Proving Conference Attendance

[lordmonar]

You're making the same points I did...

you should have stood your ground and told him to go pound salt.      If that is in fact NHQ's position.   Then they need to make [darn] sure it says so in the regulations.   We too do use that argument to get cadets to attend conferences....just this last year in fact.     Definitely going to follow this one up.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Did this dog and pony show last year. Since then I've done zero PD training outside of a UCC. Still debating if (assuming the wing deems me worthy) in the next 3 or so years I do write up my Senior rating questions, and do hit 2 conferences, Persuing major is even worth it. No way I'll be getting Level 4/5 anytime soon. Don't know if CAP will be a thing when I'm retirement age.

captalk.net/index.php?topic=17792.msg320372#msg320372.captalk.net/index.php?topic=17792.msg320372#msg320372

[CAP_truth]

Did this dog and pony show last year. Since then I've done zero PD training outside of a UCC. Still debating if (assuming the wing deems me worthy) in the next 3 or so years I do write up my Senior rating questions, and do hit 2 conferences, Persuing major is even worth it. No way I'll be getting Level 4/5 anytime soon. Don't know if CAP will be a thing when I'm retirement age.

What was the problem you had with the conference?

[Eclipse]

^ Participated fully as a cadet, wing decides to "clarify" whether cadets get Senior PD credit for conferences,
NHQ decides out of nowhere all of a sudden they don't, after years of using the Senior PD credit as the carrot to
get cadets to conferences, and despite the fact that the regs make no distinction.

Definitely going to follow this one up.

Did you get an answer yet?

[lordmonar]

^ Participated fully as a cadet, wing decides to "clarify" whether cadets get Senior PD credit for conferences,
NHQ decides out of nowhere all of a sudden they don't, after years of using the Senior PD credit as the carrot to
get cadets to conferences, and despite the fact that the regs make no distinction.

Definitely going to follow this one up.

Did you get an answer yet?

No....but I think no one is working this week. 

[Private Investigator]

Did this dog and pony show last year. Since then I've done zero PD training outside of a UCC. Still debating if (assuming the wing deems me worthy) in the next 3 or so years I do write up my Senior rating questions, and do hit 2 conferences, Persuing major is even worth it. No way I'll be getting Level 4/5 anytime soon. Don't know if CAP will be a thing when I'm retirement age.

What do you consider PD training. You are doing something in your speciality tracks? As a Captain you should be mentoring others now. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Did this dog and pony show last year. Since then I've done zero PD training outside of a UCC. Still debating if (assuming the wing deems me worthy) in the next 3 or so years I do write up my Senior rating questions, and do hit 2 conferences, Persuing major is even worth it. No way I'll be getting Level 4/5 anytime soon. Don't know if CAP will be a thing when I'm retirement age.

What do you consider PD training. You are doing something in your speciality tracks? As a Captain you should be mentoring others now. 

I'm mentoring quite a few people on CP, Testing, and other incidentals, at times to people who have been in longer than I've been alive, simply because my experience is more recent/learned as a cadet in this century. I've been involved with encampment since coming back as a SM. Of course at my PD Level, I'm not instructing, so it's "all about me", so PD stands for Personal Development until I wrap up LVL3

[Lord of the North]

All of the discussion concerning documenting conference attendance for PD training has been made useless by the way that NHQ implemented the on-line PD award application module.  Even though CAPR 50-17 2-5e states in part: "A member submitting an application for an award whose achievements do not appear on their online record must attach copies of supporting documents."  This works fine until you use the on-line modules which has NO WAY to attache supporting documents to the request.
When this was pointed out to NHQ/PD when the module was put on-line, I was told I should try to help solve the problem not be negative about the system.  This seems to be the common response on almost any problem with on-line systems when they are pointed out to NHQ. 

[MSG Mac]

As has been pointed out in earlier posts, many Wings print either a roster or a certificate of attendance. Bring them to your PDO or Personnel Officer for input. Some Wings even input the data as part of the final paperwork of the activity.

[Eclipse]

I was told I should try to help solve the problem not be negative about the system. 

OK.

"I'm positive the current system has a serious flaw rendering it unusable for a large number of members."

Unless they are going to hand you the admin login / password to the Vic 20 that eServices runs on, what else can you do
to "help solve the problem" beyond pointing it out?

[Eclipse]

As has been pointed out in earlier posts, many Wings print either a roster or a certificate of attendance. Bring them to your PDO or Personnel Officer for input. Some Wings even input the data as part of the final paperwork of the activity.

Whatever echelon can deny participation, should be the one tasked with tracking it, and in any cases of doubt, tie goes to the
runner unless the wing can prove otherwise.  We're all officer and gentlemen, right?  Sworn to integrity?  If a member says
he was at a conference, you have only two options, accept his word, or accuse him of lying and commence disciplinary action under "Conduct Unbecoming",
because anyone who would lie abut a conference is not someone who should be wearing a CAP nametag.

There's far too much "culture of no" about things which are ultimately meaningless to everyone but the member CAP may well lose
when they hear one last unfair "no".

A Level 3 "no" on a conference attendance risks the very members CAP cannot afford to lose - FGO candidates with 5-10 years
experience who should carry CAP into the next decade.  New member churn is a huge problem, but we get more of those
every year - it takes 5-10 years to grown a FGO.

