Proving Conference Attendance

[ProdigalJim]

This feels rather flimsy to me.

I realized that I haven't formally recorded the two conferences I attended this year (a key Level III requirement!), so I wanted to ensure that I got the appropriate credit. There are no certificates of attendance that I'm aware of, and just because I *paid* doesn't mean I actually *went*.

The Knowledge Base offers the following guidance:

>>For conference attendance and other requirements, the unit professional development officer enters the data and the unit commander certifies completion of the requirements for Levels II-V on the CAPF 45 Senior Member Master Record Aug 09 . Credit for attendance at a conference might be verified by a registration form or other proof such as a conference schedule which shows the member made a presentation, received an award in person (picture) or otherwise showed proof of attendance.

Upon return from a conference, CAP members should notify the professional development officer or personnel officer so attendance can be credited on the CAP Form 45. <<

Wow, really? A picture of me and my buddy at the banquet is how we document Professional Development requirements? And since the CAP Form 45 is now electronic (but only sort of, because eServices doesn't track everything), how does this parse?

Real-world advice would be welcome.

[Capt_Redfox30]

As Director of Professional Development I have run into the same issues, we as a Wing for the past number of years have created certificates that are given to all attendees including staff, these are handed out with someones registration folder.  We also have a confirmed attendees list that the Wing Personnel Officer created and keeps copies of on dropbox. 

I have made suggestions to National to track conference attendance, all other attendances, PD courses, NCSA, Encampments are tracked with sending national a form or list of names and they input it into E-Services, there is no reason why this can't be done with conferences. 

As Project Officer for 2015 Conference I will personally, or have someone else, enter all the names of the attendees into the new PD application so there is no confusion if someone attended or not.   

[Luis R. Ramos]

Yes, this is something lacking.

As a squadron commander and Personnel Officer I had to deal with the issue. Had to use awards given on those dates, you could use also photos of members receiving the award. Also receipts of the hotel...

[MSG Mac]

There is a function within E-Services where you can enter Senior  Conferences.

E-Services>Personnel > Membership and Organization System > Professional Development Award Entry.

There is a drop down to select the level, just enter the information and dates.

[a2capt]

Though mostly CAWG, but everything I've gone to over the years, they've put out a PA for attendance listings..

[PHall]

California Wing publishes a PA with the list of all CAP members who attended the Wing Conference every year.
They're accessable on the wing website.  Makes it very easy to verify someone's attendance.

[lordmonar]

Yes this has been lacking for some time.....

As well as two other very important things with the  whole "attend two wing conferences" thing... 

1) What exactly is a wing conference....as opposed to say a wing staff meeting or a PD weekend.

2) What exactly is the definition of Attend?   Is it show up and check-in.  Is it attend at least on event for each day of the conference.  Is it buy a ticket for the dinner?

I got asked this at a SUI a few years ago...."how do you track confernce attendance" and my answer was "I don't".  When it comes to filling out the F24 I simply ask the applicant what years they attended what conference and fill in the blanks.  If I had reason to belive that they were going to lie about it.....I would not be putting them in for the Level III in the first place.

[Capt_Redfox30]

Yes this has been lacking for some time.....

As well as two other very important things with the  whole "attend two wing conferences" thing... 

1) What exactly is a wing conference....as opposed to say a wing staff meeting or a PD weekend.

2) What exactly is the definition of Attend?   Is it show up and check-in.  Is it attend at least on event for each day of the conference.  Is it buy a ticket for the dinner?

I got asked this at a SUI a few years ago...."how do you track confernce attendance" and my answer was "I don't".  When it comes to filling out the F24 I simply ask the applicant what years they attended what conference and fill in the blanks.  If I had reason to belive that they were going to lie about it.....I would not be putting them in for the Level III in the first place.

When I became project officer for this upcoming conference, my Wing Commander said for it to be classified as a conference "all three missions had to be represented", he didn't say how or where it stays that in the regulations, but I am going to have "themed rooms" of all three missions and related classes. 

[ProdigalJim]

There is a function within E-Services where you can enter Senior  Conferences.

E-Services>Personnel > Membership and Organization System > Professional Development Award Entry.

There is a drop down to select the level, just enter the information and dates.

Thanks! I hadn't seen that. Now I guess I can't do that for myself, so I'll have to get my PDO to do it for me.

[Capt_Redfox30]

There is a function within E-Services where you can enter Senior  Conferences.

