plenary
GSA Fallout and Pushback + We Do Need Stinkin’ Badges
+ Cleveland Rocks
requires federal agencies to reduce travel spending by 30 percent and limits conference spending to $500,000 per event unless the agency’s secretary approves a waiver. The pressure-cooker scrutiny is taking its toll. In late April, the Global Business Travel Association postponed its 2012 National Travel Forum, scheduled to meet in Phoenix this month, after GSA withdrew its support for the event. There have also been reports of government meetings being canceled or relocated to less glamorous destinations in the wake of the controversy. At issue is GSA’s 2010 Western Regions Conference (WRC), a train- ing event for 300 employees that was held at the M Resort Spa Casino in Henderson, Nev., on Oct. 25–29, and that racked up a budget of more than $822,751 — including $130,000 for what a scathing GSA Office of Inspector General report called eight “scouting and off-site pre-conference meetings.” The report concluded: “The excessive
‘There are more than adequate rules in place [to prevent this type of abuse]; unfortunately, sometimes they’re ignored.’
pre-conference planning, catering, and other costs, as well as the luxury accom- modations and overall approach, show that GSA’s planning and expenditures for the 2010 WRC were incompatible with its obligation to be a responsible steward of the public’s money.” No one in the meetings industry
disagrees. “The federal government maintains strict rules regarding spend- ing and ethics when it comes to travel,” the Society of Government Meeting Professionals said in a statement, “and, as in this case, when those rules are broken those responsible should be held accountable.” But the industry is pushing back on Congress’ response to the scandal. PCMA, ASAE, MPI, IAEE, CIC, and the U.S. Travel Association have joined together to express concern that while “the stated intent of the language would be to prevent wasteful spending on gov- ernment-sponsored conferences, the actual language would prevent many federal employees from attending and participating in private conferences.” The groups have created an “industry- wide petition” that calls the proposed legislation “an extreme overreaction.” Experienced gov-
ernment meeting pro- fessionals agree. The GSA conference was
“a completely blatant thumbing your nose at the system,” said Russell W. Kraus, CMP,
president of Colorado-based Meetings in General. “There are more than adequate rules in place [to prevent this type of abuse]; unfortunately, sometimes they’re ignored.” In a letter to his U.S. senators, his
House representative, and President Obama, Kraus took the rates from a
contract he negotiated for an upcom- ing government meeting in Richmond, Va., and applied them to a hypothetical three-day, 300-attendee conference. Without taking into account expenses such as transportation from the airport to the hotel, name badges, and other administrative items, he quickly arrived at a budget of $420,000. (See “Line Items,” p. 15.) “The only way you can make your point,” Kraus said, “is if you can illustrate for them what $500,000 buys you.”
Echoing Kraus, Elizabeth Perrin said, “If you read the [inspector general’s] report, there were several opportuni- ties where the event planners ... were on record saying these were not permis- sible expenses, and yet they continued to go on.” Perrin, director of consulting services for Courtesy Associates, spe- cializing in helping vendors work with GSA, added: “It was a conglomeration of things that should not have happened.” Part of the solution, Perrin said,
must come from the industry, with third parties, hotels, and other vendors operating as transparently as possible, and in full accordance with government regulations — even when government employees aren’t. But “for the record,” she said, “the folks that handle the procurement processes that I have had the opportunity to deal with are some of the hardest-working, most ethical people within the government I have ever had the opportunity to work with.” —Christopher Durso
RESEARCH
What’s in a Name Badge
SOURCE: Social Science Research Solutions (for Imprint Plus) 16 PCMA CONVENE JUNE 2012
PCMA.ORG
77%
of people think a name badge helps
“personally brand oneself at meetings, conferences, or networking events.”
76%
of people consider a company more professional when its employees wear name badges.
PHOTOGRAPH BY SINA FARHAT
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120