Proving Conference Attendance

[JeffDG]

1.  I would say "Yes" based on the purpose of the conference:  " These conferences afford CAP members a broad view of the CAP corporation's organization and expose them to the issues confronting CAP."  Going to a "Cadet Conference" for a CP person doesn't expose them to other areas, so I would say all 3 missions must be represented.

2.  I'd suggest saying a 1 day/6 hour minimum for the event, with hours in general session, breakout sessions and banquet counting, as all of these expose members to the broad area

3.  Yes

4.  I don't think they necessarily need to be different, except perhaps the "open to all members", but if a command call is "open" and meets the requirements defined for 2 is should count.

5.  If it's open and planned at a Wing or higher level, then size isn't really that important.

6.  I would say a general meeting with content from all three mission areas would be minimum content.  Break out sessions would be a nice-to-have.  Banquet should be strictly optional.

a.  No.  Set a base minimum, then encourange wings to be innovative.

b.  Much tougher.  I would say "attendance".  Even if you spend the whole conference in one-on-one meetings with SMEs and folks from other parts of the wing, you've met the objectives.

[Ned]

Ned,

The first question is what is the PD objective of a "conference" in the first place.

Why do we want our Level III member to attend at least two.

Once we have a clear idea of this.....we can then write the definition of what events meet that PD objective.

Well, the best statement of the objective appears in the reg itself.

According to the 50-17:

Attend two wing, region, or national conferences. These conferences afford CAP members a broad view of the CAP corporation's organization and expose them to the issues confronting CAP. Attendance at a region/wing aerospace education conference can also be credited for one conference attendance. Conferences attended prior to entry into Level III count toward fulfillment of this requirement.

So, given the objective to broaden a member's perspective as part of Level III Management training, it would seem that we should probably define a "conference" to include multiple missions (subject to the AE exception in the reg) and require some sort of "corporate level" training on issues.

So where does that leave us?

[Flying Pig]

As a side note.... I loved going to conferences.  Plus, its funny when someone you've never met walks up to you and continues a CAPTalk discussion like you've know each other for years   

[Chappie]

As a side note.... I loved going to conferences.  Plus, its funny when someone you've never met walks up to you and continues a CAPTalk discussion like you've know each other for years   

Better yet...they have heard your name but have never met you.  They approach you and look you over and say, "Glad to me you...I didn't realize until now that you were (starting to reference my height as they tower over me)...so bald!"
Must of thought I was like Braveheart - LOL.

[JC004]

Ned - why must you always apply logic when they find something to really sink their teeth into?   

I feel like the generalized purpose of adding this was to have someone who has done something above the squadron, and has participated in some extra CAP education (seminars, although it doesn't specify how to measure this).  I can't find much more to this, because there's no requirement that you attend a particular seminar (like something in your own specialty track). 

Overall, this particular requirement is not a solid one, and I'm not sure it can be made into a very solid requirement, since it lacks a clear, precise purpose. 

There's no requirement that you do ANYTHING at a conference.  When I was a cadet, I skipped cadet stuff and attended the same seminars the senior members attended.  In most, I was the only cadet.   My education at those was the same as a SM.  I spend at lot of time with NHQ people and such because I volunteered to help at the national conferences I attended as a cadet (I learned a lot from that experience).  The seminars I attended were the things I went into as specialty tracks when I went SM.  I did attend a couple conferences as a SM, but if I hadn't, should I have been prohibited from using what I did?

But you can also just go to get your award at the banquet and sleep...   

This needs a clear PURPOSE if it's going to have clear requirements...

[RiverAux]

If we use the regulation to understand why we want people to attend wing conference

These conferences afford CAP members a broad view of the CAP corporation's organization and expose them to the issues confronting CAP.

I would then seriously argue that making them spend 6 hours reading CAPTalk posts would accomplish more than attending most wing conferences that I've been at.  I'm really not kidding. 

Is a wing conference really where someone is going to be exposed to issues confronting CAP? 

I would argue no.  At best you might get a few speeches from the Wing Commander or some other dignitary that may touch on issues, but there is absolutely no serious discussion of anything.  Its all one-way communication.

Wing Conference seminars are also mostly one-way though there is more of an opportunity to at least ask questions, but these are generally on such specific issues (What form do I need to fill out for this?) that they're not meeting the stated goal above. 

