents indicated the following as priced just right: TLSC statewide dues, TLSC regional dues, and overall costs of statewide meetings. The average fee for a 6-credit CMI program workshop in Texas (inclusive of educational and social activities) was $201-300. The average full registration fee for a statewide meeting (inclusive of educational & social activities) preferred by the largest number of respondents was $201-300. The average full registration fee for a regional meeting (inclusive of food and beverage & social activities) preferred by the largest number of respondents was $51-100. Issues Most respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the following issues: it's important for the Chapter to be involved at the national level; support TLSC raising money for scholarships through one annual Chapter event; it is important for the TLSC to develop promotional materials about the benefits of TLSC/CMAA that can be given to club board members; it is important that the TLSC offer more educational opportunities online e.g., webinars, regional meeting broadcasts, statewide meeting broadcasts; and there should be a vendor trade show annually in conjunction with a meeting to help defray the cost of meetings. Most respondents indicated the Yellow Rose Ball should be held annually, while many indicated it should be held every other year. Educational Topics The educational topics that members most preferred were: Accounting & financial management Food & beverage management Leadership Human & professional resources Club operation topics Technology topics Club governance Facilities management Capital projects and renovations Membership and marketing.


BACKGROUND

The Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA would like to make changes in its current services and activities based on what the majority of the members are willing to support. Moreover, it is concerned about its current members' levels of satisfaction and what changes they would like to make. A survey was developed for use as a market research tool. It forms the main building block for devising and implementing a plan of action. Its results also serve as a tool to use in making key decisions on the future direction of the Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA and the development of its strategic plan.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The chosen method for data collection was a survey instrument. This seven-page survey was made available to members of the Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA to complete online in May of 2014. Responses were received throughout the months of May and June. Online responses were received from 149 members. A sample of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix A. The survey was comprised mainly of closed-ended questions with measured levels of response. There were, in addition to the closed-ended questions, seven open-ended questions. The responses to these questions including the “Additional comments or suggestions” are listed in Appendices B and C.


RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the research were as follows:

1. Establish a demographic profile of respondents to the survey.

2. Determine member satisfaction with the Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA.

3. Examine the importance of educational, social, and networking activities at meetings.

4. Determine the cities where members would like the statewide meetings to be held.

5. Explore the days, times, and months members would prefer to meet for both regional and

state wide meetings.

6. Assess what types of programs members want.

7. Explore member satisfaction with the website and newsletter of the chapter.

8. Examine member satisfaction with prices for dues, meetings, etc.

9. Assess member support for issue alternatives.

10. Determine educational topics members prefer.

11. Investigate how region, length of membership in TLSC, length of membership in CMAA,

age, gender, club position, CCM certification status, club type, and total club revenue

affect how respondents answered the questions.

12. Offer a line of communication between the members and the Board/management.


DATA ANALYSIS

Most of the survey questions required a Likert Scale response, with possible answers on a four to five-point scale. The scales were used for questions that required the respondents to rate their agreement with statements, satisfaction with prices, and preferences. Yes/no responses; preferences for days, times, and months; and member demographics questions ranged from two-point to twelve-point scales. Wherever possible, the number of acceptable responses was limited in order for the data to be meaningful. Three statistical software packages were used to analyze the data: Survey Pro, Microtab, and SPSS/PC+. Frequency tables were developed for all of the questions. Questions not answered by a respondent were coded as a missing value. Missing values were taken into account when working with frequency tables and calculating percentages. Crosstabulations were used for further analysis. Specific demographic factors were cross-tabulated against each response to determine what effect those demographic factors may have had, if any, on the responses to the questions. For example, a member’s age may have an affect on the member’s satisfaction level or on the preference level of a specific activity, program, or service. Chi-square, T-tests, and one-way ANOVAS showed the effect of this and other demographic characteristics on the responses. Questions that had a significant difference in answers, based on a demographic characteristic, are reported at the end of each section in the following survey report. To see the differences in answers for each question by all of the demographic variables, refer to the separate Appendix D.

LIMITATIONS

The results of this study can be applied only to the members of the Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA. Results will vary from chapter to chapter within CMAA and from one time period to another for the Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA. The results are opinions of members only during the months of May and June of 2014.


RESULTS

An online questionnaire was made available to all Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA members in May of 2014. A total of 149 members (out of 287 possible respondents) completed an online survey for an overall response rate of 52%. [In 2006 a total of 164 surveys were returned out of 239 possible respondents for a 68% response rate and in 2001 a total of 144 surveys were returned out of 275 possible respondents for a 52% rate.] All research samples have a variance, or error, when responses are not received from the entire population, or, in this case, the 287 Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA members. The 149 valid responses produced a sampling variance error of approximately 3.8% at a 95% confidence level for the entire population. This means that if a question had a sample mean response of 3.50 out of a scaled question of 1 to 4, we would expect the population mean to be (4 x .0380 = .152, 3.50 + .15) between 3.35 and 3.65, 95 out of 100 times with only a 5% chance of error. Another interpretation of the results is if a question had 75% of the respondents agreeing to an item, we would expect the agreement level of the entire population (membership) to be between 71.2% and 78.8% (75% + 3.8%) at a 95% confidence level.

DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON OF ACTUAL MEMBERS TO SURVEY RESPONDENTS

As indicated in the tables below, the gender, age and length of membership for the respondents were similar to the demographics of the general membership.

GENDER

Actual Percent

Survey Respondents %

Male 87% 89%

Female 13% 11%

Total 100% 100%

AGE

Actual Percent


Under 30 9% 8%

30 to 39 20% 19%

40 to 49 25% 25%

50 to 59 25% 28%

60 to 69 13% 13%

70 and Over 8% 7%

Total 100% 100%


LENGTH

Actual Percent


Two years or less 32% 30%

3 to 5 years 13% 13%

6 to 10 years 16% 18%

11 to 15 years 10% 9%

Over 15 years 29% 30%

Total 100% 100%

INTERPRETATION OF GRAPHS AND INFORMATION In the following pages many of the questions are displayed in graphs that depict the average (mean or median) score of the respondents for that specific question. The graph often has a number of questions grouped together so that you may see the relationship or strength of that question to its group. To interpret a graph of questions using a four point scale (agreement, satisfaction, and preference questions), a mean score of 2.5 indicates that approximately half of the membership agrees, is satisfied, or prefers that item or question. As the mean score increases, a larger number of members agreed, were satisfied, or preferred that item or question. The approximate percentage for a mean score of 2.75 is 66% of the respondents and for a mean score of 3.00 it is 75% of the respondents. Some of the questions in the 2014 survey were similar to questions in both the 2006 and 2001 surveys. In this report, the mean, median, or percentage score from 2006 and/or 2001 are/is italicized next to the 2014 statistic and is also in parenthesis if cited in a paragraph.

Classification of Survey Respondents

Region(Question 87)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Region

North

South

Central

West

41.38

37.24

14.48

6.90

Approximately 41% [40% in 2006 and 47% in 2001] of the respondents indicated they were inthe North region, while 37% [32% & 24%] were from the South region, 14% [20% & 20%]were in the Central region, and 7% [9% & 9%] were from the West.

RegionNorth

South

Central

West

Totals

Forms

6041.4%

5437.2%

2114.5%

106.9%

145100.0%

149


Length of TLSC Membership(Question 88)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Length of TLSC membership

Two years orless

3 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 to 15 years

Over 15 years

29.93

13.61

17.69

8.84

29.93

Length of TLSCmembership

Two years or less

3 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 to 15 years

Over 15 years

Totals

Forms

Median

4429.9%

2013.6%

2617.7%

138.8%

4429.9%

147100.0%

149

2.87

The average length of TLSC membership was 6-10 years [6-10 years in 2006 and 2001]. Almost44% of the respondents indicated they had been members of the TLSC for five years or lesswhile 38% had been members for more than 10 years.

The average length of CMAA membership was 11-15 years [11-15 years in 2006 and 6-10 yearsin 2001]. Almost 24% of the respondents indicated they had been members of CMAA for 5years or less while 54% had been members for more than 10 years.