E-Services>Personnel > Membership and Organization System > Professional Development Award Entry.

There is a drop down to select the level, just enter the information and dates.

Thanks! I hadn't seen that. Now I guess I can't do that for myself, so I'll have to get my PDO to do it for me.

Only someone who has the duty positions of Commander, PDO, Personnel Officer, Administrative Officer and a couple more I think have access to it.  So that gets to be the problem, you tell your PDO that you attended, but you have no prove that you went..., that's why we are going to handle the input at Wing and enter the names ourselves.  Because when I review Level 3's I have had people that attended conferences out of wing and have no prove, so I can't verify and approve them.  The Wing Commander wants actual documentation to show attendance. 

[Private Investigator]

Though mostly CAWG, but everything I've gone to over the years, they've put out a PA for attendance listings..

That is a good ideal. Some Wings do a PL (Participation Letter) to document attendance.   

[JeffDG]

Our wing issues certificates.

But based on the core value of "Integrity", if a member were to tell me "I was at the Wing Conference", unless I had some reason to doubt him (in which case there would be other issues), I would treat such a statement as evidence.

Now, Capt Bagodonuts tells me "I was at the Wing Conference in 1985", I might be more skeptical, but I'd believe his memory of the one last month.

Honestly, once in a while, you have to believe that people don't look for ways to lie to you and take their word for something, and trust that they have some honour.  If you don't have even that level of trust in your members by the time they're putting in for Level III, there are some issues well beyond whether they were at a Wing Conference.

[lordmonar]

Our wing issues certificates.

But based on the core value of "Integrity", if a member were to tell me "I was at the Wing Conference", unless I had some reason to doubt him (in which case there would be other issues), I would treat such a statement as evidence.

Now, Capt Bagodonuts tells me "I was at the Wing Conference in 1985", I might be more skeptical, but I'd believe his memory of the one last month.

Honestly, once in a while, you have to believe that people don't look for ways to lie to you and take their word for something, and trust that they have some honour.  If you don't have even that level of trust in your members by the time they're putting in for Level III, there are some issues well beyond whether they were at a Wing Conference.

+1

[Eclipse]

Our wing issues certificates.

But based on the core value of "Integrity", if a member were to tell me "I was at the Wing Conference", unless I had some reason to doubt him (in which case there would be other issues), I would treat such a statement as evidence.

Now, Capt Bagodonuts tells me "I was at the Wing Conference in 1985", I might be more skeptical, but I'd believe his memory of the one last month.

Honestly, once in a while, you have to believe that people don't look for ways to lie to you and take their word for something, and trust that they have some honour.  If you don't have even that level of trust in your members by the time they're putting in for Level III, there are some issues well beyond whether they were at a Wing Conference.

+1

+1 for me as well, and double for all the cadets who were dragged to conferences over the years with the promise that
it would count towards their senior years, only now to be told by NHQ "not so much".

[lordmonar]

Our wing issues certificates.

But based on the core value of "Integrity", if a member were to tell me "I was at the Wing Conference", unless I had some reason to doubt him (in which case there would be other issues), I would treat such a statement as evidence.

Now, Capt Bagodonuts tells me "I was at the Wing Conference in 1985", I might be more skeptical, but I'd believe his memory of the one last month.

Honestly, once in a while, you have to believe that people don't look for ways to lie to you and take their word for something, and trust that they have some honour.  If you don't have even that level of trust in your members by the time they're putting in for Level III, there are some issues well beyond whether they were at a Wing Conference.

+1

+1 for me as well, and double for all the cadets who were dragged to conferences over the years with the promise that
it would count towards their senior years, only now to be told by NHQ "not so much".

I don't think NHQ has been saying that....was there a change to the regulation I missed?   

[Eclipse]

I don't think NHQ has been saying that....was there a change to the regulation I missed?

NHQ has said >exactly< that, within the last year, affecting users of this forum.

[lordmonar]

I don't think NHQ has been saying that....was there a change to the regulation I missed?

NHQ has said >exactly< that, within the last year, affecting users of this forum.

Not saying it did not happen...but can you point me in the direction of who and in what circumstances....because I just checked 50-17 and knowledge base....and they both say that they should be allowed.....so were there extenuating circumstances or something.

[Eclipse]

I don't think NHQ has been saying that....was there a change to the regulation I missed?

NHQ has said >exactly< that, within the last year, affecting users of this forum.

