St. Cloud Youth Hockey Split

[huskyhockey17]

I would say 56 percent repsonse rate is pretty good, we can't even get to 40 percent for a presidential election. Of that 56 percent 80 percent said NO, I think that in any case that is a pretty good sample. For the record, your group was formed prior to the survey and your message was out there as presented by Chad Hommerding. This is what led to the survey being conducted inthe first place. As to his status with the school, yes he should be removed because he had been told not to be involved with this issue and yet he continues to do so.

[George Blanda]

Sorry for the typos today.

GB:

Do you think other coaches should be fired for expressing their opinions and speaking on behalf of their school? Or just Hommerding? Also, to my knowledge, I can't find anywhere in any notes where he said he was speaking on behalf of the district or the school. Can you point me in that direction?

The fact that Chad Hommerding, a paid school district employee, has spoken out about this issue with the title of "Tech hockey Coach". That, in my opinion, is speaking on behalf of the school district.

And yes, if Dougherty was as publicly vocal on an unapproved school issue as Hommerding has, I believe he should be expelled from his position as well...but he hasn't. This issue has obviously lacked school district approval and Hommerding has gone against that.

[MetCenterFan]

Morning everyone:

I was just about to post when I saw your question on last night's meeting. We sent out invitations to about 345 members (all of St. Cloud Youth Hockey Assocation) last Wednesday and Thursday inviting them to the open meeting and posted it on our webiste. We had about 26 show up. There were several who were in support for the new association, a small group who came for information (budget questions, resources, how it would benefit kids etc.) and the majority said they didn't want a new association. Their opinions varied on the idea of dividing teams by schools under one association, with some saying they didn't think it was a bad idea, but most seeming to indicate they preferred the way it is now.

There was some spirited debate, with several attending who have been opposed to a division by school under any circumstances. They have been very vocal in the past and were again last night. No one representing the executive board of St. Cloud Youth Hockey attended, although at least two received personal invitations and the others who invited.

I was at the meeting and agree with above assessment. Not a great turnout. I recall only one person, a south sider, spoke in favor of the split. Numerous other youth hockey members from south and north side spoke against the plan, while others were probably there for info.

Mr. Kennedy, the president, related that the new association is his doing and that he's calling all the shots and is taking responsibility for all decisions so far. He mentioned several times that he has no issues with current St. Cloud youth hockey.

No compelling reasons to split youth hockey were given other than to let kids play with neighbor kids and as a byproduct to then have a better high school team. Since 3 of the 4 board members have or soon will have kids playing for Tech, this makes sense. Their focus is probably now more on high school hockey than youth hockey.

There was good discussion about the financial impact with many concerns raised by attendees.

It was said that the girls program does not have the numbers to split.

There was no indication given by Mr. Kennedy or other board members of there being much of any support for a split in the existing youth hockey association. A point was made by guests that there probably always will be a few each year who want a split, but that most don't.

Of note, one board member, Mr. Indereiden (sp?) said he was brought into the group by Colleen Donovan (District 10 board member/former SC youth hoceky president). I don't know what to make of that.

Spirited discussion overall. Long meeting (several hours).

[wickedshot]

Correction on the above post. I believe Rich said Mr. Hommerding asked him to become involved. We have notes from the meeting. I will consult them to make sure. I did say I have called a number of people looking for information and help and Colleen Donovan was one of them. That's when her name came up. I also brought it up to say that she hasn't made any of our decisions, contrary to some of the rumors out there. Also, we are in the process of obtaining some names of people who said they were called urging them to vote against a new association during the survey and linking Ms. Donovan and someone else to being behind this. We would like to give those names to D10 officials so they can investigate.

[MetCenterFan]

Correction on the above post. I believe Rich said Mr. Hommerding asked him to become involved. We have notes from the meeting. I will consult them to make sure. I did say I have called a number of people looking for information and help and Colleen Donovan was one of them. That's when her name came up. I also brought it up to say that she hasn't made any of our decisions, contrary to some of the rumors out there. Also, we are in the process of obtaining some names of people who said they were called urging them to vote against a new association during the survey and linking Ms. Donovan and someone else to being behind this. We would like to give those names to D10 officials so they can investigate.

Clarification appreciated. I thought that Rich mentioned Colleen Donovan as a reason for his joining the board or linking him to the board, but I could be wrong. Thanks.