Length of National CMAA Membership(Question 89)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Length of National CMAA membership

Two years orless

3 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 to 15 years

Over 15 years

9.40

14.77

21.48

7.38

46.98

Length of NationalCMAA membership

Two years or less

3 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 to 15 years

Over 15 years

Totals

Forms

Median

149.4%

2214.8%

3221.5%

117.4%

7047.0%

149100.0%

149

4.09


Age(Question 90)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Age

Under 30

30 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 to 69

70 andover

8.05

18.79

24.83

28.19

13.42

6.71

AgeUnder 30

30 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 to 69

70 and over

Totals

Forms

Median

128.1%

2818.8%

3724.8%

4228.2%

2013.4%

106.7%

149100.0%

149

3.43

The average age of respondents was 40-49 years old [40-49 years old in 2006 and 2001]. Almost27% of the respondents indicated being under 40 years of age while 20% indicated being 60years of age or older.

Approximately 89% of the respondents were males. [85% in 2006 and 93% in 2001].

Gender(Question 91)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Gender

Male

Female

89.12

10.88

GenderMale

Female

Totals

Forms

13189.1%

1610.9%

147100.0%

149


Club Position(Question 92)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Club Position

COO/GM/ClubManager

AssistantManager

Departmenthead/director

74.13

15.38

10.49

Club PositionCOO/GM/ClubManager

Assistant Manager

Departmenthead/director

Totals

Forms

10674.1%

2215.4%

1510.5%

143100.0%

149

Approximately 74% [80% in 2006 and in 2001] of the respondents indicated they were the ChiefOperating Officer, General Manager or Club Manager while 15% were an Assistant Manager.

Many of the respondents (43%) [37% in 2006] indicated they had their CCM certification.

CMAA Certification Status (CCM)(Question 93)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

CMAA certification status (CCM)

CCM certifiedalready

Nearly certified

Pursuingcertification

Not seekingcertification

43.45

12.41

26.21

17.93

CMAA certificationstatus (CCM)

CCM certifiedalready

Nearly certified

Pursuingcertification

Not seekingcertification

Totals

Forms

6343.4%

1812.4%

3826.2%

2617.9%

145100.0%

149


Club Type(Question 94)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Club type

Country/GolfClub

City Club

Racquet/athletic

Other

79.45

5.48

5.48

9.59

Club typeCountry/Golf Club

City Club

Racquet/athletic

Other

Totals

Forms

Median

11679.5%

85.5%

85.5%

149.6%

146100.0%

149

-

Approximately 79% [71% in 2006] of the respondents indicated their club type was acountry/golf club, while 6% [10% in 2006] were affiliated with a city club, 5% [4% in 2006]were with a racquet/athletic club, and the remaining 10% [15% in 2006] were with another typeof club.

The average total Club revenue was more than $10 million [$2-5 million in 2006].Approximately 52% [21% in 2006] of the respondents indicated their total Club revenue wasmore than $10 million while 19% [61% in 2006] indicated their Club revenue was less than $5million.

Club's Total Revenue(Question 95)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Total revenue

Less than $3million

$3 to $5 million

$6 to $10 million

More than $10million

2.76

16.55

28.28

52.41

Total revenueLess than $3million

$3 to $5 million

$6 to $10 million

More than $10million

Totals

Forms

42.8%

2416.6%

4128.3%

7652.4%

145100.0%

149


Overall Assessment of the Chapter(Questions 1-5)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Mean

Overall Assessment

I would recommend the TLSC to other club managersand/or colleagues

Overall, I am pleased with the TLSC

The TLSC is a good value for what I pay in dues

I am satisfied with the social and interaction capabilitiesat meetings

I am satisfied with the educational programs offered atmeetings

3.68

3.46

3.46

3.34

3.25

Approximately 99% of the respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that they wouldrecommend the TLSC to other club managers and/or colleagues (mean=3.68, maximum possiblescore was 4.00) and they were pleased with TLSC (mean=3.46) [3.27 in 2006 & 3.30 in 2001).Most respondents (96%) also strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that the TLSC was a goodvalue for what they pay in dues (mean=3.46) [3.31 in 2006 & 3.44 in 2001], while 94% weresatisfied with the social and interaction capabilities at meetings (mean=3.34) [3.14 in 2006] andthe educational programs offered at meetings (mean=3.25) [3.22 in 2006].

Frequencies:Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Overall, I am pleased withthe TLSC

Overall Assessment

7349.0%

7449.7%

00.0%

21.3%

149100.0%

149

3.46

0.58

±0.09

The TLSC is a good valuefor what I pay in dues

7651.0%

6745.0%

42.7%

21.3%

149100.0%

149

3.46

0.62

±0.10

I would recommend theTLSC to other clubmanagers and/or colleagues

10369.1%

4429.5%

21.3%

00.0%

149100.0%

149

3.68

0.50

±0.08


* Note: Mean error covers 95% of distribution.


Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

I am satisfied with theeducational programsoffered at meetings

Overall Assessment

4432.1%

8562.0%

64.4%

21.5%

137100.0%

149

3.25

0.60

±0.10

I am satisfied with thesocial and interactioncapabilities at meetings

5539.6%

7654.7%

85.8%

00.0%

139100.0%

149

3.34

0.58

±0.10


Importance of TLSC Areas(Questions 6-15)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Mean

Importance & Satisfaction Level--Importance Level

Education-Importance Level

Professional Development-Importance Level

Communication-Importance Level

Networking-Importance Level

Management resources-Importance Level

University student chapters and TLSC relationships-Importance Level

Just lunch, just breakfast, just dinner events-ImportanceLevel

Affiliation with national CMAA-Importance Level

Social activities-Importance Level

Job prospecting-Importance Level

3.78

3.77

3.67

3.65

3.53

3.32

3.26

3.24

3.15

3.13

More than 96% of the respondents indicated the following as being very important or importantto them: Professional development (mean=3.78), education (mean=3.77) [3.80 in 2006],communication (3.67) [3.69 in 2006], networking (3.65) [3.60 in 2006], and managementresources (3.53) [3.54 in 2006]. Other areas frequently indicated as being very important orimportant by over 82% of the respondents were: relationship between University studentchapters and TLSC (3.32) [3.13 in 2006]; just lunch, just breakfast, just dinner events (3.26);affiliation with national CMAA (3.24) [3.25 in 2006]; social activities (3.15); and jobprospecting (3.13) [3.19 in 2006].



Frequencies:Very Important

Somewhat Important

Little Importance

Not Needed

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

ProfessionalDevelopment-Importance Level


11981.0%

2215.0%

64.1%

00.0%

147100.0%

149

3.77

0.51

±0.08

Education-Importance Level

12182.3%

2013.6%

64.1%

00.0%

147100.0%

149

3.78

0.50

±0.08

Affiliation withnational CMAA-Importance Level

5940.1%

6846.3%

1610.9%

42.7%

147100.0%

149

3.24

0.75

±0.12

Networking-Importance Level

10369.1%

4026.8%

64.0%

00.0%

149100.0%

149

3.65

0.56

±0.09


Somewhat Important

Little Importance

Not Needed

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Social activities-Importance Level


4631.7%

7753.1%

2013.8%

21.4%

145100.0%

149

3.15

0.70

±0.12

Job prospecting-Importance Level

4632.2%

7149.7%

2416.8%

21.4%

143100.0%

149

3.13

0.73

±0.12

Managementresources-Importance Level

8457.1%

5738.8%

64.1%

00.0%

147100.0%

149

3.53

0.58

±0.10

Communication-Importance Level

10168.7%

4429.9%

21.4%

00.0%

147100.0%

149

3.67

0.50

±0.08


Somewhat Important

Little Importance

Not Needed

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

University studentchapters and TLSCrelationships-Importance Level


6546.8%

5640.3%

1611.5%

21.4%

139100.0%

149

3.32

0.73

±0.12

Just lunch, justbreakfast, justdinner events-Importance Level

5740.4%

6646.8%

1611.3%

21.4%

141100.0%

149

3.26

0.71

±0.12


Satisfaction with TLSC Areas(Questions 6-15)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Mean

Importance & Satisfaction Level--Satisfaction Level

Communication-Satisfaction Level

Networking-Satisfaction Level

Social activities-Satisfaction Level

Professional Development-Satisfaction Level

Just lunch, just breakfast, just dinner events-SatisfactionLevel

Education-Satisfaction Level

Management resources-Satisfaction Level

Job prospecting-Satisfaction Level

Affiliation with national CMAA-Satisfaction Level

University student chapters and TLSC relationships-Satisfaction Level

3.50

3.46

3.24

3.24

3.18

3.15

3.12

3.09

2.97

2.70

More than 91% of the respondents indicated they were very satisfied or satisfied with thefollowing: communication (mean=3.50) [2.75 in 2006]; networking (3.46) [3.10 in 2006]; socialactivities (3.24); professional development (3.24); just lunch, just breakfast, just dinner events(3.18); education (3.15) [3.28 in 2006]; management resources (3.12) [3.20 in 2006]; and jobprospecting (3.09) [2.94 in 2006]. Many (88%) were also satisfied on affiliation with nationalCMAA (2.97 [3.11 in 2006]. Fewer respondents (70%) were satisfied with the relationshipbetween University student chapters and TLSC (2.70) [2.77 in 2006].



