I attended a committee meeting chaired by a government employee. She arrived at the announced time and made no attempt to get started. Twenty minutes later she gaveled us to order (she didn’t actually have a gavel).

Government people are often active in politics where meetings don’t start until the room is full or an important politician arrives. In their world, there is no such thing as “on time.”

When the meeting ended, we were asked for suggestions for future sessions. I recommended we start promptly at the advertised time. She said that was a good idea, while seeming surprised that anybody would feel that way.

Meetings I chair start exactly on time, regardless of the number of people present. I don’t repeat anything for latecomers. If you start late, attendees will always arrive late. Let them find out they’ll miss important information if they don’t show up on time. Don’t worry about a quorum. It will assemble itself – eventually.

Some people may not like the Tylenol ads that display billboard images unrelated to the pain reliever.

But one of them worked on me.

While passing through the Ogilvie Transportation Center near downtown Chicago, a stark ad with a picture of a soft-serve, vanilla ice cream cone caught my eye.

I don’t remember the slogan below the picture. The Tylenol logo in the corner, though, burned the ad indelibly in my memory.

Pairing ice cream and Tylenol made no sense, but it wasn’t silly enough to ignore. It was unexpected – and different. It was even more memorable than the Infiniti ads of years ago that filmed waves lapping up on a beach but never showed a car.

Tylenol is already my pain reliever of choice (although I don’t use it that often), but the paired images were the ultimate oxymoron.

I remember it – and that’s the point.

A well-regarded magazine named an association and identified “their executive director.” Another publication did the same, referring to “their new CEO.” Still another, discussing one association’s mission, stated, “they seek to…”

I cringed each time I read that. An association is an "it," not a "they."

I suppose I shouldn’t quibble about word usage. If a person’s statement is understood, perhaps it doesn’t matter if the language is fractured – the thought has been transmitted and received.

But incorrect grammar really bugs me. Do people who use it realize they are wrong?

Advertisers often use “they” instead of “it” because it sounds more people-oriented. Go to a store where “they” have what you are looking for. Buy a car from a company because “they” know what you want.

Getting people to use singular and plural appropriately may be a losing cause. It’s a lot like the “me, myself, and I problem.”

Many associations seek to gag Board members who reveal details about Board meeting discussions and votes.

The Association of Rehabilitation Nurses addresses the issue tactfully, setting aside time at Board meetings to counsel members about the appropriate way to talk to association members about Board decisions.

Road Runners Club of America, on the other hand, asked Board members to sign a statement promising to keep details of business meetings confidential. That act fanned the flames of an already lively factional feud and became one of the issues raised by challengers to the nominated slate of officers.

Secrecy advocates should realize that Board meetings are open to all members of the organization. In reality, few, if any, attend, so Board members often develop a sense that their activities are beyond outside scrutiny.

Yet, association members have a right to know what their elected leaders said and how they voted. Except for discussions that take place in Executive session (assuming that such parliamentary action is used appropriately), there should be no secrecy in Board deliberations.

Secrecy just breeds suspicion on the part of members who disagree with Board actions and reduces the trust members place in the Board.

Board members who feel uncomfortable having others know what they said or how they voted should not be on Boards. Board orientations should stress the accountability expected of Board membership and offer instruction on how to discuss Board meeting details, rather than how not to discuss them.

In a world of heightened transparency, it’s amazing to me that some Boards still cloak themselves in an iron veil of secrecy.

It wasn’t the color pictures of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that jumped out at me from the front page of today’s Chicago Tribune.

It wasn’t the bold headline reporting the North Carolina and Indiana election results.

It wasn’t the campaign poster affixed to the front of the podium at which each candidate stood.

The first thing I saw on this page was the web address printed at the top of each candidate’s campaign poster.

For tech-savvy people, this is a “so what?” But many associations, surprisingly, have not exploited the full power of the internet. They don’t understand the effectiveness of web marketing, they don’t know how to blog, and they’ve never heard of social media.

The technical divide exists within the association community as well as the general public. Hopefully, our colleagues will close that gap very soon.

Maddie Grant’s posting recalled my graduate school days in Public Policy Analysis when we were told of the tension between rational planning and incrementalism.

The purpose of the unit was to help us understand that change occurs incrementally and that results can be achieved over time.