[wickedshot]

Also, a point of clarification. ALL high school coaches were asked for their opinions. Apollo said neutral, CHS said against and Tech said in favor. Both Icebreakers and Tech girls said against because they were worried about the numbers. I corresponded or talked on the phone to both those coaches and explained our position to keep the girls together.

SCYHA asked for the feedback. Hommerding showed up to the SCYHA town hall meeting to say why and elaborate.

[Blue&Gold]

Also, a point of clarification. ALL high school coaches were asked for their opinions. Apollo said neutral, CHS said against and Tech said in favor. Both Icebreakers and Tech girls said against because they were worried about the numbers. I corresponded or talked on the phone to both those coaches and explained our position to keep the girls together.

SCYHA asked for the feedback. Hommerding showed up to the SCYHA town hall meeting to say why and elaborate.

I think that when "we" get frustrated with responses, it's because of this sample from the "Town Hall Meeting" with SCYHA.. Where Hommerding represented himself as the spokesperson:
---------
10. Is the only reason why we’re doing this to benefit Tech?
The answer given by Mr. Hommerding at the town hall meeting was yes.

11. If the focus is to help Tech better compete at the high school level, what about the kids who don’t go on to play in high school?
Mr. Hommerding provided no response that really answered this question at the meeting.

12. Can you address the girls program?
The answer given by Mr. Hommerding at the town hall meeting was no.

13. One of the benefits you said would be a “community based system”, like other MN Hockey Associations. How does that benefit the kids?
Mr. Hommerding provided no response that really answered this question at the meeting.

16. Is Tech High School Head Hockey Coach, Chad Hommerding, considered the “go-to” person for the proposing group?
Yes. At this time, Mr. Hommerding is the spokesperson and he is currently the only person who has come forward and formally identified himself as a representative of the group. We also know that former SCYHA parent and Board Member, Mike Kennedy, is a part of the group.
----------

Obviously there is a lot more, but no real substance other than the Apollo principal was in attendance and not happy about the representation by a school employee. However, we get information that this is your program/brainchild, and that Chad and Colleen are just sitting on the sidelines offering assistance when asked... But it didn't appear to be that earlier in the process. Maybe that helps to explain why many find it hard to bite off on the sound-bites...

I wonder what a professional polling organization would say about a 56% return and 80% negative? If memory serves, that would be pretty obvious to them. I think presidents have been declared with a much smaller return... (Ok, not THAT's scary, I know...)

I have one last question.. (well, for right now only one...) If MN Hockey approves your plan, and 80% of the folks in your area are against the whole thing, are you still going to force it down their throats?

[whockeyguy]

Can anybody tell me a logicall reason why the Tech program is wrong in wanting what is best for thier kids that will be attending thier school in the future, why should they not have some control over thier hockey program that benefits them., , To me it Looks like the the St Cloud program just wants all the good players so they can compete with D-10 with thier all star team and frankly if you look at the past they have not been very good at at that, yes thier are exceptions to that , but im looking at the whole situation.

[wickedshot]

Blue and Gold:

Okay, 80 percent of the 56 who responded were not all from the southside, I've read the survey. I do think another survey run completely by an independent firm, with no involvement from either side at all would be interesting. I also am very interested in those folks I mentioned earlier stepping forward to give their names to D10 about being contacted as the surveys were being sent out.

Also been told by two people who supported it that their comments didn't show up at all in the comments section in the survey, yet we find negative comments in the "In Favor of Split" section of the survey. That was interesting.

All along, we've been asking for clarification from MN Hockey. No one seemed to think it was being rammed down their throats in 2003 when the assocation had a three year plan to base teams on school of attendence at MN Hockey's request -- no mandate -- as the communication appeared to be. Everyone was on board then. The steering committee had parents and coaches from CHS, Tech and Cathedral. Then MN Hockey started giving conflicting answers and the whole thing went dormant.

The survey results will be presented to MN Hockey for its consideration. And we will ask them to define "natural hockey community" and how they think teams are best organized. As I've said before, Hommerding has his opinions and ways he'd like to see things. He was speaking more for himself. Why not? CHS AD and coaches have taken clear positions. So has Mr. Eisenreich, who says he is speaking for all of Apollo on an issue that is youth in nature and has no bearing on his capacity as principal.

[BlueGoose5]

The question was asked, so a response is warranted. Goerge Blanda asked, "Where's the democracy?" Well, for one, it's not in a dictatorship.

