Location, Location, Location (For Federal Meetings and Conferences)

Should agencies have a policy to prohibit meetings in desirable locations? Most readers indicate their agencies do not have such a policy and most indicate the location of a meeting does not influence their decision to attend.

Should federal agencies hold conferences or meetings in desirable locations? Should there be a policy against holding federal meetings in desirable locations?

It is not an academic question as some agencies have apparently had a policy of prohibiting meetings in places like Las Vegas or Orlando. Not surprisingly, Congressional representatives from states that stand to gain from meetings in their states do not want a policy that automatically disqualifies cities in their states from consideration.

In our survey last week, most readers (53.6%) said that the location did not influence their decision to attend a meetings. 41.5% said that they were more likely to attend a meeting in a desirable locale and 3.1% said they were less likely to attend a meeting in a desirable location.

Regarding the question, “Does a more desirable location (e.g. Orlando, Las Vegas) for a federal meeting or conference influence your decision to attend?”

83.8% said that agencies should not have a policy prohibiting meetings in a desirable location. 11.1% said that there should be such a policy in place.

In response to the question: “Should there be a government policy against holding meetings or conferences in the most desirable locations?”

Many readers were not aware of a policy in their agencies prohibiting meetings in desirable locations (39.9%). 45.9% said their agencies did not have such a policy and 14.5% said their agency did have such a policy in place.

Here is a representative sample of the opinions sent in by readers on whether the location influences their decision to attend a meeting:

  • If the meeting is important then I should attend. It should be somewhere that is cost effective to the tax payers.
  • It’s a lot cheaper to hold a conference in Las Vegas than in a lot of other areas. Chicago is very expensive as well as St. Louis.
  • Sixteen hours of my personal time is spent each day and I want it to be in a location that compensates in interest for my being away from the convenience and comfort of home.
  • I won’t be in the meeting 24 hours per day. Why can’t I take in the sights during the evening hours? Just because we are federal employees does not mean we are not human.
  • If the meeting is important then I should attend. It should be somewhere that is cost effective to the tax payers.
  • Many times per diem rates are lower in these high-activity cities and/or can be negotiated at a lower rate for a higher volume of attendees. So although the perception of being at a “luxury” location; as long as the cost is within reason – there should be no reason to exclude these cities.
  • The problem is some attendees will go to the local attractions instead of actually attending the conference.
  • A lot of time those locations have lodging at a very reasonable cost and if you must fly, they usually have an airport easy to get into, which saves money.
  • Government per diem controls government payout limits. So why not?

Should there be a government policy against holding meetings or conferences in the most desirable locations? Here is a sample of opinions:

  • No, the desirable locations are also places that have ability to have large conferences and can be cheaper for Government.NYC is a desirable location for some but it is more expensive to go to than Vegas.
  • Depending on cost-effectiveness. Meetings in Reno or Las Vegas have, in the past, been most affordable. The real issue should be cost.
  • Airilne, conference room & hotel pricing should be the only consideration.
  • Cost should certainly be a deciding factor. Locations like Orlando and Las Vegas are less expensive than Wahington or NY or Milwaukee.
  • Locations should be restricted unless there’s clear documented evidence of cost savings. Public perception is also a valid consideration when choosing location.
  • Most are boondoggles. People are spending the tax payers money when they could have meeting via VTC or Tandberg.
  • Why should this be an issue? It’s an advantage for the conference to hold it in a desireable place so more will attend.
  • Las Vegas is a known city for cheap rates for non-federal occupants as well as conferences. The public needs to be informed that although it’s a desirable place – the price is more economical. If that is not true for the location – then federal agencies should NOT book there.

Our thanks to readers who participated in this survey and a special thanks to those who sent in the rationale for their opinion.

About the Author

Ralph Smith has several decades of experience working with federal human resources issues. He has written extensively on a full range of human resources topics in books and newsletters and is a co-founder of two companies and several newsletters on federal human resources. Follow Ralph on Twitter: @RalphSmith47