My fellow students, however, saw that as a sellout and came to believe that “rational planning” was always the best course to follow. Changes and improvements, they felt, should be made immediately and comprehensively. Unfortunately that policy was often blunted by democracy.

Wizened association executives, of course, know how and when to implement both of these policies. I guess that’s what we call experience.

I attended a reception tonight for APAC, the Political Action Committee of ASAE & The Center, at Association Forum of Chicagoland, and was surprised to learn that only 300 of ASAE’s 23,000 members were PAC contributors last year.

(I’m not one of those 300).

Before writing a check (actually I used a credit card), I checked APAC’s financial report to ensure contributions weren’t being made to people I detested. I found expenditures to be divided fairly equally between the parties and even discovered donations to several members of Congress whom I really liked. So I contributed.

We all spend a lot of time strengthening our members’ industries but we don’t spend enough time doing the same for our own industry – association management.

Maybe we take for granted that someone (ASAE) will take care of congressional matters. But we have to make it possible for that someone to be effective.

Imagine a world where we were not allowed to send faxes to our members, where we had to publish our membership lists, or where we didn’t have tax-exempt status.

I’m sold on APAC. I hope our colleagues buy in, too.

When I was CEO of a running association, a shoe company sponsored our largest educational program and wanted to provide the speaker for the sessions on shoe selection. We did not allow that.

We felt that a shoe company speaker would only talk about that company’s shoes. Attendees needed an unbiased presentation about the pros and cons of various types of footwear. They would not be served by a commercial pitch embedded in an informative session.

Our first speakers were podiatrists who treated running injuries, but they were too technical and scientific. We settled on running store owners who sold shoes to runners. Neither promoted any particular brand.

In previous years, we had allowed sponsor representatives to conduct sessions on nutrition and hydration. We ended that practice because they advised runners to use only their products.

There are a lot of opportunities for sponsors to gain access to your membership. Speaking at educational conferences does not have to be one of them.

I just returned from a meeting in Cincinnati, where I was one of several speakers. I stayed at a very nice, downtown hotel. The rate was surprisingly low (the association doesn’t comp speakers) and the room was clean and well-designed – except for the showerhead that was lower than eye level (unfortunately, that is common).

Either the meeting planner negotiated a good price or Cincinnati just doesn’t cost that much. Still, I always try to avoid buying anything when I stay at a hotel.

1. I drove to the conference. It was cheaper and far more convenient than flying. Depending on air traffic delays, it might have even been faster.

2. I carried my own bags into the hotel (laptop, briefcase, and duffle bag) – no need to tip a bellhop.

3. After checking in around 10:00 p.m., I walked to a local drug store to buy milk and orange juice for the next morning. I always bring my own cereal for breakfast so I don’t have to spend money on room service.

4. I wasn’t speaking until the afternoon, so I worked in my room during the morning. I often attend sessions before mine to observe group behavior. I had been here before, so that wasn’t necessary.

5. Shortly before the lunch hour crowd hit the streets, I trotted down to a nearby sandwich shop, bought lunch, and brought it back to my room. Meeting attendees pay extra for meals at this conference and many opt for less expensive offerings outside the hotel. I chose to eat while working.

6. My only splurge was valet parking. For $5 more than self-parking I avoided carrying my gear through the rain when I left.

I did a bit of networking before and after my session, but this conference isn’t designed to make that easy. You really have to stay for the social sessions, and I didn’t.

At another conference, I might have gotten a free meal. Here, I didn’t even get a name tag. In any event, I avoided inflated hotel costs and that made the trip a lot more satisfying.

Social responsibility advocates talk a lot about the need to “give something back.”

Well, I don’t recall taking anything in the first place, so I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be giving back.

Wealthy corporations and individuals, you can argue, have made tremendous amounts of money from the labor and purchases of the less fortunate. Perhaps it’s appropriate for them to “give something back” since they have amassed an overwhelming portion of society’s valuable resources.

Not-for-profit organizations and many associations, on the other hand, represent people who have not benefited from the largesse of society. We are the ones who help those in need and we shouldn’t be categorized with society’s successful capitalists.

Everybody should contribute to making our world a better place to live because we will all benefit. Make it a positive act, not a negative one, and people will be more likely to help.