It's no surprise to hear that the public unveiling of the self-chosen and self-declared (Wicked said adjectives were permissible) SCTYHA board went over with little fan-fare and significant, and apparently some vociferous, opposition this week. But, that can hardly be a surprise.

So, folks, here you have it, your new SCTYHA Board, who in spite of having little to non-existant community support, vows to continue marching on it's Crusade to bring an Apollolyptic end to SCYHA, to literally crack the back of the community hockey association (sorry board member, but pun intended for humor only), to declare its' will on the people, and...GAZIKES...if you can believe it...to instill its' version of Marshall Law by threatening an investigation of any of the unfaithful who dare to question the behind-the-scenes secrecy of this Board's proceedings. So, who's to be spared of this madness and scrutiny? No one... unless, of course, your name is Fidel or Raul.

Holy Tiger, what are we getting ouselves into? And, where's the democracy?

[wickedshot]

Gotta run and tend to my office job. I'll keep all those who can't make the meeting this weekend posted on the discussion with MN Hockey and SCYHA. By the way, we're not making any decision on the affiliate agreement. D10 and MN Hockey are. Those representing the current association will have, I'm confident, ample opportunity to present their views. Since there are 27 voting members of MN Hockey, there will be plenty of ears.

[ogelthorpe]

I have been a member of SCYHA for the past four years and live on the southside. Although I feel that many of the ideas the Tech association has are good, it is the way it was presented that is the issue with me and most people against the new association.

I have felt for years that St. Cloud needs to run at least two A teams at each level to give enough players exposure to the top level compitition. Whether this is done by school boundries or not is debatable. It is a fact that SCYHA needs to provide two public and one private high school with players. Given that, it makes no sense to only play one A team at the Bantam level.

The issue with the Tech movement is the secretive way it came about. The first any one in the current association found out about it was after a board was "elected" and Minnesota Hockey was notified. I live in South St. Cloud and was never asked what I felt or had a chance to elect the "elected" board. It is also hard to get behind a group when the group is unknown. First the spokesman was Chad Hommerding and the board only came forward once Mr. Hommerding was told not to speak for it by his administration, if I remember the timing right.

I also feel that given the new board, that an issue of two A level teams (which seems to be the main issue the new association has) can be solved within the existing association. They seem to be quite a bit more reasonable then the old regime.

[2pipesnin]

I have been following this thread and I am not even going down the path of who is behind this and how they evolved!
But I do want to comment that it sound like the soul purpose of the “south side association” split is to make stronger hockey players that will help Tech go to the “State Tournament”.
In the last 10 -15 years when our “youth hockey association” was 600+ strong Tech nor Apollo ever won their Section. Now that Sartell has a strong hockey program, Sauk Rapids has a good program, River Lakes has a program, Apollo has moved down to “class A” (less students) and the current “youth hockey association” has dwindled to only 400+ skaters you think two associations is going to make a difference?” You are not looking at the whole picture! 5 High School programs in a 5-7 mile radius. And Tech is becoming the “inner city school! Look at the demographics!
Wicked if you spent as much time an effort working with the existing youth hockey committee (which would not black ball you like the previous one did until you changed your stripes) as you are trying to split the association, you would probably accomplish the same results. The new SCYHA committee is a great group! You can speak your mind without recourse.
The bottom line is that Tech (AA) will never win a Section Title unless Morehead is flooded over and Roseau freezes over. The only slight possibility exists when Tech and Apollo combine spots.
Now if you want to join a program where there are growing numbers, move to Sartell. They will be the next team going to the “State Tournament”.
A question for Wicked, with the experience you personally had coaching the last time there were two Bantam “A” teams in SCYH, I can’t believe you would even suggesting the idea again!
Please explain why splitting the association now would not result in the same outcome?

[Blue&Gold]

And let me add one last item that is the sticking point for many of us, and that's the point of Cathedral players on the south side. Everyone in SCYHA over the past 10 years knows how Hommerding and Donovan feel about CHS and it's players. Cathedral has gone to the State tournament twice in the past 5 years, and they may have more chances coming up. If the players aren't allowed to develop in the Tech association then they get screwed, which I am still not convinced won't be the case. Wicked said that he would support a carte-blanche ability to "escape" to the old regime, for one year. What about 3 years from now? The thing that SCYHA does well, is work to develop ALL of the players, from young, to Bantam, to the girls...

