It seems that government meeting planners are probably a relatively quiet group who probably don’t get the level of recognition they really deserve. For those who may not know – and this includes administrators and others who work at the federal, state and local levels – government meeting planners are bound by stringent ethics requirements that include rules on conflict of interest, procurement and contracting, and gifts and travel.
Before exploring the issue of federal agencies banning destinations from government meetings, it’s worth reminding everyone of the procurement responsibilities shouldered by government meeting planners. Did you know the U.S. General Services Administration establishes maximum per diem rates for all destinations throughout the U.S. for lodging, meals and entertainment? They are tough standards to meet.
So why would some Senators and Congressmen even need to draft a bill designed to prohibit federal agencies from discriminating against some destinations within the country anyway?
S. 1530 Protecting Resort Cities from Discrimination Act of 2009 was sponsored on July 29, 2009, by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and co-sponsored by others from Nevada and Florida. It prohibits any agency or department of the United States from establishing or implementing an internal policy that discourages or prohibits the selection of a resort or vacation destination as the location for a conference or event, and for other purposes.
Perhaps it’s their way to send a strong message in response to requests that haven’t been addressed to their satisfaction. Let me explain.
It has been reported that some federal agencies have opted to enhance government meeting contracting standards in a way that has resulted in banning government meetings in resort destinations in Nevada, Florida and elsewhere from consideration. This, according to the U.S. Travel Association (USTA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Governor of Nevada Jim Gibbons (R), Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), Eight Members of the House of Representatives from Florida and Nevada, the Society of Government Meeting Professionals (SGMP), the Wall Street Journal and countless other news media.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Agriculture Department both sit at the center of the allegation at this time.
A recent Wall Street Journal article (July 22, 2009) reported the message of an internal email regarding government meeting locations for FBI programs: The Department of Justice “decided conference(s) are not to be held in cities that are vacation destinations/spas/resort/gambling … Las Vegas and Orland[o] are the first 2 on the chopping block.’’
Although DOJ spokeswoman Gina Talamona had no comment about the report, she did emphatically counter the claim, “We do not have a policy that prohibits travel to Las Vegas, Orlando or any other city.”
The WSJ article also released portions of a July (2009) email distributed within the Agriculture Department after a decision was made to cancel a planned meeting in Orlando. "I think Orlando got put on the list of not to go because of the perception that it is a resort and vacation area."
However, Agriculture Department spokesman Justin DeJong declined to comment on the email, but confirmed that this is inconsistent with department travel guidelines issued in May 2008, which indicates the “use of resort areas are to be minimized.” (See Agriculture Department Travel Guidelines for full details.)
So, with the contradiction in messages, have some U.S. federal agencies prohibited government meetings and conferences to be held in leisure-oriented cities?
And if they did, is it a fair business decision to informally ban spending federally budgeted dollars from any U.S. destination, especially cost-effective destinations that happen to also generate billions of dollars generated for use by federal budgets? And, yes, it is fair to expect government agencies to make meetings decisions based on sound business practices.
Background leading to potential government discrimination of destintaions for government meetings, page 2