Frequencies:Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

ProfessionalDevelopment-Satisfaction Level


3626.7%

9570.4%

43.0%

00.0%

135100.0%

149

3.24

0.49

±0.08

Education-Satisfaction Level

2619.0%

10778.1%

21.5%

21.5%

137100.0%

149

3.15

0.49

±0.08

Affiliation withnational CMAA-Satisfaction Level

1611.5%

10777.0%

128.6%

42.9%

139100.0%

149

2.97

0.56

±0.10

Networking-Satisfaction Level

6948.9%

6848.2%

42.8%

00.0%

141100.0%

149

3.46

0.55

±0.09


Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Social activities-Satisfaction Level


3626.7%

9570.4%

43.0%

00.0%

135100.0%

149

3.24

0.49

±0.08

Job prospecting-Satisfaction Level

2216.8%

10177.1%

64.6%

21.5%

131100.0%

149

3.09

0.52

±0.09

Managementresources-Satisfaction Level

2820.4%

9770.8%

128.8%

00.0%

137100.0%

149

3.12

0.53

±0.09

Communication-Satisfaction Level

7854.5%

5941.3%

64.2%

00.0%

143100.0%

149

3.50

0.58

±0.10


Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

University studentchapters and TLSCrelationships-Satisfaction Level


43.0%

8966.9%

3627.1%

43.0%

133100.0%

149

2.70

0.58

±0.10

Just lunch, justbreakfast, justdinner events-Satisfaction Level

3326.0%

8667.7%

64.7%

21.6%

127100.0%

149

3.18

0.58

±0.10


Plot of Importance Levels with Satisfaction Levels(Questions 6-15)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00Importance & Satisfaction Level--Importance Level

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00Im

port

ance

& S

atis

fact

ion

Lev

el--

Sat

isfa

ctio

n L

evel

ab

c

d

ef g

h

i

j

Mean

a - Professional Development-Importance Level vs Professional Development-Satisfaction Level

b - Education-Importance Level vs Education-Satisfaction Level

c - Affiliation with national CMAA-Importance Level vs Affiliation with national CMAA-Satisfaction Level

d - Networking-Importance Level vs Networking-Satisfaction Level

e - Social activities-Importance Level vs Social activities-Satisfaction Level

f - Job prospecting-Importance Level vs Job prospecting-Satisfaction Level

g - Management resources-Importance Level vs Management resources-Satisfaction Level

h - Communication-Importance Level vs Communication-Satisfaction Level

i - University student chapters and TLSC relationships-Importance Level vs University student chapters and TLSCrelationships-Satisfaction Level

j - Just lunch, just breakfast, just dinner events-Importance Level vs Just lunch, just breakfast, just dinner events-Satisfaction Level

As displayed in the above plot, the satisfaction levels for most areas were comparable to theirimportance levels. The importance level for the relationship between University student chaptersand TLSC (i) was higher than its satisfaction level.


Regional Meeting Topics

Days Prefer Regional Meetings(Question 16)

* Note: Multiple answer percentage-count totals not meaningful.

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Days prefer regional meetings

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

71.81

50.34

41.61

34.90

18.79

17.45

30.87* Note: Multiple answer percentage-count totals not meaningful.

Days prefer regionalmeetings

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Totals

Forms

10771.8%

7550.3%

6241.6%

5234.9%

2818.8%

2617.4%

4630.9%

**

149

The day(s) of the week most preferred for regional meetings were: Monday (72%) [44% in 2006and 30% in 2001], Tuesday (50%) [28% in 2006 and 28% in 2001], Wednesday (42%) [41% in2006 and 28% in 2001], and Thursday (35%) [27% in 2006 and 14% in 2001].

CROSSTABULATION:TLSC members for 10 years or less (84%); CMAA members for 10 years or less (85%); assistantmanagers, department heads, and directors (95%); and individuals not CCM certified (81%)indicated they preferred more often that regional meetings be on Monday. Members from thesouth region (67%), CMAA members for 10 years or less (62%), and individuals from non-country/golf clubs (60%) indicated they preferred more often that regional meetings be onTuesday. Members with their CCM certification (60%) and those at clubs with more than $5million in revenue (51%) preferred more often that regional meetings be on Wednesday. Refer toCrosstabulation Appendix D, Question 16.


Times Prefer Regional Meetings(Question 17)


0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Times prefer regional meetings:

Lunch

Breakfast

Mornings

Afternoon

Dinner

Evenings

82.31

56.46

53.74

51.70

44.90

42.18 * Note: Multiple answer percentage-count totals not meaningful.

Times prefer regionalmeetings:

Lunch

Breakfast

Mornings

Afternoon

Dinner

Evenings

Totals

Forms

12182.3%

8356.5%

7953.7%

7651.7%

6644.9%

6242.2%

**

149

Lunch was the time of day most preferred for regional meetings by approximately 82% (28% in2006 and 22% in 2001], of the respondents. Other times also preferred were: breakfast (56%)[32% in 2006 and 15% in 2001], mornings (54%) [28% in 2006 and 18% in 2001], afternoon(52%) [58% in 2006 and 38% in 2001), dinner (45%) [25% in 2006 and 15% in 2001], andevenings (42%).

CROSSTABULATION:Members from the south region (85% and 81%); CMAA members for 10 years or less (76% and76%); assistant managers, department heads, and directors (78% and 84%) indicated theypreferred more often that regional meetings be at breakfast time or in the morning. Membersfrom the south region (65% and 65%); assistant managers, department heads, and directors (65%and 60%); and individuals from non-country/golf clubs (73% and 73%) indicated they preferredmore often that regional meetings be at dinner time or in the evening. Refer to CrosstabulationAppendix D, Question 17.


Number of Annual Regional Meetings Anticipating to Attend(Question 18)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Number of regional education meetings

1-3

4-6

7-9

10-12

44.30

48.99

4.03

2.68

Number of regionaleducation meetings

1-3

4-6

7-9

10-12

Totals

Forms

6644.3%

7349.0%

64.0%

42.7%

149100.0%

149

The number of regional meetings preferred by most respondents was 4 to 6 (49%) [51% in 2006and 53% in 2001]. Some also preferred 1 to 3 (44%) [24% in 2006 and 21% in 2001] and asmall number for 7 to 9 (4%) [16% in 2006 and 19% in 2001] meetings per year.

CROSSTABULATION:Members from the central/west region (65%) indicated they preferred more often that there bejust 1-3 regional annual meetings. Members from the south region (70%) indicated more oftenthat they wanted 4-6 regional annual meetings. Refer to Crosstabulation Appendix D, Question18.


Months Prefer Regional Meetings(Question 19)


0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Months prefer regional meetings

Jan

Aug

Feb

Mar

Sep

Nov

Oct

Jun

Jul

Apr

May

Dec

76.87

70.07

64.63

63.27

56.46

51.02

49.66

48.30

41.50

33.33

22.45

8.84


Months preferregional meetings

Jan

Aug

Feb

Mar

Sep

Nov

Oct

Jun

Jul

Apr

May

Dec

Totals

Forms

11376.9%

10370.1%

9564.6%

9363.3%

8356.5%

7551.0%

7349.7%

7148.3%

6141.5%

4933.3%

3322.4%

138.8%

**

149

The most frequently preferred months for regional meetings were: January (76%) [76% in 2006and 56% in 2001], August (70%) (47% in 2006 and 44% in 2001], February (64%) [78% in2006 and 42% in 2001], March (63%) [62% in 2006 and 59% in 2001], September (57%) [65%in 2006 and 61% in 2001], and November (51%) [49% in 2006 and 44% in 2001].


