Move to Adjourn

image: 

Among the many things that trouble our world is the proliferation of meetings. In many professions of little significance, leaving out, perhaps, the lawyer, the doctor, and the educator (excepting the administrators), meetings for the sake of meetings appears to be the order of the day.

It has been my lonely role to rebel. I rose to my peak within my government profession at the tender age of 34. I was prevented from further advancement by the requirement of entering into senior executive service, which is to say, abandoning any pretense of useful work and descending into the murky swamp of administration with the attendant, all-consuming, meetings. I am proud that, young as I was, I had the good sense to refuse such promotion. In retrospect my decision was probably good for all, given my jaundiced condemnation of the meeting place.

Not that I escaped entirely. No one can. Best to simply accept the onus and carry on. I recall an incident when my director invited me, the eager young scientist, to address the senior level of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) regarding this and that. On our journey into the bowels of DC he asked me what I had in mind to say. I replied that I thought I might begin with a description of so and so. “Oh no,” he advised, “I don’t think we’d better mention that.” Very well; I offered a second subject. This was met with a similar cautionary note. As you might imagine, this situation caused me some consternation. What was I to tell the august assemblage? I have always believed that it is best to be candid and truthful (which helps to explain why I’m not very good in meetings). After my introduction I pointed out that I had intended to talk on so and so, but was forbidden to. I allowed as how my second topic was likewise censored. I quickly concluded with, “So, I have nothing to present, but if there are any questions I shall be happy to address them.” That was my last appearance before the luminaries.

I had some amusing interfaces with NASA (National Aeronautic and Space Administration), in particular the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). We were in close cahoots in the early days of weather satellites, and I had occasion to attend frequent meetings either at Goddard or in New York City where GISS had a presence. The latter was directed by Dr. Robert Jastrow assisted by his faithful indian companion Uncle Miltie (UM, real name withheld for reasons of decorum). I always enjoyed going to meetings with Dr. Jastrow, not because he was a famous, popular scientist (and his book “Red Giants and White Dwarfs” really was quite good), but because he maintained a harem of secretaries who were apparently qualified by body shape and personal pulchritude. Usually, during a meeting, one of these centerfolds would drift in with a meaningless note for the good Dr. and sway out, leaving a silent wake that would interrupt us until we could regain our composure. Now that’s a good meeting.

Dr. UM was always good for a chuckle. I recall leaving an exhausting session at Goddard to wait by the elevator when the door opened and a disheveled UM dashed out asking, “Where’s the meeting?” Atta boy, UM. There was another time when we were engaged in some sort of altercation when UM, anxious to display his erudition barked, “We’re not fighting by the Queen of Marksbury rules!” Thanks for that one Miltie.

Levity aside, the explosion of meetings, assisted by all the cyber nonsense, fueled by the globalization disaster, has gone completely out of control. Mark Gerzon, in a recent article “Meeting-itis” in the Herald Tribune quotes results from The Economist’s Intelligence Unit’s survey of 174 companies. This study found that participants in corporate meetings said that more than half their time was wasted. If this is true in the private sector, just think what it must be like in the public; ninety percent? Mr. Gerzon presents an example of a meeting of the 27 members of the European Union a few years ago. Like most such international gatherings it was scheduled to open with addresses by the heads of each nation. Each leader was permitted to speak without time limit. The result was that the one-and-a-half day meeting ended without any business being discussed, the entire time taken by the opening speeches. (Actually, this is a good thing.)