II. CONFERENCE ACTION Organization, Structure, and Procedures THE SECTION on Income Maintenance (including Financing of Medical Costs) was one of the four Sections making up Group I, Social and Economic Aspects of Aging. The three others were Population Trends, Social and Economic Implications; Impact of Inflation on Retired Persons; and Employment Security and Retirement. The "grouping" grew naturally out of the subject matter; a similar combination was used by many of the States when considering the same subjects. The four Sections therefore used a common structure and procedure, designed to provide maximum opportunity for considering interrelationships against a broad frame of reference. On the opening afternoon of the Conference, delegates to the four Sections met in Group session for orientation to their total subject. (See Appendix A for text of address by Charles I. Schottland, chairman of the Income Maintenance Section.) The structure was designed also to recognize that the subject matter was complex, frequently quite technical, and not without controversial issues. With only a limited time available for discussion, it was necessary to break the subject into pieces of manageable size. Hence, topics were identified that could be considered in some detail by the Workgroups charged with responsibility for proposing recommendations. The identification of Workgroup topics was made initially from the Background Papers for the four Sections, and then modified where necessary to take account of the emphases and interpretations growing out of State conferences and recommendations. These then were the two basic principles adopted by the Planning Committees of the four Sections-first, maximum opportunity for looking at the subject broadly, and, second, development of recommendations by Workgroups that had given more than superficial consideration to the problem at issue. The specific methods used to implement these principles were chosen because they promised both depth and breadth of consideration and thus seemed best to fit the subject matter. Because the Workgroup topics were of concern to all four Sections, each of the Group I delegates was given the topic of his choice regardless of Section assignment (see table 2). The Workgroup discussions were not only enriched through the exchange of ideas by participants who brought different perspectives to the subject, but it is quite possible that this exchange resulted in fewer conflicting recommendations than would otherwise have been the case. Despite this merging of Workgroups, the four Sections maintained their identity, especially for purposes of developing a Statement of Policy. While none of the Workgroup topics was the exclusive concern of any one Section, each topic was more germane to one of the four Sections than to the other three and was therefore the responsibility of that Section. The Workgroup Leadership: Selection and Functions Early in the planning it had been recognized that the caliber of the leadership of the Workgroups would be a key factor in the success of the Conference. Each Section had a Planning Committee whose members and consultants could be tapped as a source of outstanding experience and knowledge of the subject matter. The four Sections of Group I pooled this essential resource in order to staff their 28 Workgroups. In general, Planning Committee members served as Workgroup chairmen while the consultants were discussion leaders or resource persons, as appropriate. With each Workgroup having a chairman, discussion leader, recorder, and 2 resource persons-1 Federal and 1 non-Federal-a roster of 140 skilled leaders was assembled. Except for the Federal personnel involved, all but 17 were recruited from the delegate lists. To acquaint each Workgroup leader with his duties, the following description accompanied the invitation asking him to serve: Functions of Workgroup Participants Workgroup Chairman: To serve as a presiding officer, opening and closing each Workgroup session; perform or arrange forintroductions; assure that the Recorder has the necessary information for his record; be responsible for knowing that any person entering into the vote of the Workgroup has voting status and for referring questions of procedure to the Parliamentarian or other staff for appropriate handling. The Workgroup Chairman who has delegate status shall be perfectly free to provide information, enter into debate, and vote on all matters and at all sessions. Discussion Leader: To skillfully lead the discussion in an impartial manner, assuring that all delegates have an equal opportunity to be heard. Through his knowledge of the subject matter, to know at what point to involve the resource persons and at what point all considerations are on the table and the group is ready to vote. When recommendations are debated at Section or Group Meetings, the Discussion Leader may be asked to summarize the considerations that entered into the development of his Workgroup recommendations. As the effectiveness of the Discussion Leader might