Proving Conference Attendance

[Eclipse]

As with the CAC, there is a general air from NHQ that conferences are "important", but a total failure in articulating >why<.

If by "general air" you mean a specific regulation articulating the importance, I suppose I must agree. 

Got it, so >this< regulation, NHQ can enforce, not like all those messy ones that make people sad.  Just clarifying.

Feel free to articulate some additional language describing the wisdom of requiring management trainees (folks working PD Level III) to have exposure to missions outside their specialties and start gaining appreciation of corporate level issues.  You're a pretty articulate guy.  You come up with something and I'll do my best to get it included in the next draft of the 50-17.

That is actually humorous.

In no way, on any planet, by any definition, are CAP members "management trainees".  That might be a blue-sky ideal of what CAP officers and staff should be,
but let's not play pretend.  At best they are management "trustees" or more appropriately "supervisors" meaning they do what they are told, because they are told to do it.
I'd be very curious to know where you get the idea that CAP staff are being trained as "managers" or expected to "manage" anything.  It's certainly
not from SLS or CLC, which are exercises in doing very specific functions and roles, not being "managers".

Managers have strategic roles, and "plan", they are charged with looking at the totality of a situation and taking steps to insure continuity, contingency,
and expand beyond what is shiny and loud today.  Occasionally they might take a step or two towards progress, and often they have to direct people to
do things they don't want to.  The also have to insure their AOR fits properly into the far-reaching goals and plan of the organization.

These are foreign words in the CAP parlance, and when you start trying to "manage" people in CAP, they generally either turn off or vote you off the island.
CAP can't even put together budgets that aren't fiction, let alone anything that would be considered "managing".

Also, why would I try to better define a situation I think should be dissolved?  This, like many other aspects of CAP, is both a cast-off and anchor from
days past when the admin officer had the only copy of the regs, at his house, and you could only view them on a full moon and were not allowed copies,
and when the VHF nets were the most "current" source of information.

I used the term "anchor" because it is this kind of "we do it because we always did it" mentality that is holding back CAP from the change it needs.

The answer is - no more conferences band camps.  Stop wasting people's time and money on "required" activities that provide zero
benefit beyond checking a box.  Whether it's encampments that don't meet the regulations, NCSAs that aren't remotely related to mission,
or ES training that just marches in a circle, all this does is extend the spiral instead of moving CAP forward.

As always, it may be helpful to put this into perspective.  I don't have the exact number handy, but the relative lack of precision in defining what exactly constitutes a "conference" for PD purposes affects only a fairly tiny minority of members in the first place.  It doesn't matter to cadets, of course.  And only a minority of seniors reach Level III.  Something like 25%.  And of those, the overwhelming majority simply attend two national, region, or wing conferences without being challenged by PD officers about attending a conference that somehow did not meet the existing standards.

As near as I can tell, the fuzziness of the definition affects something less than 1% of our members.

I disagree strongly that it only affects 1% - how many is debatable since NHQ has no idea how many members it actually
has, but the number of members affected is 100% of the active ones who are progressing, because they all know
that at some point they have to subject themselves to this wasted weekend, twice, if they want to move forward
with their progression, which NHQ also indicates as "important", yet is unable to articulate why.

Those middle managers supervisors and mid-career members are the life blood of CAP and seem to be the
ones least appreciated in terms of their time and expense.  They find themselves holding 2-3 staff jobs at circular echelons,
while also needing to jump through a bunch of silly hoops just to prove they can do the staff job they've held for two years
(which they took as a slick-sleeve member).

And of course it matters to cadets, because these conferences seek to drag them to these events on a regular basis,
with little for them to do but sit around and look at each other and the chaperons, not to mention the current
"new" issue of them being promised for years they would get PD credit and now NHQ "deciding" they don't (absent
any regulatory indication to that effect and with the full knowledge that many did, and will continue to do so in wings unaware of the
prohibition, because, again, double-secret, unpublished "decision" by an SME who doesn't think it is important enough to actually
publish it to the field).

But OK, then if it's only 1% of the membership by your count, then it CERTAINLY is not worth the amount of effort and cajoling
times 52 wings every 1-2 years, not to mention Region and National.   At most, with those numbers, they shouldn't go below Region.

Depending on the cycle, that's 25 some man-weekends a year lost to meaningful activities because the staff are otherwise engaged,
the planes are ferrying people to and from, not to mention the 6 months to a year it takes to plan.

All for "1%"?

Or you can choose not to help and continue to sharpshoot relatively minor issues on the periphery of CAP instead of helping to move us forward.

Or, CAP could actually >fix< those "relatively minor" issues that somehow, despite being "relaitvely minor, are a constant issue, and then
move forward.

[Alaric]

Also, why would I try to better define a situation I think should be dissolved?  This, like many other aspects of CAP, is both a cast-off and anchor from
days past when the admin officer had the only copy of the regs, at his house, and you could only view them on a full moon and were not allowed copies,
and when the VHF nets were the most "current" source of information.