Not saying it did not happen...but can you point me in the direction of who and in what circumstances....because I just checked 50-17 and knowledge base....and they both say that they should be allowed.....so were there extenuating circumstances or something.

Where do they indicate that?

The issue was two-fold.  The wing was not tracking attendance, and then once participation was
fully (and excruciatingly) substantiated, NHQ said "The PD program is a senior thing, therefore cadet attendance doesn't count." exactly opposite of what my wing had done for years, and apparently not taking into account
the conference credit already conferred on other cadets at the same conference. 

As it happened that year, cadet attendance was somewhat higher then "normal" for a wing conference because lodging was offered for free as was the carrot of senior PD credit.  A fair number of cadets put it through with no issue, however the timing of the submission meant that some younger cadets who dark-sided later who not credited.

I won't indicate "who" as I don't have access to my email history to say for sure, but it was an NHQ "SME".

[lordmonar]

d. 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.

And the KB answer says the same exact thing. 

For the Level III senior member professional development requirements, when it asks for two conferences attended, do conferences attended before the member was in Level III count?

For senior members, conferences attended prior to entry in Level III count if they meet the criteria in Paragraph 5-1d of CAPR 50-17, CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program and the member has proof of attendance. Wing, region, or national conferences attended prior to entry into Level III (as a senior member) count toward fulfillment of this requirement. The National Conference on Aviation and Space Education and a region/wing aerospace education conference are also credited as conferences.

See Level III requirements in Paragraph 5-1 (below) of  CAPR 50-17 CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program 19 August 2013

5-1. Management. CAP designed professional development at this level for senior members serving as squadron, group, or wing commanders and for staff officers. Criteria for completion of this level include:
a. Complete Level II training.
b. One year of experience in a command or staff position.
c. Attain the senior rating in any specialty track.
d. 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.
e. Complete the Corporate Learning Course (CLC).

I don't see anywhere in writing where it says "cadet time don't count"....I just sent a KB question to confirm or deny.

[Eclipse]

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

[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.

[Майор Хаткевич]

^ 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.

MSgt,


Do a follow up asking a reg cite. I find that to be the best way to get it addressed. Had some success about a year ago.

[lordmonar]

This is what I sent.

You recently fielded a Knowledge Base question about conference attendance by cadets.

I suggest that an emergency change to CAPR 50-17 be issued as the policy you stated contradicts the wording in CAPR 50-17 Para 5-1.d.

"d. 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."

As recently as last year we used the argument "this can count towards your Level III requirements" as a way of encouraging cadets to attend both the national conference and the wing conference here in Nevada.

I am not arguing the reasoning behind not recognizing cadet attendance....but we need to be clear in the regulation as it is not clear out in the field that cadet attendance does not count and this "rule" is not being applied constantly across the country.

Thank your for your time,
PATRICK M. HARRIS, MSgt CAP
Professional Development NCO
Nellis Composite Squadron

[a2capt]

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.

[RiverAux]

There is absolutely no reason that a Wing conference couldn't have seminars aimed at cadets and to give them something to do other than CAC.  If wings are only looking at conferences as events for seniors, I'd say they aren't doing it right. 

[Eclipse]

Well that's clearly what the NHQ/PDO is saying.

[Майор Хаткевич]

There is absolutely no reason that a Wing conference couldn't have seminars aimed at cadets and to give them something to do other than CAC.  If wings are only looking at conferences as events for seniors, I'd say they aren't doing it right.

If the goal of the conferences is to advance the PD of SMs, then spending resources on seminars aimed at cadets is a waste of efforts, and so is their time spent there during seminars that are not. I suppose the goal of ALL classes should then be related to squadron duties, and development material. So no more AE or ES or CP seminars, unless it's for the AEO, ESO, Cadet Programs tracked officer. Otherwise, what's the benefit? Perhaps NHQ should publish a conference guide, much like they do for encampments.

[RiverAux]

If the goal of the conferences is to advance the PD of SMs,

Where is that stated?

Well that's clearly what the NHQ/PDO is saying.

Not really.  They made a pretty narrow statement specifically in regards to senior member training requirements.  Heck, one might argue that they're assuming that cadets attending a wing conference may have been attending cadet-specific activities and therefore wouldn't have gained the experience relevant to senior members. 

[Ned]

If the goal of the conferences is to advance the PD of SMs, [. . .]

That would certainly follow, but your premise is incorrect.  CAP had conferences long before such things were required as a part of our PD program.  Heck, we had conferences before we even had a "PD program."

