Conferences

[Snake Doctor]

Hate to add more to do on our all ready overworked members........
In the USAF upon in-processing or out-processing of a base I always got an in-processing or out-processing sheet.
Not only could this be created to assist a new member in joining a unit, it could be used to document attending various breakout/learning labs
along with conference attendance its self. Make the form available to wing level and above. Hand it out to the attendees when they show for the conference. Make it a minimum amount of Learning labs, like 3 or 4?  The presenter signs off on it after the lab is finished.

[Spaceman3750]

Hate to add more to do on our all ready overworked members........
In the USAF upon in-processing or out-processing of a base I always got an in-processing or out-processing sheet.
Not only could this be created to assist a new member in joining a unit, it could be used to document attending various breakout/learning labs
along with conference attendance its self. Make the form available to wing level and above. Hand it out to the attendees when they show for the conference. Make it a minimum amount of Learning labs, like 3 or 4?  The presenter signs off on it after the lab is finished.

Why? When I go to a wing conference I go to hit a few sessions and network with folks I don't normally see, not stress out getting the magic number of signatures. Heck, I'd say that the networking is probably more valuable than the sessions - there's more to conferences than sitting through death by PowerPoint.

[RogueLeader]

Hate to add more to do on our all ready overworked members........
In the USAF upon in-processing or out-processing of a base I always got an in-processing or out-processing sheet.
Not only could this be created to assist a new member in joining a unit, it could be used to document attending various breakout/learning labs
along with conference attendance its self. Make the form available to wing level and above. Hand it out to the attendees when they show for the conference. Make it a minimum amount of Learning labs, like 3 or 4?  The presenter signs off on it after the lab is finished.

All of the labs/sessions were busy til the last minute and then some, so may not be practical.  YMMV

Also, at one conference that I was at, there was only one or two sessions that either:
A: I was interested in, or
B: was of any real use of to me.

So, in that case, the conference was a complete waste of time and money except for the networking done, if those rules are imposed.  Sometimes that chatting in the lobby can be more beneficial to me than a breakout session on ALE  (I have no current need for ALE).  Beer yes, ALE not so much

[Eclipse]

The point here is that, since it confers an important credit for PD, it should be more than just "hanging out".

One of the constant complaints about these conferences is the lack of relevant seminars and training to make it work the time and
expense, and the reason for that, is the lack of any sort of required structure or expectation of curriculum.  It can be whatever the
Wing CC wants, and a lot of times that equals a banquet with some awards, a few irrelevant breakouts, many times taught by
people who were handed speaking notes as they walked into the room, and the ever-present "cadet activities".

And that doesn't even account for the situations where the conference directors schedule breakouts with the same audience so they
compete for participants to the detriment of both.

[RogueLeader]

Fortunately for me, the last conference(RMR/WYWG) was a pretty good one for me,  Over half of the sessions were of great use to me.  I only skipped 1 that I had no need or interest in attending.

[Snake Doctor]

If a member needs the sign offs for PD then they need to get them otherwise not so much.

After attending more than a few conferences I'm more into the hanging out and networking and that is extremely valuable and enjoyable.
True that a lot of the BOs may not interest me but a few do. My thought is is Conference BOs should be what not only the membership wants but what it needs.  The wing directorates should be all over this. SMs need to present at a conference at some point in thier PD and they should be conferring with the appropriate directors and officers.
What BOs would you recommend? 

[RogueLeader]

The one I got the most use out of, even if I don't care for "Cloud" tech, was the New Technologies Lab about using Dropbox, EverNote, and Diigo.  OpsQuals was of interest to me, as I participate in ES, just not as a specailty track.  The CAP-USAF talk and CAP NCO sessions were ok, not great.

[Snake Doctor]

I'd go for one on new technologies like you described RogueLeader

[Eclipse]

I'd go for one on new technologies like you described RogueLeader

So that's ten minutes, then what?

It won't be "new" to most members, and if it is "new", many won't be interested beyond smiling politely.

One thing, whomever is doing the presentations needs to have 1/2 a clue about the subject, and be
prepared to answer questions.

The other problem is that a lot of our esteemed members tend to want to just discuss histrionics and how the
whole CAP world is equal parts clueless, too complicated, and too much work, while at the same time "no
one will give them a van".

What we need as part of level one, and required as a refresher is a class in "because".  Far too many
seminars and breakouts devolve into arguments about the way people wish CAP worked instead of just accepting
the way it does.

((*sigh*))

[RogueLeader]

Nope, it was an hour session that discussed the three and a demonstration in how they all work.  It ran long.  He talked about DropBox, EverNote, and Diigo.  Since then, my unit has been using DropBox for our personnel records, with more to follow.

[FW]

I'd go for one on new technologies like you described RogueLeader

So that's ten minutes, then what?

It won't be "new" to most members, and if it is "new", many won't be interested beyond smiling politely.

