Twenty-one Links answered. Every single one rated the retreat a 4 or 5, and no session averaged below 4.5 — the execution was not the problem. The signal worth the board's attention is quieter: a small, consistent group wants the retreat to be a working session, not a reporting session.
Ratings are 1–5. The gap between the two lead questions is the whole story of this survey: satisfaction outruns strategic confidence.
Nobody scored the experience below a 4. But two people were only lukewarm that the day moved the chapter forward — and both wrote comments explaining why.
Ranked by mean rating. The spread across all twelve sessions is 0.52 of a point — statistically, these are all the same score. Two sessions were perfect: every respondent gave Opening Act and The Soundtrack of Sisterhood a 5.
A single entry (submitted 28 Aug) rated the overall retreat 5 and 5, wrote “It was very enjoyable and a needed refresh” — then gave STY a 1 and Money Moves a 2. Whether that is a real reaction to two sessions or a slip on the scale, it is worth knowing that it alone sets the bottom of the ranking. Drop that one entry and STY rises from 4.57 to 4.75, Money Moves from 4.48 to 4.60, and the twelve-session spread narrows to 0.40. Nothing else in the ranking moves more than a tenth.
The three yes/no questions. Timing passed comfortably — but read it alongside section 06, because two people used the comment box to ask for a later start anyway.
Food is the only score that got worse as late responses came in — five “no” votes at the first count, six now. Two of the twelve comments name it, and both are about the menu rather than the service: one asks for a real breakfast, the other for a better lunch.
Sixteen responses came in within hours of the retreat. Five trickled in over the following ten days — and four of those five wrote the only substantive critiques in the dataset.
Comments in this group are warmth and thanks: “one of the BEST retreats we've had in years,” “everything was great and informative.” Two offered a concrete tweak.
Both 3s live here, and so do the comments about reporting-versus-planning, room setup, start time and food. The three who answered 23–27 Aug average 3.33 on this question.
Two things keep this from being a clean pattern. The newest response, filed 1 Sept, scored 5 and 4 and called the retreat great — so “answered late” does not by itself mean “unhappy.” And one of the three location complaints came in on the day itself, not the week after. What actually separates the two groups is not timing but willingness to write: the members with a critique took a week to phrase it carefully. Three to five people is far too small a group to call a trend, but their notes are specific, actionable and consistent with each other — a better reason to act on them than the raw score is to dismiss them.
Twelve of twenty-one left a comment. Six asked for nothing at all; the rest cluster into five asks plus one open disagreement. Counts are the number of comments raising each point.
The single most-repeated theme, and the one tied to the lowest momentum scores. These members came expecting to build something together and experienced an agenda of updates. One proposes going deep on a single topic instead of touching everything.
“This retreat seemed to focus more on updates than planning for the year.”
“When I think of ‘retreat’ I think more of refresh and renew rather than reporting. I'd hoped there would be more time to challenge, reimagine, and put our collective minds and hearts together for greater outcomes… we should be ready to address the challenges we face as a chapter.”
“Future retreats should focus on one topic and make some progress than trying to do everything. Like an entire retreat on fundraising and how it fits into our programming needs.”
Both askers want the same thing and name the same times — fellowship at 9:00, program at 9:30. Note the tension with the data: 20 of 21 said yes to the day and time, so this is a refinement to a working format, not a fix to a broken one.
“Start time of 9:30 or 10 am — same cadence as meetings.”
“The retreat should start the same time as our chapter meetings. Fellowship at 9 AM with meetings starting at 9:30 AM.”
Three people voted no on location, but the written objection is specific and cheap to fix: the seating arrangement. The second comment asks for something bigger — a setting that signals “retreat” rather than “meeting.”
“Location is good, but the room configuration was uncomfortable with Link sisters sitting back to back without a lot of room to move.”
“This includes a location that inspires and a non-member to lead inspiring discussions.”
The one place two members point in opposite directions. One wants more hours — possibly overnight — to actually work the calendar and to bond. The other says the current length is right precisely because members are stretched. Worth settling deliberately rather than by default, and worth noting that a shorter day makes the single-topic format in section 07 more necessary, not less.
“Need a longer retreat for more opportunity to plan and work through our events and activities for the year. Consider overnight retreat to allow for more time for bonding.”
“The length of the retreat was good due to individuals in our chapter being busy.”