be weakened were his position known prior to the completion of the discussion session, it is suggested that voting be done by written ballot rather than by voice vote or show of hands. Official Recorder: To produce a succinct and accurate account of the recommendations developed by his Workgroup, including the relevant considerations that led up to the recommendations, the exact wording of the recommendations adopted by the group, the number of votes for and against, and any significant minority views. On Tuesday evening, the Official Recorder will need to be available for a meeting with the Planning Committee Chairmen to keep them informed of the Workgroup's recommendations for purposes of developing the Statements of Policy and plans for handling of recommendations at the Wednesday sessions. The official Recorder who has delegate status shall be perfectly free to vote on all matters and at all sessions, and so long as it does not interfere with his functions as recorder-to provide information or enter into debate during the Workgroup deliberations. Resource Coordinator: To insure that the deliberations of the Workgroup are soundly based on facts; where the need for information has not been anticipated, to know where to tap knowledgeable sources; on request, to assist in the development of statements for use in considering recommendations at the Section or Group level. The Resource Coordinator will be assisted by a team of resource persons selected for their knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.1 Resource persons who have delegate status shall be perfectly free to vote on all matters at all sessions. In advance of the Conference, resource materials both those of a general nature and those tailored to the particular Workgroup subject-were sent to all program participants, regardless of function. Composition of the Delegate Group Group I had a total of 572 delegates in its four Sections, of whom 84 were assigned to Section 1; 270 to Section 2; 74 to Section 3; and 144 to Section 4. 1 In actual operation, this "team" was one Federal resource person in each Workgroup. The Workgroups, particularly where there was more than one Workgroup on a given topic, were encouraged to pool the knowledge of their resource personnel. On the day of the Workgroup meetings, a resource person with broad general knowledge was also available in Group Headquarters to all the Workgroups. The occupational distribution for the Group and for each Section is shown in table 1. Table 1. Occupational Distribution of Delegates to Group 1: Social and Economic Aspects of Aging Of the 572 Group I delegates, only 13 reported themselves as retired. Persons who were employed or self-employed and reported that they spent less than half their time in the field of aging outnumbered the professionals by a ratio of almost four to one. More than three-fifths of the Group I delegates were between the ages of 45 and 65; delegates aged 65 and over made up 15 percent of those who reported their age. Most came from urban areas, 30 percent from cities with populations of 100,000-500,000 and 37 percent from cities of more than 500,000. Because Group I delegates were given their choice of any of the 19 topics (subsequently reduced to 17), some participated in Workgroups that were the responsibility of Sections other than the one to which they were assigned. The Workgroups for which Section 1 had responsibility, for example, drew 61 of their 105 members from other Sections, more than balancing the 39 that Section 1 contributed to other Workgroups. This "cross-fertilization" is summarized in table 2 on the following page. The Workgroups that were obviously of general interest, as evidenced by the fact that they drew the broadest representation from all Sections, were those on "Rights and Obligations of Older People"-where three-fourths of the delegate were in Sections other than Section 1, "Independence and Dependence in the Later Years" and Table 2. Section Assignment of Delegates According to Section Responsible for Section responsible for Workgroups *The Section chairmen are not included in this distribution. "Our Aged Population's Share in Expanding Productivity." In contrast, all but one of the delegates in the Workgroup on "Population Mobility and Its Implications" were Section 1 delegates. Of the 194 delegates in the seven Workgroups on "Financing of Medical Costs," 77 percent were assigned to Section 2. The other Workgroups for which Section 2 had responsibility drew higher proportions from the other Sections; in these Workgroups 61 percent were assigned to Section 2. The occupational distribution of the delegates who formulated the Workgroup recommendations for each Section-as distinct from the Section delegates who approved them is also of interest. The percentage distribution is shown in table 3 below. Of all the delegates to the Conference, Section 2 had one-tenth (10.5 percent). In comparison to other Sections, Section 2 had Table 3. Occupational Distribution of Delegates to the Workgroups in each Section |