Preferred Length of Regional Meetings(Question 20)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Preferred length of regional meetings

1.5-2 hour session

Half-day session (3-4 hours)

6 hour CMI program

41.61

43.80

14.60

Preferred length ofregional meetings

1.5-2 hour session

Half-day session(3-4 hours)

6 hour CMIprogram

Totals

Forms

5741.6%

6043.8%

2014.6%

137100.0%

149

Approximately 42% [55% in 2006] of the respondents preferred the regional meetings be 1.5 to2 hours in length while 44% [32% in 2006] preferred half-day sessions (3 to 4 hours).

CROSSTABULATION:CMAA members for over 10 years (55%) and members with their CCM certification (53%)indicated they preferred more often that regional meetings be 1.5 to 2 hour sessions. Assistantmanagers, department heads, and directors (38%) preferred more often that there be a 6 hourCMI program. Refer to Crosstabulation Appendix D, Question 20.


Regional Meeting Issues(Questions 21-27)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Mean

Regional Meetings

Have social activity & educational & business

Have 1 or 2 meetings with allied associations

Have one meeting with a club's president/board

Regional meetings to be on the same day

Local regions should have holiday social

Golf offered at the club hosting a meeting

Have educational & business sessions only

3.45

3.39

3.21

2.98

2.95

2.88

1.62

Most of the respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that regional meetings should havea social activity and/or interaction time as well as educational and business sessions (mean=3.45)[3.67 in 2006 and 3.43 in 2001]; there should be one or two meetings with allied associations,i.e., PGA, GCSAA, TARO, HFTP, USTPA, etc. (3.39) [3.31 in 2006]; and once a year thereshould be a meeting that the manager and his/her club's president or a board member are invitedto attend (3.21) [2.99 in 2006]. Many also agreed that they preferred the regional meetings to beon the same day month to month, i.e., 2nd Monday of each month (2.98) [3.29 in 2006 and 3.25in 2001); local regions should have holiday social(s), i.e., Christmas parties (2.95) [2.96 in 2006and 3.24 in 2001); and participating in golf should be offered at a country/golf club that ishosting a regional meeting (2.88). Most disagreed that meetings should only have educationaland business sessions and no social activities or interaction time (1.62) [1.42 in 2006 and 2.21 in2001].

CROSSTABULATION:Members from the north region agreed more often that the local regions should have holidaysocials (mean=3.22 vs. 2.71 and 2.75) compared with members from the south region andassistant managers, department heads, and directors. Members from the central/west region andassistant managers, department heads, and directors agreed more often that golf should beoffered at a country/golf club that is hosting a regional meeting (mean=3.28 and 3.23 vs. 2.57and 2.61) compared with members from the north region and TLSC members for over 10 years.Refer to Crosstabulation Appendix D, Questions 22 and 27.




Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Not Applicable

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Regional meetings tobe on the same day

Regional Meetings

2819.9%

7452.5%

3021.3%

00.0%

96.4%

141100.0%

149

2.98

0.67

±0.12

Local regions shouldhave holiday social

3625.9%

5841.7%

3021.6%

64.3%

96.5%

139100.0%

149

2.95

0.83

±0.15

Have educational &business sessions only

00.0%

128.8%

5842.6%

6346.3%

32.2%

136100.0%

149

1.62

0.65

±0.11

Have social activity &educational & business

7551.4%

6041.1%

64.1%

21.4%

32.1%

146100.0%

149

3.45

0.65

±0.11


Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Not Applicable

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Have one meeting witha club's president/board

Regional Meetings

5336.8%

6645.8%

1611.1%

42.8%

53.5%

144100.0%

149

3.21

0.76

±0.13

Have 1 or 2 meetingswith allied associations

7350.3%

5034.5%

1812.4%

00.0%

42.8%

145100.0%

149

3.39

0.70

±0.12

Golf offered at the clubhosting a meeting

3123.0%

5037.0%

3828.1%

43.0%

128.9%

135100.0%

149

2.88

0.83

±0.15


Statewide Meeting Topics

Preferred Length of State Meetings(Question 29)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Preferred length of state meetings

1-day sessions

2-day sessions

3-day sessions

8.16

85.03

6.80

Preferred length ofstate meetings

1-day sessions

2-day sessions

3-day sessions

Totals

Forms

128.2%

12585.0%

106.8%

147100.0%

149

A two day session was preferred for statewide meetings by 85% [80% in 2006 and 63% in 2001]of the respondents.


Days Prefer State Meetings(Question 30)


0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Days prefer state meetings

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

80.95

44.22

6.80

2.72

2.72

34.01

82.99* Note: Multiple answer percentage-count totals not meaningful.

Days prefer statemeetings

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Totals

Forms

11981.0%

6544.2%

106.8%

42.7%

42.7%

5034.0%

12283.0%

**

149

The most frequently reported days of the week preferred by respondents for state meetings were:Sunday (83%) [78% in 2006], Monday (81%) [76% in 2006], Tuesday (44%) [23% in 2006),and Saturday (34%) [41% in 2006].

CROSSTABULATION:Central/west region members (94%); CMAA members for over 10 years (94%); assistantmanagers, department heads, and directors (100%); and CCM certified individuals (94%)indicated they preferred more often that state meetings be on Monday. Members from the southregion (63%) assistant managers, department heads, and directors (62%) indicated they preferredmore often that regional meetings be on Tuesday. Refer to Crosstabulation Appendix D,Question 30.


Number of Annual State Meetings to Have(Question 31)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Preferred number of state meetings

1

2

3

4

12.41

28.97

48.97

9.66

Preferred number ofstate meetings

1

2

3

4

Totals

Forms

1812.4%

4229.0%

7149.0%

149.7%

145100.0%

149

Almost 49% [49% in 2006 and 43% in 2001] of the respondents preferred three statewidemeetings per year while 29% [36% in 2006 and 35% in 2001] preferred two annual meetings.


Months Prefer Statewide Meetings(Question 32)


0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Months prefer state meetings

Jul

Aug

Jan

Nov

Mar

Sep

Feb

Jun

Apr

Oct

May

Dec

68.71

55.78

54.42

48.98

38.10

38.10

35.37

34.01

30.61

26.53

9.52

4.08


Months prefer statemeetings

Jul

Aug

Jan

Nov

Mar

Sep

Feb

Jun

Apr

Oct

May

Dec

Totals

Forms

10168.7%

8255.8%

8054.4%

7249.0%

5638.1%

5638.1%

5235.4%

5034.0%

4530.6%

3926.5%

149.5%

64.1%

**

149

The most frequently preferred months for statewide meetings were: July (69%), [63% in 2006and 67% in 2001], August (56%) [32% in 2006 and 28% in 2001], January (54%) [42% in 2006and 30% in 2001], and November (49%) [20% in 2006 and 18% in 2001].


Preferred Cities for Statewide Meetings(Question 33)


0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Cities preferred for state meetings

Austin

San Antonio

Dallas

Houston

Corpus Christi

Vacation destination(Cancun, etc.)

Padre Island

El Paso

Lubbock

Fort Worth

Galveston

Other

89.58

85.42

84.03

74.31

27.78

25.00

23.61

8.33

5.56

2.78

1.39

7.64


Cities preferred forstate meetings

Austin

San Antonio

Dallas

Houston

Corpus Christi

Vacationdestination(Cancun, etc.)

Padre Island

El Paso

Lubbock

Fort Worth

Galveston

Other

Totals

Forms

12989.6%

12385.4%

12184.0%

10774.3%

4027.8%

3625.0%

3423.6%

128.3%

85.6%

42.8%

21.4%

117.6%

**

149

The five most frequently preferred cities for statewide meetings were: Austin (90%) [89% in2006 and 89% in 2001], San Antonio (85%) [89% in 2006 and 85% in 2001], Dallas (84%)[84% in 2006 and 80% in 2001], Houston (74%) [78% in 2006 and 69% in 2001], and CorpusChristi (28%) (59% in 2006 and 42% in 2001].

CROSSTABULATION:Central/west region members (53%) and individuals from non-country/golf clubs (48%)indicated they preferred more often that state meetings be at Corpus Christi. Refer toCrosstabulation Appendix D, Question 33.