Six “no” votes, and the two written comments agree on the diagnosis: the problem is the menu, not the catering. Three concrete requests between them — a real breakfast, a better lunch, and eating out together rather than bringing food in.
“We need better food for breakfast from reputable good bakeries so it feels like a treat. We should all go out for lunch instead of bringing food in.”
“The retreat was great. All Link sisters were engaged… I would improve the menu for lunch.”
Half of the written responses asked for nothing at all, and even the critical ones open with thanks. Whatever changes next year, the tone of the day is worth protecting.
“This was a much needed lovely day of sisterhood, strategic planning and synergy. It is my joy, honor and blessing to be able to serve and fellowship alongside such smart, powerful, compassionate and loving women.”
“One of the BEST retreats we've had in years. It was inspirational and engaging!!”
Five moves, ordered by how much evidence sits behind them.
Move committee and facet updates into a pre-read or a short pre-retreat call, and give the retreat day itself to one or two decisions the chapter actually has to make. This is the only change that addresses the momentum gap directly.
Evidence: 3 comments · both 3-ratings on “helpful to move us forward”A member named fundraising and how it fits the programming plan as a worked example. One topic, taken to a real decision, is also the version of this that fits inside a single day — which matters, because the chapter is split on whether the retreat should get longer at all.
Evidence: 2 comments · resolves the length disagreement without adding hoursFood is the weakest number on the survey and the only one that slipped as late responses arrived. Both comments point at the menu specifically: a proper breakfast and a better lunch, or going out together. This is the cheapest visible win available.
Evidence: 6 no-votes · 2 comments, both about the menuNear-zero cost, two explicit requests, and it borrows a rhythm members already know from chapter meetings. Note the tension: 20 of 21 approved the current timing, so treat this as a refinement rather than a fix.
Evidence: 2 comments · but 20 of 21 approved the current timingRounds or a horseshoe instead of back-to-back rows fixes the one location complaint anyone actually described, and it also enables the working-session format above. Treat “a location that inspires” as a separate, later question.
Evidence: 2 comments · 3 no-votes on locationEvery rated item, with counts. Blanks are respondents who skipped that session.
| Item | Mean | Answered | 5s | 4s | 3 or lower |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Did the retreat meet your expectations? | 4.67 | 21 | 14 | 7 | 0 |
| Was the retreat helpful to move our chapter forward? | 4.52 | 21 | 13 | 6 | 2 |
| Opening Act · Link Ruth | 5.00 | 21 | 21 | 0 | 0 |
| The Soundtrack of Sisterhood · Link Linda | 5.00 | 21 | 21 | 0 | 0 |
| Voices that Matter · Link Peggy | 4.86 | 21 | 18 | 3 | 0 |
| Fundraising Remix · Links Velda and Melissa | 4.84 | 19 | 17 | 1 | 1 |
| Our Greatest Hits · Chapter-wide | 4.75 | 20 | 15 | 5 | 0 |
| Move, Groove and Recharge · Link Tonja | 4.75 | 20 | 16 | 3 | 1 |
| HHS · Links Jordee and Mysheika | 4.71 | 21 | 17 | 2 | 2 |
| Leading the Way: Project LEAD · Links Toni and LaChelle | 4.70 | 20 | 15 | 4 | 1 |
| ITS · Link Tiffany | 4.68 | 19 | 14 | 4 | 1 |
| Tech Tunes · Links Shari and Courtney | 4.62 | 21 | 13 | 8 | 0 |
| STY · Link LeShel | 4.57 | 21 | 15 | 5 | 1 |
| Money Moves · Link Lisa | 4.48 | 21 | 12 | 8 | 1 |
| Liked the location | — | 21 | 18 yes · 3 no | ||
| Liked the food | — | 21 | 15 yes · 6 no | ||
| Liked the day, date and time | — | 21 | 20 yes · 1 no | ||
Method. All 21 entries submitted to the chapter retreat feedback survey between 22 August and 1 September 2026 are included; no responses were excluded. Ratings are on a 1–5 scale and are reported as unrounded means with the count of respondents who answered that item — between one and two people skipped each of six sessions. Location, food and timing were yes/no. Percentages are of respondents who answered the item, not of all 21. With a sample this small, a single response moves a session mean by up to two tenths, so differences between adjacent sessions in the ranking should not be read as meaningful; the comment themes and the yes/no counts carry more information than the ordering does.