I used the term "anchor" because it is this kind of "we do it because we always did it" mentality that is holding back CAP from the change it needs.

The answer is - no more conferences band camps.  Stop wasting people's time and money on "required" activities that provide zero
benefit beyond checking a box.  Whether it's encampments that don't meet the regulations, NCSAs that aren't remotely related to mission,
or ES training that just marches in a circle, all this does is extend the spiral instead of moving CAP forward.

Sorry you feel there is no benefit to the conferences, I have derived benefit from every conference I have been to.  I do understand your tenure in CAP is much longer than mine, but I'm willing to bet my attendance at conferences is more recent than yours

OHWG - 2014
CTWG/NER - 2014
ILWG - 2012
National - 2012
CTWG - 2012
National - 2011
ALWG - 2011

I'm planning to attend INWG, ILWG, and OHWG conferences this year, as well as National if I can swing it.

Just curious, why do you think all those Majors and Lt Cols who already have Level III keep showing up?  Too much money and free time?  I've had Level III since 2012, but yet I'm still going, maybe YOU don't derive value from the conferences, how fortunate you know longer need to attend them as I know you already have gone beyond Level III.  But just because you don't see the value in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 

[Eclipse]

Just curious, why do you think all those Majors and Lt Cols who already have Level III keep showing up?  Too much money and free time?

In many cases it's the latter.  For a lot of members, CAP is their social circle.

Beyond that, no idea other then "because", which is why far too many CAP things are done.

For you, personally, your experience is not typical of the average member - you've moved around a lot and
so I'd hazard that in some cases those conferences give you a handy way to meet all the new guys in the wing
you're now in.

The average members never leave the wing.

But just because you don't see the value in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I can't argue that, necessarily, but it's not like I'm a lone voice even here, let alone out in the field.
You have to spend a year begging and pleading for people to come to a CAP conference, and even then
you're at risk for attendance.  That's not because these things are viewed as prime activities.

[BHartman007]

I went to my first wing conference last April because it was 20 minutes from my house. I enjoyed going, but I wouldn't say I learned much of anything new. I sat in on an AE presentation by an astronaut, which was fun but nothing new to me since I know him, lol. I watched an awards ceremony, talked to a few people I knew, and stood around a lot. I did take TLC as a preconference course, and enjoyed that. I was going to go back this year, and take the preconference UCC, but they moved it to Dallas. I can't justify the expense (unpaid time off of work, several tanks of gas, hotel for several nights and the conference registration its self) to go up there for several days just to attend a conference. Which makes me sad, cause now level three will be at least another year away, lol.

[Ned]

Bob,

Conferences are not "required" for anyone other than seniors working on Level III of their PD.  Which is something like 15% of the membership.  The rest of us go because we think they are worthwhile for other reasons, mostly related to improving our professional comptence in CAP.

I fully understand that you don't think they have any value.  I guess the other 85% of CAP will have to make their own call.  Interestingly, thousands of members choose to spend their hard-earned time and treasure each year at CAP conferences even when not trying to check a box for Level III. 

But the limited purpose of this portion of the thread has not been directed to the conference program as a whole, but the purpose of conference as a formal part of our PD program.  Which, as indicated in the regulation, is designed to give CAP management trainees exposure outside their technical fields and to gain some appreciation of corporate-level issues.

Even if you continue to disagree with every national commander since Spaatz on the overall worth of conferences, do you seriously dispute that the current and future leaders of the organization should not have that kind of training and exposure as part of our PD program?

If we don't offer that training and exposure at conferences, how else should we deliver it?  I can think of a couple of alternative venues, but none as efficient in terms of the members' time and treasure as a good conference.  Feel free to offer suggestions. 

[lordmonar]

So the solution is a conference ribbon. Can be a CAC ribbon with a blue center stripe.

if the "problem" were "how do we bet more people to attend conferences".

The problem thought....is how do I as a PDO know if the "CAWG Cadet Conference" counts or does not count, but a wing AE conference does count Or my wing's bi-annual face to face staff meeting is almost identical to our wing conference....except the banquet is less formal......should that not count?

Ned has asked me for a definition.   And really I can't come up with one.   Because I would simply change the requirement to "as a Level II member, attend at least two wing (or higher) face-to-face staff meetings.   Discuss with the wing director of your primary staff position issues related to specialty.   Meet with other members of the wing and with the director one area outside of your primary staff position".

If the goal is to get the member outside of his little hidey hole in the Personnel Files at Homer J. Simpson Comp Squadron.....that is one way to do it.   

It is easy to rack.....give the member a signature card.....with a spot of the CC's signature, the Director of XX's signature and 4-5 blank lines to get the contact info for people the member networked with.....he may substitute business cards.

[THRAWN]

Bob,

Conferences are not "required" for anyone other than seniors working on Level III of their PD.  Which is something like 15% of the membership.  The rest of us go because we think they are worthwhile for other reasons, mostly related to improving our professional comptence in CAP.