Statewide Meeting Issues(Questions 34-40)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Mean

Statewide Meetings

Have a social activity & education & business

Statewide meetings should rotate to the different regions

Golf offered at a club hosting a meeting

Have 1 or 2 meetings with allied associations

Have one meeting with a club's president/board

Statewide meetings at a destination appealing to families

Only have educational and business sessions

3.52

3.22

3.07

3.03

2.85

2.72

1.36

The majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the meetings should have a socialactivity and/or interaction time as well as educational and business sessions (mean=3.52) [3.81in 2006 and 3.36 in 2001] and the statewide meetings should rotate to different regions (3.22)[3.56 in 2006 and 3.47 in 2001] . Many also agreed that participating in golf should be offered ata country/golf club that is near the location of the statewide meeting (3.07); that there should beone or two meetings with allied associations, i.e., PGA, GCSAA, TARO, HFTP, USTPA, etc.(3.03) [3.10 in 2006 and 3.43 in 2001]; once a year there should be a meeting that the managerand his/her club's presidents or a board member are invited to attend (2.85) [2.82 in 2006 and3.08 in 2001]; and statewide meetings should be at a destination location that is appealing to theentire family and children (2.72) [2.92 in 2006 and 2.99 in 2001]. Many disagreed that themeetings should only have educational and business sessions and no social activities orinteraction time (1.36) [1.28 in 2006].

CROSSTABULATION:Assistant managers, department heads, and directors (mean=3.06) agreed more often thatstatewide meetings should be at a destination location that is appealing to the entire family andchildren compared to CMAA members for over 10 years (2.52). CCM certified individuals(3.80) agreed slightly more often that the state meetings should have a social activity and/orinteraction time as well as educational and business sessions compared to non-CCM certifiedindividuals (3.28). Central/west region members (3.31) indicated more often that golf should beoffered at a country/golf club that is near the location of the statewide meeting compared to thoseat clubs with $5 million in revenue or less (2.80). Refer to Crosstabulation Appendix D,Questions 34, 37, and 40.




Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Not Applicable

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Statewide meetingsat a destinationappealing to families

Statewide Meetings

128.5%

7854.9%

4229.6%

42.8%

64.2%

142100.0%

149

2.72

0.66

±0.11

Statewide meetingsshould rotate to thedifferent regions

4530.6%

9061.2%

128.2%

00.0%

00.0%

147100.0%

149

3.22

0.58

±0.10

Only haveeducational andbusiness sessions

00.0%

64.8%

3225.6%

8568.0%

21.6%

125100.0%

149

1.36

0.57

±0.10

Have a social activity& education &business

8356.8%

5638.4%

42.7%

21.4%

10.7%

146100.0%

149

3.52

0.62

±0.10


Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Not Applicable

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Have one meetingwith a club'spresident/board

Statewide Meetings

2920.3%

6847.6%

3021.0%

107.0%

64.2%

143100.0%

149

2.85

0.84

±0.14

Have 1 or 2 meetingswith alliedassociations

3424.5%

7352.5%

1812.9%

64.3%

85.8%

139100.0%

149

3.03

0.76

±0.13

Golf offered at a clubhosting a meeting

3525.0%

7654.3%

1410.0%

64.3%

96.4%

140100.0%

149

3.07

0.75

±0.13


Types of Programs(Questions 42-51)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Mean

Types of Programs

Six credit CMI workshop

Single presenter/speaker

Roundtable (one moderator, all managers participating)

Online educational opportunities: statewide educationsession broadcasts

Online educational opportunities: webinars

Panel discussion (3 or 4 managers present with a questionperiod)

Online educational opportunities: regional educationsession broadcasts

Demonstration (meat cutting, food preparation,experimental meal, etc.)

Exhibits (vendors and products)

Sports lessons

3.19

3.07

2.89

2.86

2.83

2.80

2.76

2.56

2.31

2.28

The types of programs most respondents preferred were six credit CMI workshop (mean=3.19)and a single presenter/speaker (3.07) [3.08 in 2006 and 3.37 in 2001]. Many of the respondentsalso preferred a roundtable with one moderator and managers participating (2.89) [2.56 in 2006and 2.96 in 2001]; online educational opportunities: statewide education session broadcasts(2.86); online educational opportunities-webinars (2.83); a panel discussion with 3 or 4 managerspresenting and a question period (2.80) [2.76 in 2006 and 2.61 in 2001]; online educationalopportunities: regional education session broadcasts (2.76); and demonstration, i.e., meat cutting,food preparation, experimental meal, etc. (2.56) [2.58 in 2006 and 2.62 in 2001]. Fewerrespondents preferred exhibits of vendors and/or products (2.34) [2.34 in 2006 and 2.64 in 2001]and sports lessons (2.14) [2.14 in 2006 and 2.38 in 2001].


CROSSTABULATION:Respondents at clubs with $5 million in revenue or less (mean=3.29) preferred more often aneducational program with a panel discussion than did south region members (2.73), central/westmembers (2.71), CMAA members for over 10 years (2.67), those 50 years of age and older(2.69), males (2.74), non-CCM certified individuals (2.73), country/golf club managers (2.75),and those at clubs with more than $5 million in revenue (2.70). Those at clubs with $5 million inrevenue or less (3.29) preferred more often an educational program with a roundtable than didassistant managers, department heads, and directors (2.78), non-CCM certified individuals(2.73), and country/golf club managers (2.81). Those at clubs with $5 million in revenue or lesspreferred more often the following educational programs compared to north region members,CMAA members for over 10 years, COO/GM/Club managers, non-CCM certified individuals,country/golf club managers (2.75), and those at clubs with more than $5 million in revenue:demonstration (3.23 vs. 2.61, 2.61, 2.71, 2.71, 2.72, and 2.74), online educational opportunities -webinars (3.15 vs. 2.47, 2.46, 2.49, 2.42, 2.48, and 2.44), online educational opportunities:statewide education session broadcasts (3.29 vs. 2.64, 2.66, 2.73, 2.79, 2.81, and 2.75), andonline educational opportunities - regional education session broadcasts (3.36 vs. 2.64, 2.60,2.59, 2.69, 2.67, and 2.61). Refer to Crosstabulation Appendix D, Questions 43, 44, 46, 49, 50,and 51.

Frequencies:Highly Preferred

Preferred

Less Preferred

Not Preferred

Not Applicable

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Single presenter/speaker

Types of Programs

4430.1%

6745.9%

3423.3%

00.0%

10.7%

146100.0%

149

3.07

0.73

±0.12

Panel discussion (3 or 4managers present with aquestion period)

3423.0%

6241.9%

3926.4%

128.1%

10.7%

148100.0%

149

2.80

0.89

±0.15

Roundtable (one moderator,all managers participating)

3020.4%

8155.1%

2617.7%

106.8%

00.0%

147100.0%

149

2.89

0.80

±0.13




Preferred

Less Preferred

Not Preferred

Not Applicable

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Exhibits (vendors andproducts)

Types of Programs

21.4%

5436.7%

7953.7%

128.2%

00.0%

147100.0%

149

2.31

0.64

±0.11

Demonstration (meatcutting, food preparation,experimental meal, etc.)

85.4%

7148.3%

6040.8%

64.1%

21.4%

147100.0%

149

2.56

0.67

±0.11

Sports lessons

64.1%

4429.9%

7953.7%

1610.9%

21.4%

147100.0%

149

2.28

0.71

±0.12


Preferred

Less Preferred

Not Preferred

Not Applicable

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Six credit CMI workshop

Types of Programs

4027.2%

9262.6%

138.8%

00.0%

21.4%

147100.0%

149

3.19

0.58

±0.10

Online educationalopportunities: webinars

3121.7%

5840.6%

4632.2%

42.8%

42.8%

143100.0%

149

2.83

0.80

±0.14

Online educationalopportunities: statewideeducation session broadcasts

2517.6%

7049.3%

4028.2%

21.4%

53.5%

142100.0%

149

2.86

0.72

±0.12


Preferred

Less Preferred

Not Preferred

Not Applicable

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Online educationalopportunities: regionaleducation session broadcasts

Types of Programs

2517.4%

6243.1%

4631.9%

64.2%

53.5%

144100.0%

149

2.76

0.79

±0.13


Website and Newsletter(Questions 53-55)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Mean

Website & Newsletter

I am satisfied with the newsletter (RoundUp)

I am satisfied with TLSC's website

Mail a printed copy of the newsletter

3.26

3.06

2.09

Many respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that they were satisfied with thenewsletter (3.26) [2.85 in 2006 and 2.85 in 2001] and they were satisfied with the TLSC'swebsite (3.06) [2.53 in 2006]. Fewer respondents agreed that TLSC should mail a printed copyof the newsletter, in addition to making it available electronically, even though there are costs forprinting and mailing it (2.09).



Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Not Applicable

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

I am satisfied withTLSC's website

Website & Newsletter

2617.9%

10069.0%

139.0%

21.4%

42.8%

145100.0%

149

3.06

0.58

±0.10

I am satisfied with thenewsletter (RoundUp)

4028.0%

9365.0%

42.8%

00.0%

64.2%

143100.0%

149

3.26

0.50

±0.09

Mail a printed copy ofthe newsletter

128.4%

2014.0%

7451.7%

3121.7%

64.2%

143100.0%

149

2.09

0.85

±0.14


Preferred Methods of Communication (Question 56)


0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Methods of communication preferred

E-mail

Website

Newsletter/bulletin

Phone calls

Facebook and/or Twitter

Letters/Flyers

Chat groups and web casts

100.00

89.26

44.97

29.53

24.16

18.79

10.74

E-mail (100%) [100% in 2006] and the website (90%) [80% in 2006] were the most preferredmethods of communication by all respondents. Many also preferred the newsletter/bulletin (45%)[51% in 2006].


Methods of communicationpreferred

E-mail

Website

Newsletter/bulletin

Phone calls


Letters/Flyers

Chat groups and web casts

Totals

Forms

149100.0%

13389.3%

6745.0%

4429.5%

3624.2%

2818.8%

1610.7%

**

149

CROSSTABULATION:TLSC members for over 10 years (42%), CMAA members for over 10 years (42%), CCMcertified individuals (41%), and individuals from non-country/golf clubs (47%) indicated theypreferred more often phone calls. CMAA members for over 10 years (32%); members under 50(31%); assistant managers, department heads, and directors (38%); CCM certified individuals(35%); and individuals from non-country/golf clubs (40%) indicated they preferred more oftenFacebook and/or Twitter. Refer to Crosstabulation Appendix D, Question 56.


Pricing(Questions 57-59)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Mean

Pricing

TLSC statewide dues amount ($250)

TLSC regional dues amount (S=$100, N & C=$75, W=$50)

Statewide meetings (overall costs including travel,lodging, etc.)

3.07

3.01

2.81

Most respondents indicated the following as priced just right: TLSC statewide dues (3.07) [3.13in 2006 and 3.00 in 2001], TLSC regional dues (3.01) [3.01 in 2006 and 2.94 in 2001], andoverall costs of statewide meetings (2.81) [3.07 in 2006 and 3.01 in 2001].


Frequencies:Too Low

Somewhat Low

Just Right

Somewhat High

Too High

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

TLSC statewide duesamount ($250)

Pricing

42.8%

149.9%

11380.1%

85.7%

21.4%

141100.0%

149

3.07

0.57

±0.10

TLSC regional duesamount (S=$100, N &C=$75, W= $50)

42.9%

107.2%

11381.3%

85.8%

42.9%

139100.0%

149

3.01

0.60

±0.10

Statewide meetings(overall costs includingtravel, lodging, etc.)

00.0%

85.8%

10172.7%

2618.7%

42.9%

139100.0%

149

2.81

0.57

±0.10


Fee for a 6-credit CMI Program Workshop(Question 60)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Fee for a 6-credit CMI program workshop

Less than$100

$100-200

$201-300

$301-400

Over $400

4.76

43.54

36.73

12.24

2.72

Fee for a 6-credit CMIprogram workshop

Less than $100

$100-200

$201-300

$301-400

Over $400

Totals

Forms

Median

74.8%

6443.5%

5436.7%

1812.2%

42.7%

147100.0%

149

2.55

The average fee for a 6-credit CMI program workshop in Texas (inclusive of educational andsocial activities) was $201-300. Almost 44% indicated the fee should be $100-200 and 37%indicated the fee should be $201-300. [The average fee was $101-125 in both 2006 and 2001.]

CROSSTABULATION:CCM certified individuals (median=$100-200) indicated a lower fee they wanted to pay for a 6-credit CMI program compared to non-CCM certified individuals, individuals from non-country/golf clubs, and those at clubs with $5 million in revenue or less ($201-300). Refer toCrosstabulation Appendix D, Question 60.


Full Statewide Meeting Registration Fee(Question 61)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Full statewide meeting registration fee

Less than$100

$100-200

$201-300

$301-400

Over $400

2.76

8.28

43.45

37.24

8.28

Full statewide meetingregistration fee

Less than $100

$100-200

$201-300

$301-400

Over $400

Totals

Forms

Median

42.8%

128.3%

6343.4%

5437.2%

128.3%

145100.0%

149

3.40

The average full registration fee preferred by the largest number of respondents (44%) for astatewide meeting (inclusive of educational & social activities) was $201-300. [The average feewas $176-250 in 2006 and $126-150 in 2001]. Approximately 37% indicated the fee should be$301-400.

CROSSTABULATION:Members from the central/west region and clubs with $5 million in revenue or less indicated ahigher fee ($301-$400) they wanted to pay for the full registration fee for a statewide meetingthan north region members ($$201-$300). Refer to Crosstabulation Appendix D, Question 61.


Full Regional Meeting Registration Fee(Question 62)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Full regional meeting registration fee

0

$1-25

$26-50

$51-100

$101-200

Over $200

21.77

5.44

18.37

24.49

19.05

10.88

Full regional meetingregistration fee

0

$1-25

$26-50

$51-100

$101-200

Over $200

Totals

Forms

Median

3221.8%

85.4%

2718.4%

3624.5%

2819.0%

1610.9%

147100.0%

149

3.68

The average full registration fee preferred by the largest number of respondents (25%) for aregional meeting (inclusive of food and beverage & social activities) was $51-100.Approximately 30% indicated the fee should be more than $100 and 45% indicated the feeshould be $50 or less.

CROSSTABULATION:Members from the central/west region ($101-$200) and clubs with $5 million in revenue or less($51-$100) indicated a higher fee they wanted to pay for the full registration fee for a regionalmeeting than north region members ($1-$25). Refer to Crosstabulation Appendix D, Question62.


Issues(Questions 63-67)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Mean

Issues

Chapter should be involved at the national level

Support raising money for scholarships at Chapter event

Develop materials about the benefits of TLSC/CMAA

Offer more educational opportunities online

I would attend an annual vendor trade show

3.50

3.33

3.30

3.12

3.04

Most respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the following issues: it's importantfor the Chapter to be involved at the national level (mean=3.50) [3.47 in 2006]; support TLSCraising money for scholarships through one annual Chapter event (3.33); it is important for theTLSC to develop promotional materials about the benefits of TLSC/CMAA that can be given toclub board members (3.30); it is important that the TLSC offer more educational opportunitiesonline e.g., webinars, regional meeting broadcasts, statewide meeting broadcasts (3.12); andthere should be a vendor trade show annually in conjunction with a meeting to help defray thecost of meetings (3.04) [2.74 in 2006].

CROSSTABULATION:Assistant managers, department heads, and directors (mean=3.86) agreed more often that it isimportant for the Chapter to be involved at the national level compared to CMAA members forover 10 years (3.39). CMAA members for 10 years or less (3.39); assistant managers,department heads, and directors (3.61); and those at clubs with $5 million in revenue or less(3.46) agreed more often that it is important that the TLSC offer more educational opportunitiesonline e.g., webinars, regional meeting broadcasts, statewide meeting broadcasts compared tonorth region members (3.00), TLSC members for over 10 years (2.91), CMAA members for over10 years (2.91), CCM certified individuals (2.88), and individuals from non-country/golf clubs(2.86). Refer to Crosstabulation Appendix D, Questions 63 and 65.




Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Not Applicable

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Chapter should be involved atthe national level

Issues

8255.0%

6140.9%

42.7%

21.3%

00.0%

149100.0%

149

3.50

0.62

±0.10

Develop materials about thebenefits of TLSC/CMAA

5638.9%

7149.3%

106.9%

21.4%

53.5%

144100.0%

149

3.30

0.67

±0.11

Offer more educationalopportunities online

3524.8%

8459.6%

1812.8%

00.0%

42.8%

141100.0%

149

3.12

0.61

±0.10


Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Not Applicable

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

I would attend an annualvendor trade show

Issues

4027.6%

7753.1%

1812.4%

85.5%

21.4%

145100.0%

149

3.04

0.80

±0.13

Support raising money forscholarships at Chapter event

5438.3%

7956.0%

42.8%

21.4%

21.4%

141100.0%

149

3.33

0.61

±0.10


Yellow Rose Ball Frequency(Question 68)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency (%)

Yellow Rose Ball Frequency

Annually

Every otheryear

Once everythree years

Once everyfive years

57.34

38.46

4.20

0.00

Yellow Rose BallFrequency

Annually

Every other year

Once every three years

Once every five years

Totals

Forms

8257.3%

5538.5%

64.2%

00.0%

143100.0%

149

Most respondents (57%) indicated the Yellow Rose Ball should be held annually, while 39%indicated it should be held every other year.


Educational Topics(Questions 70-85)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Mean

Educational Topics

Accounting & financial management

Food & beverage management

Leadership

Human & professional resources

Club operational topics

Technology topics

Club governance

Facilities management

Capital projects and renovation topics

Membership & marketing

Family programs

External & governmental influences

Interpersonal skills

Golf, sports & recreation management

Safety and security

Insurance

3.34

3.26

3.25

3.22

3.19

3.11

3.07

2.99

2.99

2.92

2.85

2.85

2.84

2.83

2.64

2.61

The most preferred educational topics were: accounting & financial management (mean=3.34)[3.31 in 2006 and 3.31-3.32 in 2001], food & beverage management (3.26) [3.35 in 2006 and3.06-3.17 in 2001], leadership (3.25), human & professional resources (3.22) [3.26 in 2006 and3.20-3.22 in 2001], club operation topics (3.19) [3.46 in 2006], technology topics (3.11) [3.11 in2006 and 3.24-3.26 in 2001], club governance (3.07) [2.90 in 2006 and 3.16-3.26 in 2001],facilities management (2.99), capital projects and renovations (2.99) [3.06 in 2006 and 3.00-3.09in 2010], and membership and marketing (2.92) [3.20 in 2006 and 2.87-3.13 in 2001].


CROSSTABULATION:Members from the south region (mean=3.54 and 3.04); CMAA members for 10 years or less(3.45 and 3.15); and assistant managers, department heads, and directors (3.65 and 3.32)preferred the following two educational topics more often: leadership and golf, sports, andrecreation management than members from the north region (3.00 and 2.63); TLSC members forover 10 years (2.93 and 2.60); CMAA members for over 10 years (3.08 and 2.56); those 50 yearsof age and older (3.14 and 2.62); COO/GM/Club managers (3.11 and 2.65); individuals fromnon-country/golf clubs (3.00 and 2.43); and those at clubs with $5 million in revenue or less(3.07 and 2.79). Those at clubs with $5 million in revenue or less (3.21) preferred more oftenexternal and governmental influence topics than did members from the north region (2.63).Individuals from non-country/golf clubs (3.14) preferred more often insurance topics than didmembers from the north region (2.43); TLSC members for 10 years or less (2.52); CMAAmembers for 10 years or less (2.55); those under 50 years of age (2.49); assistant managers,department heads, and directors (2.57); non-CCM certified individuals (2.47); and individualsfrom country/golf clubs (2.49). Refer to Crosstabulation Appendix D, Questions 74, 76, 77 & 83.


Preferred

Less Preferred

Not Preferred

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Clubgovernance

Educational Topics

3222.4%

9163.6%

1812.6%

21.4%

143100.0%

149

3.07

0.64

±0.11

Food &beveragemanagement

5638.6%

7350.3%

149.7%

21.4%

145100.0%

149

3.26

0.69

±0.11

Accounting &financialmanagement

6444.1%

6947.6%

106.9%

21.4%

145100.0%

149

3.34

0.67

±0.11

Human &professionalresources

4229.0%

9364.1%

106.9%

00.0%

145100.0%

149

3.22

0.56

±0.09

Leadership

6041.4%

6343.4%

2013.8%

21.4%

145100.0%

149

3.25

0.74

±0.12


Preferred

Less Preferred

Not Preferred

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Membership &marketing

Educational Topics

3826.2%

5940.7%

4631.7%

21.4%

145100.0%

149

2.92

0.79

±0.13

Golf, sports &recreationmanagement

2618.2%

7149.7%

4229.4%

42.8%

143100.0%

149

2.83

0.75

±0.13

External &governmentalinfluences

3222.1%

6142.1%

5034.5%

21.4%

145100.0%

149

2.85

0.78

±0.13

Facilitiesmanagement

1611.0%

11176.6%

1812.4%

00.0%

145100.0%

149

2.99

0.49

±0.08

Interpersonalskills

2013.8%

8659.3%

3524.1%

42.8%

145100.0%

149

2.84

0.68

±0.11




Preferred

Less Preferred

Not Preferred

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Capital projectsand renovationtopics

Educational Topics

2215.4%

10170.6%

1611.2%

42.8%

143100.0%

149

2.99

0.62

±0.10

Cluboperationaltopics

3423.4%

10572.4%

64.1%

00.0%

145100.0%

149

3.19

0.49

±0.08

Familyprograms

3020.7%

6544.8%

4833.1%

21.4%

145100.0%

149

2.85

0.76

±0.13

Insurance

128.3%

6947.6%

6041.4%

42.8%

145100.0%

149

2.61

0.68

±0.11

Safety andsecurity

128.3%

7350.3%

5638.6%

42.8%

145100.0%

149

2.64

0.67

±0.11


Preferred

Less Preferred

Not Preferred

Totals

Forms

Mean

Std Dev

Mean Error*

Technologytopics

EducationalTopics

3021.0%

9969.2%

149.8%

00.0%

143100.0%

149

3.11

0.55

±0.09


APPENDIX A

Copy of the Questionnaire


Texas Lone Star Chapter CMAA2014 Membership Survey

To guide your Board in the future direction of the Chapter, scheduling the best possible programs for chapter meetings, andto increase member participation at meetings, we ask that you complete the following survey. Completing this survey is yourway of having a voice in the future of your Chapter. Please answer each question by selecting the answer that best reflectsyour opinion.

IF YOU CANNOT ANSWER A QUESTION, ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THAT ITEM, HAVE NO OPINION, OR IF THE QUESTION DOES NOT PERTAIN TO YOU,

PLEASE LEAVE THE QUESTION BLANK OR SELECT N/A

There is a section for your written comments at the end of the survey. Please compile any comments you feel are importantand enter them in that section.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE CHAPTER

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

StronglyAgree Agree Disagree

StronglyDisagree N/A

(1) Overall, I am pleased with the TLSC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(2) The TLSC is a good value for what I pay in dues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(3) I would recommend the TLSC to other club managers and/or colleagues . . . .

(4) I am satisfied with the educational programs offered at meetings . . . . . . . . . . .

(5) I am satisfied with the social and interaction capabilities at meetings . . . . . . . .

Page 1

Texas Lone Star Chapter CMAA Membership Survey

IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

Please indicate how important the following are for the TLSC to provide and your overall satisfaction with them.

Importance Level Satisfaction Level

Very I

mpo

rtant

Somew

hat I

mpo

rtant

Little

Impo

rtanc

e

Not N

eede

d

N/A Very S

atisf

ied

Satisf

ied

Dissat

isfied

Very D

issat

isfied

N/A

(6) Professional Development

(7) Education

(8) Affiliation with national CMAA

(9) Networking

(10) Social activities

(11) Job prospecting

(12) Management resources

(13) Communication

(14) University student chapters and TLSC relationships

(15) Just lunch, just breakfast, just dinner events

REGIONAL MEETINGS

Please answer the following questions in regards to your regional meetings of the TLSC:

(16) I would attend regional meetings on: (select all that apply)

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

(17) I would attend regional meetings at:(select all that apply) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Breakfast Mornings Lunch Afternoon Dinner Evenings

(18) How many regional education meetings do you anticipate attending each year?* . 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12

(19) The month(s) I would prefer regional meetings to be held are: (select all that apply)

JanFeb

MarApr

MayJun

JulAug

SepOct

NovDec

(20) I would prefer most meetings to be a: . . . 1.5-2 hour session Half-day session (3-4 hours) 6 hour CMI program

Page 2




(21) I would prefer the regional meetings to be on the same day month to month,i.e. 2nd Monday of each month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(22) The local regions should have holiday social(s), i.e. Christmas parties . . . . . .