[JC004]

Isn't that part of the defined purpose of SLS and CLC? 

[Chappie]

Having had the experience of attending wing, region, and national conferences, I can attest that you will only get out of a conference what you put into it.  Each conference, at its level, has it unique flavor and character.   It is interesting to see the organizational culture and dynamics at play (or work )  One definitely gets to see "the big picture" above the local squadron.

Prior to serving on Wing and Region staffs, I used my time at conferences to network with others in my specialty group as well as will as with other departments.  While on staff, I planned and conducted break-out sessions that hopefully were informative to members of the Chaplain Corps as well as to members of the Wing (the Chaplain Corps sponsored sessions that were open to all members of the Wing).

As for issues confronting CAP, they may or may not be addressed by the Wing/Region/National Commander when they present the obligatory "canine and equestrian demonstration"...but in the formal break-out sessions as well as the lobby/table/hallway talk times, one can fill a book on the issues that the organization face.   As a staff member, I would get an earful...and from that was able to take chunks out of the elephant one at time and resolve some of the issues that I was made aware.

I know that both the CAWG and PCR had Certificates of Participation in the registration packet that confirmed the attendance of the conference whether one attended the Reception/General Assembly/Break-out sessions (Banquet is optional) or just sat by the pool and read a book.  Once again, you only get out of a conference what you put into it.   Hopefully, it's not just to check a box.

[Alaric]

^ +1

[Private Investigator]

... or just sat by the pool and read a book.  Once again, you only get out of a conference what you put into it.   Hopefully, it's not just to check a box.

x 100 = 1  :clap:

[Eclipse]

According to the 50-17:

Attend two wing, region, or national conferences. These conferences afford CAP members a broad view of the CAP corporation's organization and expose them to the issues confronting CAP. Attendance at a region/wing aerospace education conference can also be credited for one conference attendance. Conferences attended prior to entry into Level III count toward fulfillment of this requirement.

So, given the objective to broaden a member's perspective as part of Level III Management training, it would seem that we should probably define a "conference" to include multiple missions (subject to the AE exception in the reg) and require some sort of "corporate level" training on issues.

So where does that leave us?

In exactly the same situation as the CAC - a vary nice pamphlet written by well-intentioned members that a large portion of
conference organizers are not even aware exists, and for which there is zero requirement to adhere.

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

Again as with the CAC, the majority of those participating aren't there for the raw value of the activity itself, but because
someone higher decided they had to be there, staff included.

And to beat the CAC analogy to death, the participants are all reasonably sure that their efforts are valued and important to
CAP's overall mission, and the rest of the membership is unaware and/or disinterested because the activities are disconnected
from CAP day-to-day reality.

It makes people feel good and checks a box.

[Майор Хаткевич]

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

[Eclipse]

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

Perfect - a ribbon would double attendance the first year.

[Al Sayre]

Part of the problem is that for the last few years, budget constraints on NHQ personnel travel have prevented NHQ personnel from attending Wing Conferences (even in MS, a stones throw away).  If the folks from NHQ, the CAP/CC or CAP/CV don't come to the conference, the attendee's generally don't get "a broad view of the CAP corporation's organization" or exposure to the issues confronting CAP.   

[Eclipse]

Part of the problem is that for the last few years, budget constraints on NHQ personnel travel have prevented NHQ personnel from attending Wing Conferences (even in MS, a stones throw away).  If the folks from NHQ, the CAP/CC or CAP/CV don't come to the conference, the attendee's generally don't get "a broad view of the CAP corporation's organization" or exposure to the issues confronting CAP.

+1 - The same people you saw last week at the SAREx, encampment, or staff meeting, along with a handful of people
who do nothing but conferences, banquets, and parties.

[THRAWN]

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...

[THRAWN]

Part of the problem is that for the last few years, budget constraints on NHQ personnel travel have prevented NHQ personnel from attending Wing Conferences (even in MS, a stones throw away).  If the folks from NHQ, the CAP/CC or CAP/CV don't come to the conference, the attendee's generally don't get "a broad view of the CAP corporation's organization" or exposure to the issues confronting CAP.

+1 - The same people you saw last week at the SAREx, encampment, or staff meeting, along with a handful of people
who do nothing but conferences, banquets, and parties.