The point of conferences is primarily to improve the professional competence of members, whether that occurs inside our outside of a given member's speciality track.  Add a generous dose of morale-enhancing processes like awards, banquets, and informal networking and you have an activity with sufficient value that literally thousands of members attend yearly.

I suspect the discussion about cadets' attendance counting for advanced senior PD has more to do with currency than anything else.  Reasonable minds can differ about whether a 15 year-old cadet attending their wing conference adds value to their senior member PD training for Level III 10-15 years later.

(Of course, the same question can be asked of a SMWOG attending in 1980 and seeking to use the credit 10-15 years later.)

This sounds like one of those "the PD reg writers simply weren't thinking about cadets when the regulation was drafted and approved years ago" things.  But now that the NHQ PD expert, Bobbi Tourville is aware of the issue, I place great faith in her ability to sort things out in a fair and consistent matter.

If for no other reason that Bobbi is a Spaatz recipient, and thus highly competent in both CP & PD. 

Ned Lee
National Cadet Programs Officer

[lordmonar]

Perhaps NHQ should publish a conference guide, much like they do for encampments.

Something else I have been asking for.

[DoubleSecret]

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

Amen.  When I was active duty, we had a SME trying to burn someone for failing to comply with an interpretation.  I pointed out that the UCMJ had no article covering "failure to obey a rumor" and the matter was dropped.

[JeffDG]

Perhaps NHQ should publish a conference guide, much like they do for encampments.

Here's the thing...they have...

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/commander-and-staff-resources/

CAPP 4 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P004_4C1DDBA9A2DA7.pdf)

However in their infinite wisdom, they haven't told anyone about it.

[Eclipse]

^ Two photos revolving around meals, an illegible Powerpoint slide and an empty room.

Yep, Wing Conference.

[lordmonar]

Perhaps NHQ should publish a conference guide, much like they do for encampments.

Here's the thing...they have...

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/commander-and-staff-resources/

CAPP 4 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P004_4C1DDBA9A2DA7.pdf)

However in their infinite wisdom, they haven't told anyone about it.

No where in that document does it say "this is a conference" as opposed to a staff meeting, staff development weekend, general get together.   No where is there a definition for a wing PDO to determine if the national AE Conference Counts, or if CAWG's Cadet Conference counts.   

[MSG Mac]

The question of cadets getting credit for Conference attendence should be addressed to CP (Mr. Curt LeFond) for adding a requirement that a Phase III and IV cadets attend a conference to complete each phase. The cadets get some of the PD credit when they are transition to SM and have Mitchell, Earhardt, Eaker, or Spaatz Awards.

[lordmonar]

The question of cadets getting credit for Conference attendence should be addressed to CP (Mr. Curt LeFond) for adding a requirement that a Phase III and IV cadets attend a conference to complete each phase. The cadets get some of the PD credit when they are transition to SM and have Mitchell, Earhardt, Eaker, or Spaatz Awards.

Yep....see chapter 9 of 50-17. 

[JeffDG]

Perhaps NHQ should publish a conference guide, much like they do for encampments.

Here's the thing...they have...

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/commander-and-staff-resources/

CAPP 4 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P004_4C1DDBA9A2DA7.pdf)

However in their infinite wisdom, they haven't told anyone about it.

No where in that document does it say "this is a conference" as opposed to a staff meeting, staff development weekend, general get together.   No where is there a definition for a wing PDO to determine if the national AE Conference Counts, or if CAWG's Cadet Conference counts.

You mean, other than the title page?



[attachment deleted by admin]

[lordmonar]

Yes....other then it saying "building a conference" it does not actually say what a conference is.

52-16 and CAPP 52-24 clearly defines what is an encampment in greater detail then just saying how to organize one.  It spells out specifily contact hours, specific content, A mission statement, a vision statement and it details what "attendance" means.

So.....I'm back to my issue as a PDO....what is in fact a conference and what is not.   Why does a wing or region AE conference count...but not a wing cadet conference?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Yes....other then it saying "building a conference" it does not actually say what a conference is.

52-16 and CAPP 52-24 clearly defines what is an encampment in greater detail then just saying how to organize one.  It spells out specifily contact hours, specific content, A mission statement, a vision statement and it details what "attendance" means.

So.....I'm back to my issue as a PDO....what is in fact a conference and what is not.   Why does a wing or region AE conference count...but not a wing cadet conference?

AE consolation prize for not being a true third leg of CAP?

[Ned]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[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.

[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.