Let me reiterate... I worry about the Cathedral kids being treated fairly with the Tech association. Nothing personal to Mr. Kennedy, but as I know some of the folks involved in the background, and the feelings that some of the harbor for CHS, I can't believe that they will be treated fairly. If they could set it up so that any player that will attend CHS can move out without any issues then I wouldn't worry about it so much. And it be a never-ending process.... But we know that won't be the case..

[Blue&Gold]

Is there any news coming out of the meetings this past weekend regarding the St Cloud split issue? Or will this be one of those deals where "we'll get back to you" is the norm?

[elliott70]

Is there any news coming out of the meetings this past weekend regarding the St Cloud split issue? Or will this be one of those deals where "we'll get back to you" is the norm?

A motion was made and seconded to allow a second association in St Cloud. After discussion, a request for a break was amde and a MH board member met with both sides of the issue.

An agreement was reached to try and accomodate both sides within the existing association iwth a division to come in the future if the numbers can be increased and working document established.

On return a motion to table was made and passed to allow the two groups to come to na understanding by the middle fo June. If not, then the MH board will decide if one or two associations would be appropriate.

[wickedshot]

I just saw the post from Mr. Elliott as I was about to post. He summed it up more succinctly and better than I could have and, as usual, had good questions and ideas.

We are totally open to meeting with the folks on the executive board of SCYHA to come up with something. I am contacting SCYHA and inviting D10 to sit in with us and work over the next month on coming up with a plan.

Blue and Gold, could use your thoughts on addressing the CHS concern.

We'll be posting updates on our website starting today. Thanks to MN Hockey for the time yesterday.

[Blue&Gold]

Wicked... give me a call tonight on my cell. If you don't have it, let me know and I'll send another email.

As I've stated.. I'm not for the split, but if it happens, I am willing to help to make sure that all of the kids are taken care of. I'm NOT an official spokesperson by any means, but you know that..

[MetCenterFan]

To the Elliot and Wicked posters, I have been told that the meeting did not go very smoothly with the motion to split. A number of very good arguments against a split were raised. There is concern that this is not a Minnesota Hockey issue and should be a local issue. It is also felt that Minnesota Hockey should be trying to protect an affiliate--St Cloud youth hockey--from an outside group trying to take over.

Another concern I have is the possibility of investigations of St. Cloud hockey people by Mr. Kennedy and his group. This was raised by Mr. Kennedy at his meeting last week and also on these postings.

[elliott70]

To the Elliot and Wicked posters, I have been told that the meeting did not go very smoothly with the motion to split. A number of very good arguments against a split were raised. There is concern that this is not a Minnesota Hockey issue and should be a local issue. It is also felt that Minnesota Hockey should be trying to protect an affiliate--St Cloud youth hockey--from an outside group trying to take over.

Another concern I have is the possibility of investigations of St. Cloud hockey people by Mr. Kennedy and his group. This was raised by Mr. Kennedy at his meeting last week and also on these postings.

Smoothly is in the eye of the beholder.
Some on the MH board, run from confrontation and difficulty.
Those that felt this way aer the very ones that did nothing when they were involved in D10 to help St Cloud find solutions.

Yes, good questions and a good debate did occur making for good information to come forth.

The MH President again proved himself to have little knowledge of the MH handbook and instead following USA Hockey practices. The handbook specifically states that these type of requests can come to the Board.
Standing up for the local associations. Sure, if their correct. But no where in the MH Handbook does it say carte blanche.

And the members of MH have every right to bring these things to the board. Some on the board bemoaned the fact that they had to be there for 7 1/2 hours (my God!, almost a regualr work day (sarcasm)). We are the ones that are to try and handle difficult situations. If it wasn't difficult the local people cna handle it. When a confrontatin occurs it is OUR repsonsibility, our JOB to help the locals resolve it.

The former D10 director and now former (thank goodness) MH treasurer bellowed for ten minutes contradicting himself at least once. Not once did he present something or act in a way to make the situation better. His tirade was aimed at the one individual that forced MH into action rather than put their head into the sand as did the two former DD from D10. And one, the current MH president, under the guise and against MH rules, instructed the current D10 DD to stay out of it.

Some on the board prefer no problems, a free breakfast and lunch, gas money, and pat everyone on the back and go home after 2 or 3 hours.
Don't ask questions, vote with the good old boys, do as they tell you.

Sorry, but I don't buy into that.

