Oral-History:James Mulligan

About James Mulligan

James Mulligan joined IRE and AIEE in the early 1940s, when he was a student at the Cooper Union School of Engineering in New York. He received his Ph.D. in 1948 from Columbia, while working at the Allen B. Dumont laboratories on television research. From 1949 to 1968, he was professor of electrical engineering at New York University, ultimately holding the chair of the department. After he left NYU, he became increasingly involved in the IEEE. He was chairman of the Measurements and Instrumentation committee and a member of the Standards Committee. He was also secretary, then treasurer and chairman of the Professional Group on Circuit Theory before becoming vice-president for technical activities. In 1972, he became president of IEEE. During his tenure, defense and space cuts seriously limited job possibilities for engineers, and much of his efforts went to trying to alleviate these problems. As president, he wrote a monthly column in the Spectrum dealing with problems that affected large numbers of IEEE's members, often specifically with job and unemployment issues. In 1976, he became vice-president for professional activities.

The interview begins with a brief overview of Mulligan's background. It then shifts to his involvement with IEEE, focusing on his role as president. He comments on the problems faced by engineers in the early 1970s and describes the various things IEEE did to try to help them. He also discusses the difficulties that the IEEE has faced as its membership grows and members' demands change and increase. He describes what he sees as the strengths and weakness of the IEEE.

About the Interview

JAMES MULLIGAN: An Interview Conducted by Frederik Nebeker, Center for the History of Electrical Engineering, February 21, 1995

Interview #239 for the Center for the History of Electrical Engineering, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Copyright Statement

This manuscript is being made available for research purposes only. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to the IEEE History Center. No part of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the Director of IEEE History Center.

Request for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to the IEEE History Center Oral History Program, IEEE History Center at Stevens Institute of Technology, Castle Point on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ 07030 USA. It should include identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identification of the user.

It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows:

James Mulligan, an oral history conducted in 1995 by Frederik Nebeker, IEEE History Center, Hoboken, NJ, USA.

Interview

Interview: James Mulligan

Interviewer: Frederik Nebeker

Date: February 21, 1995

Location: University of California, Irvine

Early Years with IRE and AIEE

Nebeker:

This is Rik Nebeker. Do you recall when you joined IRE?

Mulligan:

I joined as a student member. I joined both the IRE and the AIEE. And I would gather that that, probably, was around 1940, as I recall.

Nebeker:

You joined both, at that time?

Mulligan:

I either joined them at the same time, or joined one and then the other shortly thereafter.

Nebeker:

I see. And you were at Cooper Union?

Mulligan:

That's correct. I was a student at the Cooper Union School of Engineering, in New York City.

Nebeker:

And you've been a member of IEEE since?

Mulligan:

Continuously a member of the IRE and the AIEE, until the merger. And then, of course, I was just a member of the IEEE.

Nebeker:

Right. In the early years, what did you get out of membership in these societies?

Mulligan:

Well, I think that the primary benefit that I received was the technical publications and also, the local section meetings in New York City and then some in northern New Jersey, which is where I lived at the time.

Nebeker:

So, you would attend section meetings?

Mulligan:

Yes. Typically, section meetings in which there were lectures, or, a lecture in an area of interest to me. I wasn't one of these folks that attended every meeting, just for the sake of attending the meeting.

Nebeker:

When did you become active in either of those societies, in the sense of giving the volunteers?

Mulligan:

I think that the first activity had to do with — I think it was a television systems committee? But, they were committees that had to do with television systems. And then there were committees that were associated with the standards committee. I was, also, on a large number of committees in the early years. I was on one called Measurements and Instrumentation. And I was chairman of that for a while. If you were a chairman of one of these committees you also became a member of the Standards Committee. So, I used to attend many meetings of the Standards Committee at the IRE headquarters on 79th Street. You asked me about getting benefits. I think one of the great benefits that came from committee membership was the association with some very able people who were reviewing standards, making suggestions for changes.

Dumont and Columbia

Nebeker:

You received your Ph.D. in 1948 at Columbia. How were you employed at the time?

Mulligan:

I was working for Allen B. Dumont laboratories. I was involved in television research and development. And I arranged to do my course work by working part time. Then I worked on my dissertation by having a full time leave of absence. You see, upon the completion of my Ph.D., I returned to Dumont. Stayed there about a year I guess, before I entered the academic life of New York University, which I joined as an assistant professor, in 1949. And I was there for 19 years. I left in 1968. And at the time I left, I was chairman of the department and professor of electrical engineering. During that period of time, I was extremely active in IRE and AIEE affairs.