(23) The meetings should only have educational and business sessions, no socialactivities or interaction time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(24) The meetings should have a social activity and/or interaction time as well aseducational and business sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(25) Once a year there should be a meeting that the manager and his/her club'spresident or a board member are invited to attend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(26) There should be one or two meetings with allied associations, i.e. PGA,GCSAA, TARO, HFTP, USTPA, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(27) Participating in golf should be offered at a country/golf club that is hosting aregional meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(28) What would increase your attendance level and participation at REGIONAL meetings?

STATEWIDE MEETINGS

Please answer the following questions in regards to state-wide meetings of the TLSC:

(29) I would prefer statewide meetings to be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-day sessions 2-day sessions 3-day sessions

(30) I would prefer the state meetings to be on: (select all that apply)

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

(31) How many statewide education meetings would you like to see each year?* . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

(32) The month(s) I would prefer statewide meetings to be held are: (select all that apply)

JanFeb

MarApr

MayJun

JulAug

SepOct

NovDec

(33) What cities would you like the statewide meetings to be held at? (select all that apply)

AustinHoustonDallas

San AntonioLubbockEl Paso

Padre IslandCorpus ChristiVacation destination (Cancun, etc.)

Other:

Page 3




(34) Statewide meetings should be at a destination location that is appealing to theentire family and children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(35) Statewide meetings should rotate to the different regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(36) The meetings should only have educational and business sessions, no socialactivities or interaction time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(37) The meetings should have a social activity and/or interaction time as well aseducational and business sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(38) Once a year there should be a meeting that the manager and his/her club'spresident or a board member are invited to attend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(39) There should be one or two meetings with allied associations, i.e. PGA,GCSAA, TARO, HFTP, USTPA, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(40) Participating in golf should be offered at a country/golf club that is near thelocation of the statewide meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(41) What would increase your attendance level and participation at STATEWIDE meetings?

TYPES OF PROGRAMS

Please indicate your preference for the following types of programs:

HighlyPreferred Preferred

LessPreferred

NotPreferred N/A

(42) Single presenter/speaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(43) Panel discussion (3 or 4 managers present with a question period) . . . . . . .

(44) Roundtable (one moderator, all managers participating) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(45) Exhibits (vendors and products) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(46) Demonstration (meat cutting, food preparation, experimental meal, etc.) . . .

(47) Sports lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(48) Six credit CMI workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(49) Online educational opportunities: webinars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(50) Online educational opportunities: statewide education session broadcasts

(51) Online educational opportunities: regional education session broadcasts . .

(52) Other: please specify

Page 4


WEBSITE AND NEWSLETTER




(53) I am satisfied with TLSC's website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(54) I am satisfied with the newsletter (RoundUp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(55) TLSC should mail a printed copy of the newsletter, in addition to making itavailable electronically, even though there are costs for printing and mailing it

(56) Which methods should the Chapter use to communicate with members? (select all that apply)

Newsletter/bulletinWebsite

E-mailLetters/Flyers

Phone callsChat groups and web casts


PRICING

How do you feel about the prices for the following items?

Too LowSomewhat

Low Just RightSomewhat

High Too High N/A

(57) TLSC statewide dues amount ($250) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(58) TLSC regional dues amount (S=$100, N & C=$75, W= $50) . . .

(59) Statewide meetings (overall costs including travel, lodging, etc.)

(60) The fee for a 6-credit CMI program workshop in Texas (inclusive of educational and social activities) should be:

Less than $100 $100-200 $201-300 $301-400 Over $400

(61) The full registration fee (inclusive of food/beverage & social activities) for a statewide meeting should be:

Less than $100 $100-200 $201-300 $301-400 Over $400

(62) The full registration fee (inclusive of food/beverage & social activities) for a regional meeting should be:

0 $1-25 $26-50 $51-100 $101-200 Over $200

ISSUES




(63) It is important for the Chapter to be involved at the national level . . . . . . . . . .

(64) It is important for the TLSC to develop promotional materials about thebenefits of TLSC/CMAA that can be given to club board members . . . . . . . . .

(65) It is important that the TLSC offer more educational opportunities online e.g.,webinars, regional meeting broadcasts, statewide meeting broadcasts . . . . .

(66) I would attend an annual vendor trade show with a meeting, dinner, or cocktailevent with the vendors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(67) I support TLSC raising money for scholarships through one annual Chapterevent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(68) How often should the Yellow Rose Ball (Sally Burns Rambo Scholarship) be held?

Annually Every other year Once every three years Once every five years

Page 5


(69) What would increase the value of your TLSC membership?

EDUCATIONAL TOPICS

Please indicate your preference for the following topics at meetings:

HighlyPreferred Preferred

LessPreferred

NotPreferred N/A

(70) Club governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(71) Food & beverage management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(72) Accounting & financial management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(73) Human & professional resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(74) Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(75) Membership & marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(76) Golf, sports & recreation management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(77) External & governmental influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(78) Facilities management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(79) Interpersonal skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(80) Capital projects and renovation topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(81) Club operational topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(82) Family programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(83) Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(84) Safety and security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(85) Technology topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(86) Other: please specify

CLASSIFICATION

(87) Which region are you a member of? (Choose only one) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Central North South West

(88) Approximately how long have you been a member of the TLSC?

Two years or less 3 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years Over 15 years

(89) Approximately how long have you been a member of CMAA?

Two years or less 3 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years Over 15 years

(90) What is your age? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Under 30 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 and over

(91) What is your gender? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Female Male

(92) Person completing the survey . . . . . . . . COO/GM/Club Manager Assistant Manager Department head/director

(93) CMAA certification status (CCM)

CCM certified already Nearly certified Pursuing certification Not seeking certification

Page 6


(94) Club type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Country/Golf Club City Club Racquet/athletic Other

(95) What is your Club's total revenue

Less than $3 million $3 to $5 million $6 to $10 million More than $10 million

(96) If the survey has not touched on a topic that is important to you, please list any additional comments and suggestionsthat would enhance your experience in the TLSC and improve the level of commincation from TLSC

(97) Membership number. Please enter your membership number in the box provided. . . . . . . . . . . .

The Ferreira Company will ensure the privacy of your response and your input will not be shared with the Board or itscommittees. We are seeking your membership number to help ensure that there is only one response per member.

Thank you for your time and opinions. Please return this questionnaire in the enclosed envelope to the Ferreira CompanyP.O. Box 874, Atlanta, GA 30301.

Page 7


Texas Lone Star Chapter of CMAA 2014 Membership Survey Report Appendix B, Page 1

APPENDIX B

Summary of Responses to Open-Ended Questions Summary of Frequent Comments: (The number next to the comment in parenthesis indicates the number of similar responses to that type of comment). Question 28: What would increase your attendance level and participation at

REGIONAL meetings? (29 responses from 149 respondents) Schedule/timing of meeting and not conflicting with club events (11) Education topic/relevance to club issues (7) Location of meeting (4)

Question 33: Other Comments to: What cities would you like the statewide

meetings to be held at? (only 10 responses from 149 respondents) Question 41: What would increase your attendance level and participation at

STATEWIDE meetings? (28 responses from 149 respondents) Schedule/timing of meeting and not conflicting with club events (9) Education topic/relevance to club issues (7)

Question 52: Other Comments to: Type of Programs? (only 2 responses from

149 respondents) Question 69: What would increase the value of your TLSC membership? (23

responses from 149 respondents) Education topics/practical/interactive sessions (9) Value is good now (3)

Question 86: Other Comments to: Educational Topics (only 4 responses from

149 respondents) Question 96: If the survey has not touched on a topic that is important to you,

please list any additional comments and suggestions that would enhance your experience in the TLSC and improve the level of communication from TLSC (only 9 responses from 149 respondents)

2014 membership survey results for the texas lone … membership survey report.pdftexas lone star...

Documents