I checked out Twitter for the ASAE conference and didn't find it very useful. I'm not interested in reading text messages about whatever is on someone's mind at the moment (reminds me of an earlier post by Cindy Butts), although some folk think otherwise.

Instead, I preferred the thoughtful postings on Acronym, contributors to Blogoclump, and lots of linked blogs. A coherent summary of a presentation or discussion is far more educational than a fleeting thought during a session (when you should be paying attention to the speaker) or an announcement that you've stopped somewhere for a cup of coffee.

A special thanks to all of the official and unofficial bloggers who did their best to share information and opinions about speakers, meeting organization, and event ambience. It was the next best thing to being there (although being there would have been a lot better).

Women, people of color, non-Christians, older people, gays and lesbians, and the disabled are often treated unfairly or even illegally by associations. What to do about it - if anything - is discussed delicately, if at all, in professional forums.

That's why it was refreshing to read on Acronym that the ASAE opening session presented a sensible, thoughtful discourse about diversity. It was an appropriate topic to kick off the conference because the ASAE membership presents an excellent staging area for change.

It is ideologically diverse, ranging from the very progressive to the very conservative and including everybody in between. Most members, regardless where they stand on that contiuum, tend to think strategically, which may help them overcome previous biases.

Many realize that inclusiveness policies can help their associations grow. Some are also motivated by religious beliefs and are taught that discrimination is immoral. This is fertile ground for diversity advocates.

That's why it is necessary to develop and promote diversity programs - and to keep talking about them - so associations can do what is organizationally smart while they also do the right thing.

It's no fun missing a great meeting, but tuning in to Acronym will offer a glimpse of what is being talked about and what people are thinking.

A slew of association colleagues are eager to share their experiences, opinions, and observations about the ASAE conference and various topics covered by speakers and ad hoc gatherings of peers.

Check out comments and links - and don't skip anything.

Lindy Dreyer is reminding us about all the issues related to "paperless" meetings, including the absence of paper handouts.

Handouts are a popular discussion item because their availability - in whatever format - is evident to attendees.

Whether lack of paper handouts is a function of time and cost or of genuine green advocacy, a more important issue may be the usefulness of handouts.

Let's see what people report back about this from the ASAE conference.

When attending a multiple day conference in your home town (like ASAE if you live in San Diego), don't commute.

Stay at the host hotel, just as if you had traveled to the meeting. You won't be distracted by family needs, personal chores, or work tasks (stay away from the office). And you won't be tempted to skip an early morning or late afternoon session to avoid rush hour traffic.

You'll get more out of a conference if you spend the entire time at the conference.

With the ASAE meeting approaching, there are lots of comments about meeting organization (but not so much about content).

Everybody has their preferences. Here are mine:

Bad meeting stuff:

1. Entrance at the front of the meeting room.
2. Speakers who stand behind the podium.
3. Microphones attached to the podium.
4. Speakers passing a microphone back and forth to speak.
5. Speakers shuttling between their seats and the podium to speak into a microphone.
6. PowerPoint slides with lots of detail.
7. PowerPoint slides with no graphics or pictures (oops! I'd better update my presentations).
8. Speakers who turn away from the audience to look at the screen.
9. No visuals.
10. Seats so close together that peoples' thighs rub against each other.
11. Rows so close together that tall people have no leg room.
12. Speakers who read to the audience.
13. Speakers who wander too far into audience space.
14. Boring speakers (even when they are very knowledgeable).
15. Speakers who pace back and forth without looking at the audience.
16. Speakers who talk too fast.
17. Paper handouts (I prefer DVDs, but I know they're more expensive).

Good meeting stuff:

1. Lavalier microphones.
2. Charismatic speakers.
3. Speakers who never stand behind the podium.
4. Speakers who occupy the "no-man's land" between the podium and the audience space.
5. Panelists who sit on barstools with no table, with a moderator standing to the side.
6. Speakers using video presentations.
7. Any kind of visuals.
8. Two podia on stage (as props) for two speakers.
9. Entrance at the rear of the room.
10. Comfortable seating.
11. Availability of audio recording for later use (video would be even better).
12. Handouts of any kind.

When the knowledge or experience of the speaker is similar to that of the audience, a roundtable or other interactive mode is preferable, with the speaker acting as more of a facilitator. This is especially true when a group of outspoken leaders comes together and expects to discuss rather than just listen.

In most cases, though, the audience seeks to learn from the speaker (this is also true of online learning), who is expected to be interesting, informative, and thought-provoking. The audience, unfortunately, is not always provided with a positive experience.

Let's see what happens.

Viewing a documentary about the 1960 Wisconsin presidential primary election, the difference between John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey was apparent.

It wasn't just Kennedy's charisma, celebrity status, or loads of campaign cash. It was his understanding of his role.

In preparation for a televised speech, for example, Kennedy accepted direction - how to look at the camera, how to position his body, how to make the most of the studio lighting. He respected the expertise that was offered.

Humphrey, on the other hand, gave direction. He instructed supporters appearing with him how to face the camera, when to turn, how the props would be used. He seemed to think he was expert at two jobs - candidate and manager - but didn't perform well at either. He lost a state he should have won.

Lesson for association executives (and board members): Do your job and let other people do theirs.

Sometimes. (I can't believe I said that).

I was a veteran political organizer before I finished college - in real elections, not student elections. I became a Board chair at 26, ran for public office at 30, and was hired as an association Executive Director that same year. I was the youngest person on the staff.

My same-aged colleagues and I were savvy, energetic, and not afraid of confrontation. We felt our style - the way we thought, wrote, spoke, and interacted - was superior to that of our elders.

We would never have joined a "young leadership" group because we felt that was merely a way to keep young people out of leadership. We were accustomed to mixed-age organizations and were frequently chosen as leaders.

As I helped nurture young leaders in my association in subsequent years, though, I observed them making mistakes and realized that I, too, had made those same mistakes at that age (fortunately, maturity and experience altered that behavior).

The most serious error was acting my age and not realizing that older people did not act my age.

Personal niceties not common in twenty- and thirty-something relationships were expected by others. Respect for family time (I was single), life experience (I didn't think it mattered), and diplomatic communication (what was that?) were traits my cohorts and I did not always value.

We were happy to espouse our thoughts and ideas, though. Too bad we didn't have a place like this to do it. (Thanks to Maddie Grant for the list).

International meetings continue to have problems with potential attendees being denied visas.

The Netherlands-based International Federation of Library Associations, meeting in Quebec City, Canada, found that thirteen library officials had been denied visas for, among other reasons, failing to provide bank statements, proof of income, and evidence of strong family ties in their native countries.

How would American association members feel about providing that information to attend an overseas meeting?

On a recent, three day, family vacation, I committed a rare departure from my normal routine - I brought along work-related reading (my advance copy of ASAE's "The Decision to Volunteer.")

Normally, I don't work on vacations - that's the point of a vacation. No e-mail, no telephone calls, no blogging, no work.

Work-related reading is fine while traveling or commuting, during down time at conferences, or when in work mode. It should not intrude into leisure time.

I prefer reading political history. My current recommendation is "Trading With the Enemy," by Charles Higham, a description of how American corporations did business with Nazi Germany during World War II.

Obviously, I didn't read a word of "The Decision to Volunteer." Until I plow through my copy, I'll just rely on critiques by Cindy Butts and Ben Martin.