One thing, whomever is doing the presentations needs to have 1/2 a clue about the subject, and be
prepared to answer questions.

The other problem is that a lot of our esteemed members tend to want to just discuss histrionics and how the
whole CAP world is equal parts clueless, too complicated, and too much work, while at the same time "no
one will give them a van".

What we need as part of level one, and required as a refresher is a class in "because".  Far too many
seminars and breakouts devolve into arguments about the way people wish CAP worked instead of just accepting
the way it does.

((*sigh*))

As a member who has attended more conferences than I care to remember, I will sigh also. 
Conferences are supposed to bring members together for networking and learning about the latest methods, policies and best practices of Civil Air Patrol.  This is the reason attendance is required for PD advancement. 

Sometimes, "hanging out" can be a very educational experience.  After the sessions are over, hanging out is the time to wonder why "we don't have a van or aircraft".. A member can actually go up to someone who can answer that question. 

Seminars and Breakout sessions are important parts of conferences and, if properly presented, can lead to constructive argument which may improve our practices.  After all, we developed the WBP, eservices and, consolodated aircraft maintanence after "arguing" in such a venue. 

IMHO, the PD credit for attendence should be secondary to the experience of attending.  They are fun, entertaining, educational and, productive.  And, if you make a few new friends in the process, that's even better.

[ol'fido]

If a member needs the sign offs for PD then they need to get them otherwise not so much.

After attending more than a few conferences I'm more into the hanging out and networking and that is extremely valuable and enjoyable.
True that a lot of the BOs may not interest me but a few do. My thought is is Conference BOs should be what not only the membership wants but what it needs.  The wing directorates should be all over this. SMs need to present at a conference at some point in thier PD and they should be conferring with the appropriate directors and officers.
What BOs would you recommend?

Which is why until recently, Paul, most of US were taken at our word on conference attendance. The assumption that most people will "hang out in the bar" for the whole weekend is probably an exaggeration.

[RADIOMAN015]

The point here is that, since it confers an important credit for PD, it should be more than just "hanging out".

One of the constant complaints about these conferences is the lack of relevant seminars and training to make it work the time and
expense, and the reason for that, is the lack of any sort of required structure or expectation of curriculum.  It can be whatever the
Wing CC wants, and a lot of times that equals a banquet with some awards, a few irrelevant breakouts, many times taught by
people who were handed speaking notes as they walked into the room, and the ever-present "cadet activities".

And that doesn't even account for the situations where the conference directors schedule breakouts with the same audience so they
compete for participants to the detriment of both.

The Four I've attended have been primarily functional break outs with some general skill building/ES specific (e.g. mission scanner) seminars.   Agree that can be an big issue, especially with members that wear more than one functional hat at the squadron are then forced to choose.   Personally, I'd prefer to see separate functional meetings held throughout the year, especially with the technology that is available for conducting via the internet and/or just plain telephone conference calls(which I think some Wing functional areas try to do).   

In all fairness to those that plan & implement these conferences it's difficult for them to put it all together and keep everyone happy.

RM           

[jimmydeanno]

Maybe we address the issue from CAP's side, and not the member side.  90% of the conferences that I've attended in CAP have been a complete and utter waste of time.  Quite frankly, $60-$80 down the tubes.  We have an internal focus on our conferences and it becomes some sort of CAP Administrative Function seminar weekend.

I think that our conferences should have seminars from outside agencies (LE, FD, FEMA, Local SAR groups, Investment Bankers, etc) and have far fewer internal folks presenting.  Then you open up the door to interagency communications, because you can invite the local FD guys to come hear the FEMA lecture about "The Importance of Aerial Survey during Wildfire Response."  Then you have an aviation group in the room with some FD guys hearing about how awesome getting aerial photos of where the fire has spread (potential customer, and education at the same time.)

Or the investment banker type can give a seminar on how to plan endowment funds, fundraise, etc for non-profits so that local units can actually earn money off their investments, etc.

I think that if the workshops, etc were interesting, you wouldn't need to come up with attendance requirements because people would actually go once they paid their fee.

[Snake Doctor]

The point here is that, since it confers an important credit for PD, it should be more than just "hanging out".

One of the constant complaints about these conferences is the lack of relevant seminars and training to make it work the time and
expense, and the reason for that, is the lack of any sort of required structure or expectation of curriculum.  It can be whatever the
Wing CC wants, and a lot of times that equals a banquet with some awards, a few irrelevant breakouts, many times taught by
people who were handed speaking notes as they walked into the room, and the ever-present "cadet activities".

And that doesn't even account for the situations where the conference directors schedule breakouts with the same audience so they
compete for participants to the detriment of both.

In all fairness to those that plan & implement these conferences it's difficult for them to put it all together and keep everyone happy.