Merger and Reorganization of IEEE

Nebeker:

And since you were in both societies, before the merger, you’re a good person to ask about the effect of the merger on those societies. How did it appear to you?

Mulligan:

Well, interestingly enough, and this is based upon reflection, many years after, I think it was a remarkable accomplishment. That accomplishment is a great tribute to people like Ernst Weber, who had been active in both societies. I say it was a remarkable accomplishment, because, you had people with different points of view, different ways of conducting business. I think it merged rather smoothly, ultimately, to a single very strong, effective entity.

Nebeker:

There was a period of 10 or 12 years, at least, when the IEEE organization was being formed and you were a big part of that, I know.

Mulligan:

Are you talking about after the merger?

Nebeker:

After the merger. You know, there was the Educational Board, the Regional Activities Board, and the Technical Activities Board in that reorganization. I know you were the architect, probably the principal architect, for the organizations structure of the technical activities.

Mulligan:

I think that may be somewhat of an overstatement, because there were many able people contributing. I think that one of the major contributions in which I was involved, and perhaps to a large extent led, was the modification of the composition of the board of directors — where there had been members at large and also had been regional directors based upon a regional breakdown of the institute. And with the aid of several people on the Executive Committee, one of whom was vice president of Technical Activities, Sy Herwald — and ultimately I followed him in that position — it was possible to find a rationale that would allow, I believe, six director's positions on the board. And by that time there were a large number of so-called professional groups in the IEEE. In the IRE and then the IEEE.

Nebeker:

Right. That's by having each technical division represented on the board, is that right?

Mulligan:

Well, that led to it. The task was to take the groups that were there — the professional, technical groups — and organize them in what appeared to be a sensible manner. This is not necessarily to take the total number of groups and divide it by six, because the Power Group and the Computer Group were very, very large groups compared to some of the others. So I think we had some very effective meetings of all of the group presidents in which we discussed these things. And it was a valuable experience for me to see what's involved in obtaining agreement, consensus. And we then had six divisional directors. Subsequently, the others were added. And I think that that was a major step forward.

Nebeker:

And is that because you think that the technical side would not have been properly represented on the board if it continued as it was earlier?

Mulligan:

I think that it might have been; it might have taken longer to come. In fact, there are differences today. There are just differences in the problems that the sections or regions encounter, as contrasted with the problems of what are now called societies, which were groups in those days, the divisions. And I think that a man named W.R.G. Baker, who was very much involved in the original concept of professional groups, did institute a very great service, because the groups provided a rallying point for members of the institute who had very similar interests. And I think that one of the great values of the IEEE is that it can meet the needs of members that have widely different positions, responsibilities, interests. And, of course, interests change over a person’s career. And there's a means for meeting all of those needs. And this is relatively easy to do.

Nebeker:

Both AIEE and IRE had something comparable. I guess it was called groups in IRE and committees in AIEE. Was this significantly different within IEEE?

Mulligan:

I think that the idea of having organizational units was not different. In a way, I think the IEEE probably had the best of both worlds, in the sense that it had opportunities for people who had had very substantial responsibilities in AIEE. The people in the IRE, I think, probably had a lot more freedom for initiative. In other words, I think the IRE was probably less structured than the AIEE was. The AIEE had committees and boards and divisions and so forth. They were very well organized and very well staffed by volunteers, who were carrying things out. Not that the IEEE didn't have any organization at all, but, I think it was, probably, an elusive organization. But, combing the two gave you the additional dimension that the other one didn't have, so to speak.

Nebeker:

And, of course, these groups became societies, in many cases. Is that more of what you’re saying, that there's more autonomy at that level?

Mulligan:

I think that's right. To a very large degree, I think that the current societies have a lot of autonomy. And they have a lot of responsibility too. In terms of the publications, programs that they run, and the meetings programs. There's a lot of money involved in those things. Not only does it do a lot of good to the individual member, I think it does a lot of good to the institute, as well.

Nebeker:

And, you’re saying that AIEE had something closer to what evolved in IEEE. That is, with the technical committees having more autonomy, is that right?