So much truth in this statement. My ex and I were both on wing staff at the same time (me, ES and her Cadet Programs). There wasn't a weekend where we didn't spend it with our extensive family of cadets or ES folks. Add to that two conferences per year (wing and region), and I'm exhausted just thinking about it....The region conferences were valuable for networking, but the wing conferences weren't for the reasons above. They were good for offering some good planning sessions, some solid seminars, and additional training, but for most of us, it was a weekend away...

[00]

If they want to increase attendance at all levels the conference ribbon will need stars to indicate which level of conference was attended and devices for multiple conference attendees. So, an AE or other conference = ribbon, a Wing conference = ribbon with a bronze star, Region conference = ribbon with a silver star, and National conference = a ribbon with gold star.

I will say because of the cost, I only went to a conference because it was a requirement for level three, but I did enjoy the sessions. They presented things I was not exposed to at the squadron or group level. The conference also gave me time to talk to others from my group that I never have had at other CAP activities. This year I will do my second but after that it will depend on a balance of what they are offering in the sessions to the money it takes to attend.

[Ned]

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. 

Feel free to articulate some additional language describing the wisdom of requiring managment 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.

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. 

Can we do better?  Sure.  I think articulating a more precise standard would actually help conference planners and help focus aspects of our PD program.  So I've invited you and the others here to help.

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.

As always, your choice.

[Alaric]

Pat and others:

As you have all correctly pointed out, we do not have a doctrinal definition of "conference."   

I think we can agree that a more formalized definition would be helpful in the PD context.  (As in, "what counts toward meeting existing PD requirements that require conference attendance.")


So let's take advantage of the experience and wisdom here and attempt to draft a little doctrine.

How should we define a "conference" for PD purposes?

Some initial considerations:

1.  Do all three missions have to be represented?  (Would a wing "operations" or "cadet" conference count?)

2.  Should there be a minimum number of hours of instruction / interaction required?  (6?  10?)

3.  Must if be open to all members?  Just members of the wing/region?  Would an "invitees only" conference count?

4.  How is a conference different from a commanders call or meeting?  Could an encampment be considered a conference? (It has a lot of members and a lot of instruction . . . )  How about the wing model rocketry weekend?

5.  Is there a minimum size?  (Is a conference a conference if only 10 people show up?)

6.  What is required beyond some sort of instruction?  Must there be a "general meeting?"  If so, what must that consist of?


For extra credit:

a.  Should we write rules so restrictive that wings could not innovate and be creative with their conferences?

b.  Once we define what a conference is, for PD purposes, how should we define "attendance?"  80% of available seminars attended?  Some sort of evaluation metric for knowledge gained?


If we can come up with something here, I'd be happy to take it to the appropriate folks for action.

1) I believe all three missions should be represented (with the exception of the AE conference that is listed in the current reg)

2) As due to logistical considerations many wings have 1 day conferences I would recommend 6 hours interaction (banquet would not be included)

3) I have never seen a "closed" conference.  If there are logistical considerations, I would put on the material that registrations from members of the (wing/region) will be given priority.  I've seen great things done when people of different wings or regions get together, I would not want to restrict that unless, as stated it was necessary due to space constraints

4) A commander's call is generally restricted to commanders (though some are open) and generally deal with specific issues over the course of a couple of hours, I do not believe it would have either the breadth or the contact time to fulfill the PD goal of a conference.  The same is true of meetings.  As conferences are for senior member PD and encampments are mainly for the cadets and cadet program, I do not believe an encampment should count as a conference.  Additionally the number of senior members at an encampment are both limited, and picked by the encampment commander, which could open up accusations of favoritism or cronyism and would not lend itself to the purpose of 50-17 for requiring conferences.

5) As long as the advertising has been wing/region wide, I don't believe there needs to be a minimum size.

6) I would recommend a general assembly that would at a minimum consist of: a general state of the organization (wing/region); an overview of the goals of the organization for the next period (depending on the wing one ore two years); any large upcoming items (75th anniversary, change of command, etc).  Additionally and as options could be the recognition of members (both PD awards and others); reports from the CAC (if active)

a) No I believe we need to state minimum requirements and then let the wings/regions innovate

b) I know that NESA MAS has a way of electronically checking people in to the morning briefing; If we could use an electronic check in/check out system we could easily track attendance.  I would also encourage an e-services slot much like encampment where conference attendance could be tracked.