RM           

Hate to add more to do on our all ready overworked members........
In the USAF upon in-processing or out-processing of a base I always got an in-processing or out-processing sheet.
Not only could this be created to assist a new member in joining a unit, it could be used to document attending various breakout/learning labs
along with conference attendance its self. Make the form available to wing level and above. Hand it out to the attendees when they show for the conference. Make it a minimum amount of Learning labs, like 3 or 4?  The presenter signs off on it after the lab is finished.

I've practically begged for input from wing level directors for input on what BOs are needed with specific descriptions. If s good portion of wing staff does not support you it's hard.
My "Conference witness sheet" is for those who need the credit not every who attends. 

[Snake Doctor]

Good ideas Jimmydeano. I tried for that too but certain folks didn't want to. I guess that's to far out of the box.

[Eclipse]

Good ideas Jimmydeano. I tried for that too but certain folks didn't want to. I guess that's to far out of the box.

A CAP conference should be focused on the needs of the membership, which on occasion might include speakers from
outside, but for the most part should be internal staff and members, however this should not be the source of primary instruction
for anything.  It is also not the time to try and squeeze in everything that local commanders should be doing but aren't, etc.

Every major wing department should be represented, but since it's usually the same 1-300 people in a given wing doing
everything, it's hard to deconflict these sessions (though no one says you can't repeat them).  The issue there is that
very little actually change year-to-year, and exactly those members most likely to be at a conference, are also those
members best informed, or most likely to engage in the histrionics, or start arguing about their personal needs in
generalized seminars.

Part of the problem is commanders and staff so disconnected from CAP and their membership, they don't know what they need.

Part of it is commanders and staff who believe it is still 1974 and that the only source of information for members is directives from NHQ
that should be read verbatim while projected from a transparency projector (yes, a transparency projector).

And some of the blame rests on the membership who "can't be bothered", or think they "know better".

Combine the above in the right quantities, and the good presenters who have been burned will not return, and the
sweet-spot participants will not return, and you wind up with where we typically are - poorly or misinformed presenters
with poor public speaking skills punching their "presentation" ticket speaking to a 1/2-empty room of members punching their
"participation" ticket.

At a high level, the conference PD requirement is like encampments for cadets - it holds back their progression because of cost,
distance, or lack of interest.  And just like an encampment, if the wing treats it like a "check box" instead of the
growth experience it was intended to be, then it should not be surprising when interest is low.  It all starts as the top.

Then there's the situation where you finally get everyone to the conference center, and then announce last-minute that
"Sunday is cancelled to allow for everyone to get home to their families", squandering the momentum (or inertia) of
having all those people in the same place, which is usually the most difficult part of any CAP activity - getting people off
the couch.

[Crosswind]

The one I got the most use out of, even if I don't care for "Cloud" tech, was the New Technologies Lab about using Dropbox, EverNote, and Diigo.  OpsQuals was of interest to me, as I participate in ES, just not as a specailty track.  The CAP-USAF talk and CAP NCO sessions were ok, not great.

I was at that conference and had the pleasure of meeting you, and agree, the breakout sessions were very informative. 

[jimmydeanno]

A CAP conference should be focused on the needs of the membership...

I guess it depends on what you consider to be "the needs."  Because if you were to give that to one group, you'd end up with a conference on how to salute and wear the uniform.  Another group would give you break out session that taught the stuff in each specialty track.

I think the purpose of conferences is networking and seeing what the new and exciting stuff is.  When you go to an IT conference, you want to see the new and exciting stuff that has been going on in the IT world.  You don't go there to get your CISSP, or Security+ training.  You go to learn about how carbon tubules are helping making lighter and stronger components, or how a certain breakthrough has led to increasing the number of switches on a processor by 100X.

CAP conferences should motivate people to see where the organization is going and how they fit in with the rest of the players on the team.  What cool technology has been developed in terms of SAR?  Are there new resources for folks who teach about Aerospace?  I bet a seminar on "CAP in Outerspace" (reference the weather balloon experiments) would be fascinating.  Bringing outside folks in helps build our relationships and helps tear down walls and the isolationism that we suffer from.  It also opens the doors to sponsors (lower cost for the conference), and interesting topics that people will actually want to go to.

There are plenty of topics that can meet the "needs" of the membership without covering how to fill out a CAPF 24, or which reports to send into Wing HQ.  We have plenty of in-house schools to meet our "needs,"  using the conferences to cover the mis-steps of those instructors or squadron failures doesn't help anyone.

[Eclipse]

There are plenty of topics that can meet the "needs" of the membership without covering how to fill out a CAPF 24, or which reports to send into Wing HQ.  We have plenty of in-house schools to meet our "needs,"  using the conferences to cover the mis-steps of those instructors or squadron failures doesn't help anyone.

That was my point - they should not be mini (or even full) SLS/CLC/UCC/TLC, or anything else which is supposed to be covered by other PD activities.

They should be for over views, introductions, and for things which cannot be easily done during normal PD.