Mulligan:

Well, the technical committees — First of all, I think that the differences between the activities, in other words, the technical meetings and the technical publications, the differences between the AIEE and the IRE, I don't think were tremendously great. You had Proceedings of the IRE and you had Electrical Engineering, as is the publication of the AIEE. And although they had different style you still had good technical information getting to the membership. I think that what there is available now in the IEEE is superior to either of those two. And I think it's largely superior because I think that it has been, if you will, an entrepreneurial accomplishment, in which the people with comparable technical interests really have the challenge to build the size of a publication program, the size of a meeting program to the level which the members will support. And indeed if the members don't submit it, most of their resources come from the activities of these collections of volunteers. In other words, the IEEE as such really is made up of a lot of organizations of lesser size and each one of these in terms of its affairs, internal affairs, can operate, to a large degree, autonomously. Not completely, but, they have a lot of freedom. And I think that that freedom, to interested, volunteers has produced very substantial results.

Nebeker:

I don't want to belabor this point, but the division organization of these groups at the time, societies later, did that serve a purpose other than increasing representation on the board for the technical activities? Was it also intended that the divisions have activities within the divisions?

Mulligan:

That was not the original intent. The original intent was that it would provide a direct path from the group to the board of directors, whereas in the past there had been none. And the original view was not, "Let's form divisions. Let's let divisions be a basic entity." The basic entity was the group, and subsequently, the society. That the division was a means of communication for the dissemination of, you might call it, policy information and so forth, but not necessarily technical information. And, still, these things get changed over the years. And to some degree now you have divisional publications. That was not the original intent.

Nebeker:

But wasn't there a vice president for technical activities before there were these division directors?

Mulligan:

Sure, sure.

Nebeker:

So, I mean, they had someone on the board that could act as a channel of education.

Mulligan:

When I think of the number, I think there might have been 25 of these, maybe more, that had to be that had to be handled.

Other Activities Before Presidency

Nebeker:

Right, right. I understand that, yeah. Now that was an activity, of course, before you became president. To mention any other major activities before you were the president. Are there any that you —

Mulligan:

Well, there were activities before I was vice president for technical activities and one of these was a set of activities associated with what was then called Professional Group on Circuit Theory (PGCT). I was secretary and treasurer and vice chairman and chairman of that.

Presidency and Spectrum Column

Nebeker:

I see. Well, you became president in January of 1971. That was before there was this period of president-elect?

Mulligan:

That's correct. There was a vice president, and there was an undesignated vice president, and a couple of others. And then there was, I think, maybe, a vice president for educational activities and one for regional activities. Now wait a minute, that's not correct. The reason it's not correct is that there was a vice president for technical activities and there was a vice president. And that vice president also had the responsibility for regional activities. As a matter of fact, as vice president, I spent a lot of effort trying to provide a means for better communication from the sections of the regions. We did a number of experiments, one of which was in the southeast, in which we had regional meetings and we had a formal regional body that met with the regional director. In that way, again, tried to establish better contact with the individual members through the local section.

Nebeker:

Okay. I know that was something you continued or furthered when you were president. You did this monthly, a column in the Spectrum.

Mulligan:

Yeah, the monthly column in the Spectrum is an interesting example of trying to deal with the problems that arise in the institute which affects large numbers of members. One of the things that probably is not even remembered today is that in the late sixties and the early seventies there was substantial cutback in defense and space. And it had an enormously serious impact on the west coast. The LA basin was very hard hit. And there were a lot of engineers that lost their jobs, and this happened also up in the northwest. Boeing was one of the companies. And, of course, it was also felt in other parts of the country as well. It was kind of a domino effect. And there was very great concern on the part of the membership, as you would expect. And part of the activity in the institute, which was reported in these monthly columns, related to doing things about this security, unemployment. So forth. And interestingly enough a lot was accomplished. As I say, interestingly enough, because in retrospect there was a much better understanding of how the government operates and what lobbying is all about, and so forth and so on. It was difficult to believe that the kinds of things that the IEEE was able to do in concert with other societies made things to happen.

1970s Employment and Lobbying

Nebeker:

I know there were various efforts to help engineers find appropriate positions. Are you thinking of the lobbying activities, in what you were saying there?