I fully understand that you don't think they have any value.  I guess the other 85% of CAP will have to make their own call.  Interestingly, thousands of members choose to spend their hard-earned time and treasure each year at CAP conferences even when not trying to check a box for Level III. 

But the limited purpose of this portion of the thread has not been directed to the conference program as a whole, but the purpose of conference as a formal part of our PD program.  Which, as indicated in the regulation, is designed to give CAP management trainees exposure outside their technical fields and to gain some appreciation of corporate-level issues.

Even if you continue to disagree with every national commander since Spaatz on the overall worth of conferences, do you seriously dispute that the current and future leaders of the organization should not have that kind of training and exposure as part of our PD program?

If we don't offer that training and exposure at conferences, how else should we deliver it?  I can think of a couple of alternative venues, but none as efficient in terms of the members' time and treasure as a good conference.  Feel free to offer suggestions.

I think part of the issue is that there is no set definition of "training and exposure". Some wings do a great job of providing these things. Some seem to be only exceptionally good at making feedback through the PA system. It's not too far fetched to have some sort of guidance provided in the regs regarding the types of required training activities that "management trainees" can benefit from.

[LSThiker]

Once again, you only get out of a conference what you put into it.

That is absolutely true of any conference a person attends.  Whether it is a scientific one, religious one, philosophical one, etc. 

For me, I try to get something out of them.  If nothing, I always make it a point to volunteer to talk at the conferences I attend.  This way, I can present a large amount of information in a short time to an audience.  This beats having to send out emails that will ultimately get trashed.  For region and national conferences, I usually just attend to get a better idea of the organization's direction and to talk with my counterparts.  Although I admit, lately I have not had the time to attend a National Conference.  Perhaps someday I will at least get back to a Spaatz Conference.  The last TSA meeting I attended was 2005 (I think?) when the coins were first introduced.

That being said, I also try to make sure I attend the seminars about matters I am not well-versed on.  After a few conferences and pretty much knowing all cadet programs officers in my wing, I stopped going to the CP seminars, but would still make it a point to talk with the officers.  I attended seminars on logistics, communications, finance, etc.  Even though I have no personal interest in those subjects, at least I was trying to get a better understanding of the topics. 

At the very least, if there was not any seminars I wanted to attend at a particular time, I would usually request a personal conference with a particular squadron or the wing commander.  Even though we communicate via email and phone, that one-on-one, face-to-face dialogue is more efficient. 

When I was a cadet, the conferences were never advertised to us for completion of senior member requirements.  That and most cadets in my wing would not really be persuaded by that.  We set up our own cadet seminars, meetings (outside of CAC), and planning activities designed specifically for cadets.  In a few situations, I was asked to talk as a cadet on cadet program matters. 

[Ned]

I think part of the issue is that there is no set definition of "training and exposure".

Concur.  These concepts are fairly difficult to pin down and write regulations detailing requirements.

It is similar to the discussions we have had about whether schools like RSC or TLC can or should be done via distance learning.  There is a pretty good consensus that a lot of the value of these activities occurs during informal interactions between the members.  But that is extremely difficult to quantify in written form.  God knows I've tried.

Decades ago, I completed Uncle Sam's Military Police Officer Basic Course via distance learning.  Hundreds of subcourses, IIRC.  I then was able to complete it in residence.  Same curriculum, same requirements.  But a vastly different learning experience.  But if you asked me how to define the difference, I would have a hard time defining the "training and exposure" to Army stuff component.

Like many things is CAP, if was easy, we would have done it by now.

It's not too far fetched to have some sort of guidance provided in the regs regarding the types of required training activities that "management trainees" can benefit from.

Again, concur.  So what do you think that guidance should look like?

[Storm Chaser]

So the solution is a conference ribbon. Can be a CAC ribbon with a blue center stripe.

With mini martini glasses to indicate multiple awards...

And margarita shot glasses in three different colors to indicate whether a wing, region or national conference was attended.

[Eclipse]

If we don't offer that training and exposure at conferences, how else should we deliver it?

Exposure to what?

[Майор Хаткевич]

If we don't offer that training and exposure at conferences, how else should we deliver it?

Exposure to what?

Senior Leadership unfit for Blues. Drinking around cadets. Inappropriate "adult" jokes in the lobby around cadets. Cliques of people who know each other. Uncomfortable hotel conference room chairs. Technical issues for 1/3 of the presentation. Rubber chicken mean (optional).

[Eclipse]

If we don't offer that training and exposure at conferences, how else should we deliver it?

Exposure to what?

Senior Leadership unfit for Blues. Drinking around cadets. Inappropriate "adult" jokes in the lobby around cadets. Cliques of people who know each other. Uncomfortable hotel conference room chairs. Technical issues for 1/3 of the presentation. Rubber chicken mean (optional).

Fair enough.