[lordmonar]

^ Participated fully as a cadet, wing decides to "clarify" whether cadets get Senior PD credit for conferences,
NHQ decides out of nowhere all of a sudden they don't, after years of using the Senior PD credit as the carrot to
get cadets to conferences, and despite the fact that the regs make no distinction.

Definitely going to follow this one up.

Did you get an answer yet?

No....but I think no one is working this week.

I got a response

Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support
center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

We will assume your issue has been resolved if we do not hear from you
within 72 hours.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

Subject
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Attendance as a Cadet Count Toward Level III?


Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Response Via Email(KB Manager) - 01/05/2015 06:03 AM
Conference attendance is credited only if completed as a senior member. The intent is for the member to grow in their senior member professional development and their staff skills sets. Cadet Attendance does not achieve this goal.

Bobbie-Jean Tourville
HQ CAP Chief of Professional Development
(O) 877.227.9142 ext. 405
(O) 334.953.7748 ext. 405

So...now I start my campaign to get NHQ to rewrite the reg to actually say this.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Fine and dandy. Can we stop dragging cadets to these? What's the point of sitting in the presentations if they apparently get nothing out of it?

[Alaric]

Fine and dandy. Can we stop dragging cadets to these? What's the point of sitting in the presentations if they apparently get nothing out of it?

If the only reason to go to a conference is "check the box" then absolutely.  Or you could have meaningful content aimed at the cadets, you're either part of the problem or part of the solution, the choice is yours.

[lordmonar]

I just sent an E-mail to the Chief of Professional Development asking for a Regulation Re-write.....let's see what happens.

[Eclipse]

If the only reason to go to a conference is "check the box" then absolutely.  Or you could have meaningful content aimed at the cadets,

If I ever see any at a Wing conference, I'll let you know.  A half-hearted CAC meeting and NCSA seminar don't count, neither
do "commander's round tables".

you're either part of the problem or part of the solution, the choice is yours.

Is it? 

Ad hominem responses assumes the person pointing out the problem as both the power and authority
to assist with the fix, not necessarily the case.

Being able to detect a tire is flat doesn't mean you know how to repair it, nor does it become your
instant responsibility just because you point it out.

[Eclipse]

So...now I start my campaign to get NHQ to rewrite the reg to actually say this.

So at least I wasn't making this up - same person who responded in our case(s).

So can we go back and yank the credit, and potentially demote all the members who used cadet
conference credit for senior PD?  I know of several without even having to look people up.

NHQ should not be allowed to make arbitrary interpretations in situations like this, especially
when there is no way to retcon those who acted faster then others, or even enforce the issue
in those wings that never ask the question.

Guaranteed there are wings where the practice will continue.

At most NHQ should issue "go-forward" memos, and allow for their past mistakes to live on
when the impact would be negative to the member.

What you have here now is a situation where some of our most motivated members - cadets who
were looking forward to senior CAP members in as much as they attended an activity that is
clearly not intended for them, and where their presence is an afterthought at best, only
to be told "not so much" when they reach the point as motivated seniors that they can take
advantage of the opportunity that was literally offered as such by their wing.  Simply because one
person arbitrarily "decided" to change long-standing policy without any thought to the implications.

Add this kind of nonsense to the board when you start asking why the membership trends point SE.

[lordmonar]

So...now I start my campaign to get NHQ to rewrite the reg to actually say this.

So at least I wasn't making this up - same person who responded in our case(s).

So can we go back and yank the credit, and potentially demote all the members who used cadet
conference credit for senior PD?  I know of several without even having to look people up.

NHQ should not be allowed to make arbitrary interpretations in situations like this, especially
when there is no way to retcon those who acted faster then others, or even enforce the issue
in those wings that never ask the question.

Guaranteed there are wings where the practice will continue.

At most NHQ should issue "go-forward" memos, and allow for their past mistakes to live on
when the impact would be negative to the member.

They certainly have to communicate their arbitrary interpretations to the field so we all can be on the same page of music.   This is the [mess] that makes CAP look bad.

And no....we should not retro-fix anyone's rank/PD levels.....as we don't know when this actually became policy.

[Eclipse]

And no....we should not retro-fix anyone's rank/PD levels.....as we don't know when this actually became policy.

It never has become "policy" - this is an SME making an interpretation outside the regulation process.

Any wing so inclined is free to ignore it, and I guarantee many are, or will never be aware there is anything to ignore.
One could presume NVWG was until now (assuming anything changes after today).

As to the "effective date" - is that relevent?  You can't grant credit to some cadets and not others who all attended the
same conference.  Where's the integrity in that?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Fine and dandy. Can we stop dragging cadets to these? What's the point of sitting in the presentations if they apparently get nothing out of it?

If the only reason to go to a conference is "check the box" then absolutely.  Or you could have meaningful content aimed at the cadets, you're either part of the problem or part of the solution, the choice is yours.

Did you read the above email?

Conference attendance is credited only if completed as a senior member. The intent is for the member to grow in their senior member professional development and their staff skills sets. Cadet Attendance does not achieve this goal.

The intent is for SMs to grow their skills, not cadets. So there's no point in cadets being there. Why bother making cadet-centric classes? It gives them no benefit, and takes away from the SMs who are supposed to grow in their senior member professional development and staff skill sets.

Seemed plenty clear cut to me.

Reminded me of the case I kept submitting to knowledgebase under the old 39-1 about the placement of grade and "CAP" cutout on field jackets. They kept telling me the page cite, and I kept asking them for actual dimensions as the page lacked it. So much for SMEs.