Mulligan:

Well, what I'm actually thinking about was the fact that I organized a committee of engineering society presidents. And these were the founder societies which had been associated at the time of the old AIEE. They were a group that had the end room located in the engineering societies building. And those five founder societies and the NSPE constituted a group which I organized. And the way I organized it was to just call the presidents of the societies and say, I think we ought to do something about the state of affairs. And are you willing to sign on as a member of the — I think we called it the Coordinating Committee of Engineering Society Presidents. But, we were able to meet with Ed David, the President's science advisor and we also met with the Secretary of Labor. And, I think, that we had some strong inputs which resulted in, among other things, in some programs that the government set up to do something specifically for unemployed scientists and engineers.

As a matter of fact, there was a substantial job development and skills development program that was given to this group of society presidents. And it was administered by NSPE. Years later, I think the GAL reviewed this and felt that it was a very effective program. This came about as a result of the initiative of the society presidents. So that I felt was a significant thing. In effect, by virtue of the office of president of IEEE, I was able to have ready access to people that, probably, would not have been accessible otherwise. For example, I set up a committee to look into what might be expected to be the long-term future of the electrical engineering profession. And I had several economists on there including, I believe it was, the chief economist of IBM. And that came about when I approached the president of IBM. That year that I was president taught me a lot about what can be done to try to alleviate a situation. But, also, what cannot be done. There are some things, as I said, in terms of the way the lobbying aspects of our society work, some things you can't do. But, there are some things you can.

Constitutional Amendment

Nebeker:

Well, that was before the IEEE constitution was amended to specifically include the non technical.

Mulligan:

I think that you're right.

Nebeker:

I'm checking the date on the — It was very soon after your presidency.

Mulligan:

I think so. I think that the date was, probably, '72 or '73, and that, also, that created a whole class of new activities. Which has now grown into — I guess it's called the United States Activities Board or is under the purview of the United States Activities Board.

Nebeker:

It was in '72. It went into effect 1st of January '73. That was the USAC.

Mulligan:

This was the IEEE attempting to adapt to the needs of its members. Or what it perceived as the needs of its members. And not all members, by any means, felt that the IEEE should go into professional activities. In retrospect there were, probably, extremes expressed on either side of the issue. In other words, I think that for the most part, things have worked out reasonably well, in terms of professional society activities. But, here again, it comes back to what I was saying earlier. And that is, there are things that an organization like IEEE can do. IEEE is not a labor union. It has a limited size; even though it's maybe pretty large at the moment, it has a limited size. And it's one element that makes up the complexity of our economy. And there probably still are lots of expressions, such as, you know, the engineers ought to do better than they do because they believe that engineers are compared with physicians in incomes and things and so forth and so on. As one thinks these things through, I think that they're more emotional than factual.

Nebeker:

When, during your term as president, you wanted to do something about this unemployment problem, for example — and you mentioned organizing these society presidents or your institute presidents to influence legislation — did you feel constrained by the IEEE constitution, at that time, to not directly involve IEEE lobbying, for example?

Mulligan:

I felt that whatever we did had to be done in accordance with the constitution. And it was. There was never any problem. As a matter of fact, one approach that we used, which, I think, had some effect positive effect, was to provide very convenient linkages with the NSPE. The NSPE could do all of the lobbying and the legislative influence that it wanted and we were at arms length. There was no problem whatsoever. We made arrangements for IEEE members who really wanted to get involved, in that for a very nominal fee — I think it might have been 15 dollars — could join the NSPE as some kind of kind of an affiliate. I guess what I'm trying to express to you is that there are many, many ways that were used to try to meet the needs of the members. And it was not to argue whether, or not, we were going to change the constitution to make these things possible, but, rather what specifically do you want to do. And what mechanisms are available for us to do it.

Nebeker:

And there were enough mechanisms at the time?

Mulligan:

I thought there were. I thought there were enough mechanisms.

Nebeker:

Did you favor the constitutional amendment?

Mulligan:

I thought that it had a lot of merit to it. And to answer your question — Yes, I favored it. Because I thought that it would give a degree of freedom that an institution, such as the IEEE with all its diversity, should have. It's one thing to amend the constitution, which gives you permission; it's another thing to select the activities in which you’re going to operate. And I think that part of the selection of the activities has to do with the wisdom of what you can accomplish that you want to accomplish, what resources do you need, financial and otherwise. And, in short, I'm trying to make the fundamental point that when you deal with so-called professional activities which cover such a broad range, you have to be very careful that you do something in which you can be effective.