[wickedshot]

Blue and Gold:

Please either PM me with your cell or send it to mikek@mainstreetcom.com. and I'll call you tonight. I am interested in working with anyone who has suggestions -- official representatives or not.

To the other post on the meeting, it went smoothly from our perspective. We wanted the chance to engage MN Hockey. The opinons of two of the Mn Hockey members on this being a local issue etc. etc. is their opinion. There are 27 voting members who can make up there own minds. I would prefer we come to some resolution before a vote, but if a formal vote is the way some want to push it, we'll have to go that route.

Finally, we don't want to investigate anyone. What I said was I would hope association members weren't called at home and fed information that wasn't true that influenced the survey outcome. We were contacted by some who said they were. So I suggested D10 talk with those people and get to the bottom of it, if it were true. Does that sound unfair?

Besides, as I indicated to Blue and Gold, I think we are moving into a new phase, hopefully of cooperation and working something out.

[MetCenterFan]

To the Elliot and Wicked posters, I have been told that the meeting did not go very smoothly with the motion to split. A number of very good arguments against a split were raised. There is concern that this is not a Minnesota Hockey issue and should be a local issue. It is also felt that Minnesota Hockey should be trying to protect an affiliate--St Cloud youth hockey--from an outside group trying to take over.

Another concern I have is the possibility of investigations of St. Cloud hockey people by Mr. Kennedy and his group. This was raised by Mr. Kennedy at his meeting last week and also on these postings.

Smoothly is in the eye of the beholder.
Some on the MH board, run from confrontation and difficulty.
Those that felt this way aer the very ones that did nothing when they were involved in D10 to help St Cloud find solutions.

Yes, good questions and a good debate did occur making for good information to come forth.

The MH President again proved himself to have little knowledge of the MH handbook and instead following USA Hockey practices. The handbook specifically states that these type of requests can come to the Board.
Standing up for the local associations. Sure, if their correct. But no where in the MH Handbook does it say carte blanche.

And the members of MH have every right to bring these things to the board. Some on the board bemoaned the fact that they had to be there for 7 1/2 hours (my God!, almost a regualr work day (sarcasm)). We are the ones that are to try and handle difficult situations. If it wasn't difficult the local people cna handle it. When a confrontatin occurs it is OUR repsonsibility, our JOB to help the locals resolve it.

The former D10 director and now former (thank goodness) MH treasurer bellowed for ten minutes contradicting himself at least once. Not once did he present something or act in a way to make the situation better. His tirade was aimed at the one individual that forced MH into action rather than put their head into the sand as did the two former DD from D10. And one, the current MH president, under the guise and against MH rules, instructed the current D10 DD to stay out of it.

Some on the board prefer no problems, a free breakfast and lunch, gas money, and pat everyone on the back and go home after 2 or 3 hours.
Don't ask questions, vote with the good old boys, do as they tell you.

Sorry, but I don't buy into that.

Thank you for your response. No need to incriminate the other board members for opposing the motion. They brought up very valid and important points and probably genuinely care for the well being of the youth association. Kudos to them, IMO.

[huskyhockey17]

Mr. Elliott, I understand that you made the motion to have two associations in St. Cloud. Why would you make this motion after being presented with the survey information from our associaton. It is very obvious that we do not want it. Is it not part of the job of the MN hockey board to help it's current affiliate associations? This would clearly set a precedent for any small group in a hockey community who does not like the way things are done to do the same thing that this group is doing.

[Can't Never Tried]

MN Hockey is responsible to grow the sport in our state, as the affiliate of USA hockey.

[BlueGoose5]

So, the Tech group lives to fight another day. Good for them, they should feel proud. This is a perfect example of parents (Tech Board) meddling with a kids game all in the name of building up a high school powerhouse hockey program. This is way beyond the mission of SCYHA, which, thankfully, exists for the well being of the kids.

MISSION STATEMENT: St. Cloud Youth Hockey Association will strive toward providing all members with a positive growing environment, which enhances a competitive spirit defining sportsmanship and respect for others through the sport of hockey.

It's mind-numbing that a successful program such as SCYHA can come under attack and have its existance threatened by a group of 4 disgruntled parents who feel they know what's best. The leader of the Tech Board, for Pete's sake, doesn't even reside on the south side! It's even more unsettling that they can force this to debate at the Minnesota Hockey level. Where are the rights for the affiliated SCYHA? And, what could this mean to other associations?