Don Fink and Staff

Nebeker:

Now, Don Fink was general manager and executive director from the time of the merger to '74. How did it appear to you that he fulfilled his duties?

Mulligan:

I thought he was an excellent general manager. And I thought that he was an unusually capable general manager, in that his technical accomplishments, achievements and so forth, were themselves most noteworthy. As well as having other qualities for administration and leadership as general manager. I think that it's easy to overlook the fact that a general manager of something like the IEEE has to have qualities which allow him or her to operate effectively with volunteers, which to a large extent change every year. And in order to be effective you have to have their support. Certainly they're not going to tell you everything that ought to be done. You have a big organization to run. I have nothing but the greatest praise for Don Fink. Anybody in that position, just as any president as a volunteer, will have people who think that he's great or that he's terrible. And I'm sure that you can — Well, for example, I'm sure that there are people that would criticize things that I did as president. And criticize things that Don may have done as general manager. But, I think those were difficult days for the IEEE.

Nebeker:

Because of the declining jobs?

Mulligan:

They were difficult. Well, that's right, they were difficult days for the IEEE because of the fact, I think, that the organization was being asked by its members to do things that it hadn't been set up to do initially. It had been set up, traditionally, to provide technical information, to provide a forum for the exchange of information, and to provide local area contact. Now these are entirely different things than dealing with aspects of social change. And the aspects of social change that came upon that period came very rapidly. Almost like a sudden thunderstorm. And as general manager, Don had to, kind of, if you will, pilot the craft through the waves. And I thought he did a wonderful job, actually.

Nebeker:

And you felt you got the support from him and the rest of the staff that you expected that year?

Mulligan:

I got very good support. Not only did I get very good institutional support, I think I got very good helpful guidance with regard to dealing with these kinds of problems. And I would like to emphasize, when you asked me about support, there were, I guess you would call them, unrecognized heroes, that were part of that staff operation. And I hesitate to mention any, because, I may inadvertently overlook some that were quite significant in their help to the institution and to me. But, a lot of very good work was done by the key staff people. I guess you would call them the staff directors.

Variety of Member Needs

Nebeker:

What things, what issues stand out in your mind from your year as president?

Mulligan:

You mean what issues stand out then? Or, what issues stand out now?

Nebeker:

Well, either one. What took much of your time at that time, or, what you now see as —

Mulligan:

Well, I think that, no question about it, a lot of my time that year was spent in trying to meet in small groups, like section meetings or similar things, with as many of the members as I could. So, that I had a first hand view of just what the real problems were.

Nebeker:

And one of these areas of problems, we've already mentioned, the concerns about increasing unemployment. What other problems of members do you recall?

Mulligan:

<flashmp3>239_-_mulligan_-_clip_1.mp3</flashmp3>

Well, I think there was then, and I think there probably still is today, a need to meet the large variation in technical material. And I don't mean subject matter. I mean, rather, the emphasis. For example, you can have very, very theoretical approaches to design of integrated circuits and then you can have things which are much closer to the person who's actually trying to design a mostly modest circuit. And I think that the institute does a remarkable job in doing both of these things. But I think that at that time and perhaps even today, there's less emphasis probably on the applications than there is on the highly theoretical. And I think that was one of the problems of the day. Now, part of this was helped by changes in the publication program. For example, the IEEE press was instituted. And the IEEE press, I think, from the literature that I get, does a tremendous amount these days to try to deal with the different member interests, member needs. And I emphasize again, I'm not talking about the difference between communications systems and transistor circuits. But I'm talking about the different needs for people who are working in communications systems.

Nebeker:

And you were very conscious of that, at the time, that different types of members —

Mulligan:

Right. I think that the crucial thing then, and maybe it still exists today, is trying to understand why people join the IEEE, and what they hope to get out of the IEEE. And, of course, they join for many, many different reasons. It came as no great surprise to me to find that many people were joining, because of the quality of the life insurance that they could get. It was in the cost. Okay, that's not really why I would want to develop an organization like the IEEE, but it's a fall-out, maybe. But the bottom line is that the IEEE, I think then and probably today, was looked at as the place where you could get technical information to do your job. And I think it was pretty important to try to find out, how we can serve you better in that regard.

Relationship of Board to Members

Nebeker:

Well, I pulled this out because in an interview we did with Arthur Stern, who was president in '75 — he's now, in this interview, talking about the present day — he said that IEEE is not as valuable an organization for the working engineer as it was when he was a young man. He says that it seems to him that IEEE is now an elite organization for R&D people, for people with international interests. Did it seem to you, over the course of your career that IEEE has moved in that direction, serving less the typical working engineer?

Mulligan:

I know Arthur very well, and I can understand why he made those observations. I would say that a change that might be there — I'm not fully wired in to all that's going on. In fact, you’re probably much better than I am in that regard. Somehow or other, I wonder to what extent the people at the top of the organization are really concerned with what the members want and what can be done to provide this. I sense, perhaps, some isolation.

Nebeker:

Between the headquarters staff?

Mulligan:

The board.

Nebeker:

Or the board and the average member.

Mulligan:

And also, you can relate that to the staff too. In other words, if I go back to the days of the IRE — Somehow, and of course, there's a big difference in size and that may be what's involved. But, somehow or other, I thought that there was a greater closeness between the people that were at the top and the members. And, maybe it's just size. Maybe, when you have two or three hundred thousand, three hundred thousand probably, people —

Nebeker:

Three-hundred-twenty now.

Mulligan:

Yeah. I'm amused every time I see a statement to the effect that three hundred thousand and still growing, or words to that effect. And it's fine; it's nice — if you’re just selling magazine subscriptions. But, is that what you aspire to as the institute? What do you aspire to, if you are the leadership of the institute? Do you want to bring in more money? How do we measure our performance as an institute? Other than going out and saying "Let's hire somebody to make a survey for us." And I'm not thinking of "pro forma" acts. I'm not thinking of — "Oh, we'll have a regional meeting, or, we'll have a board of directors meeting in Belgium, or the Congo, or Singapore, or something like that."

Nebeker:

Are you saying that there's not a clear sense of purpose in the IEEE today?

Mulligan:

Perhaps there is. But, I'm saying that as a simple minded, dues paying member, which is all I am at this particular point, it's not obvious to me what it is.

Nebeker:

That's an important observation. I know that you have to go. Is there anything that you'd like to comment on? Any highlights, or, anything you'd like to say?

Legacy of Merger

Mulligan:

Well, perhaps, one observation which I may have made before. I think that the people that put the merger together and the people that tried to set the patterns at that time — and I'm talking about some of the real greats that I mentioned before — I think that at this particular point, it's clear to see that they deserve an enormous amount of credit. Because I think that in a technology and its associated industries that have grown so rapidly in the last 30, 40, 50 years, the fact that the IEEE still, I believe, is the premier organization for supplying technical material for that broadly defined profession is a very important accomplishment; it's almost a remarkable accomplishment. And this I think comes back to the leadership that set the right patterns. And of course, the patterns that are being set today will probably take us into the 2020, 2050, or, 2030, something like that. And it will be interesting in hindsight to see what the sense of purpose was in 1995.

Nebeker:

And when you look back on this period when you were very active in IEEE, do you have good feelings about it in general?

Mulligan:

Yes. I have very, very good feelings, in the sense that I think that some good things were accomplished at the time. But I also think that I benefited greatly. I met some excellent people all over the world and very fine human beings, as well as professionals. And, I think that the time I spent in volunteer activities was very rewarding. It was rewarding in terms of the sense of accomplishment. And to be very selfish for a moment, I think, as I said, that I learned a lot of things that I probably would not have learned otherwise. They have been very useful in my career.

Nebeker:

Did it disrupt your career, other things — the things that you were working on, to have to give so much time in that year, '71?

Mulligan:

It had an effect. It had an effect. '76, when I was vice president for professional activities, probably, had more of an effect.

Nebeker:

Is that right?

Mulligan:

Well, it was creating something from nothing, and all of the planning and setting the directions for that activity.

Nebeker:

Yes. Taking away from your —

Mulligan:

What it amounts to is, you work more hours than you otherwise might. And if you work more hours, it takes away from certain things you might want to do with your family and so forth and so on. You’re traveling a lot and it causes you inconvenience, and probably adds some stress, but, you feel it's important. That's why you do it.

Nebeker:

Well, thank you.

Mulligan:

You’re quite welcome. Thank you for the opportunity.