Mn Hockey summer meeting

cooper26 · Post by **cooper26** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:55 pm

council member retired wrote: I am confused, so your saying you play where you live, as in your city of residence? So if my home is in Burnsville but my PUBLIC school district is part of Lakeville South, I should play for Burnsville? Will they let me ? Because when my kids played they had to play for the lakeville assocation because that is where they went to school, publicly.
I don't think any of us can play where we live, w/out a waiver, unless our school district and city are the same. Anyone know if no waiver is needed?

Just for clarification, it's already laid out somewhere (isn't it?) that "where you live" is defined as "your public school district" - right?

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:38 pm

Here is the current rule and it is where the residence is located.

IV. RESIDENCY (current rule)
A. RESIDENCY POLICY
MH is a community-based amateur hockey program. Players are to participate on teams from their local affiliate based on the residence of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and the established MH affiliate boundaries.
B. RESIDENCY RULE
1. Youth Hockey players must play within the affiliate boundaries as defined by MH. If a player desires to play on a team outside of the player's affiliate boundary, the player must obtain written permission (waiver) from the president of governing body of both the releasing and receiving organization and receive the approval of the cognizant district director(s). A player that participates without a necessary waiver is considered an ineligible player. Refer to the Section entitled Eligibility Provisions. A waiver must be obtained before a player can participate outside their affiliate boundary. A player that registers or participates with their affiliate cannot participate with any other affiliate without a waiver. The Minnesota Department of Education Open Enrollment program does not in any way affect interpretation of this rule.
2. A player may appeal in writing to the cognizant District Director who, after investigation, will issue a ruling. The decision of the District Director is final. Also see Section entitled Eligibility Provisions.
3. Players having dual citizenship, one being the United States, must also conform to the residency rule.

Hope this helps

trippedovertheblueline · Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:32 pm

Players are to participate on teams from their local affiliate based on the residence of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and the established MH affiliate boundaries.

so does mn hockey define : affilate boundaries?
no wonder this is such a mess, how come nobody that resides in a city that is not one in the same with their school district has not played with their city? This definition by MH is absurb.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:36 pm

It would be nice if cities and school districts have the same boundaries. For example the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park are in both the Osseo School District and Anoka Henniphen school district. If all affiliate agreements woukd have the school attendance area that would simplify.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:37 am

trippedovertheblueline wrote:Players are to participate on teams from their local affiliate based on the residence of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and the established MH affiliate boundaries.

so does mn hockey define : affilate boundaries?
no wonder this is such a mess, how come nobody that resides in a city that is not one in the same with their school district has not played with their city? This definition by MH is absurb.

Affiliate boundaries are described within each affiliate agreement.
Every association has an affiliate agreement.

Pens4 · Post by **Pens4** » Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:10 pm

This whole topic has given me a massive headache....MN Hockey needs to get out of our kitchen. The existing rule gives the two local organizations involved decision making power and the fact is, they are closest to the true situation.

I am going to try my best to attend this meeting. Enough is enough. Every situation cannot be legislated and the great hockey minds at USA and MN hockey need to delegate some of that responsibility. No one has a better grasp on the situation than the actual hockey associations.

council member retired · Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:21 pm

[quote="elliott70"][quote="trippedovertheblueline"]Players are to participate on teams from their local affiliate based on the residence of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and the established MH affiliate boundaries.

so does mn hockey define : affilate boundaries?
no wonder this is such a mess, how come nobody that resides in a city that is not one in the same with their school district has not played with their city? This definition by MH is absurb.[/quote]

Affiliate boundaries are described within each affiliate agreement.
Every association has an affiliate agreement.[/quote]

So can the hockey player living in Burnsville but Lakeville school district play for Burnsville hockey without a waiver? thank you in advance

DMom · Post by **DMom** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:56 am

did it change?

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:16 am

council member retired wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
trippedovertheblueline wrote:Players are to participate on teams from their local affiliate based on the residence of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and the established MH affiliate boundaries.

so does mn hockey define : affilate boundaries?
no wonder this is such a mess, how come nobody that resides in a city that is not one in the same with their school district has not played with their city? This definition by MH is absurb.
Affiliate boundaries are described within each affiliate agreement.
Every association has an affiliate agreement.
So can the hockey player living in Burnsville but Lakeville school district play for Burnsville hockey without a waiver? thank you in advance

I have no idea what their boundary descriptions are, but anyone can request a waiver. The problem right now is that each district has a policy and a lot of local associations have a policy.
What is needed is a policy that states waivers will be granted under the following circumstances 1, 2, 3... whatever those are is the question that has not been answered, by anyone, at any level, with consistency and compassion.

conditioningsucks · Post by **conditioningsucks** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:57 am

[quote="elliott70"][quote="council member retired"][quote="elliott70"][quote="trippedovertheblueline"]Players are to participate on teams from their local affiliate based on the residence of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and the established MH affiliate boundaries.

so does mn hockey define : affilate boundaries?
no wonder this is such a mess, how come nobody that resides in a city that is not one in the same with their school district has not played with their city? This definition by MH is absurb.[/quote]

Affiliate boundaries are described within each affiliate agreement.
Every association has an affiliate agreement.[/quote]

So can the hockey player living in Burnsville but Lakeville school district play for Burnsville hockey without a waiver? thank you in advance[/quote]

I have no idea what their boundary descriptions are, but anyone can request a waiver. The problem right now is that each district has a policy and a lot of local associations have a policy.
What is needed is a policy that states waivers will be granted under the following circumstances 1, 2, 3... whatever those are is the question that has not been answered, by anyone, at any level, with consistency and compassion.[/quote]

WHO IS DRIVING THIS POLICY CHANGE?

WHAT ARE THEIR MOTIVATIONS?

WHAT HAS CAUSED THIS TO BE A MAJOR ISSUE/DISTRACTION WHEN THERE ARE BIGGER FISH TO FRY?

WHAT PARTIES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DRAFTING?

I am sure this policy has wasted a lot of peoples' time already. Guaranteed it will be unanimously, or almost unanimously (perhaps the drafters will vote for it), voted down at the State meeting. When someone begins explaining the answers to my questions above so that the proper context can be understood, then they may get it passed.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:32 pm

conditioningsucks wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
council member retired wrote: So can the hockey player living in Burnsville but Lakeville school district play for Burnsville hockey without a waiver? thank you in advance
I have no idea what their boundary descriptions are, but anyone can request a waiver. The problem right now is that each district has a policy and a lot of local associations have a policy.
What is needed is a policy that states waivers will be granted under the following circumstances 1, 2, 3... whatever those are is the question that has not been answered, by anyone, at any level, with consistency and compassion.
WHO IS DRIVING THIS POLICY CHANGE?
Discernment committee and Dennis Green and some District Directors and some general members.
WHAT ARE THEIR MOTIVATIONS?
Discernemnt - want to get something accomplished.
Dennis Green - same.
Dsitrict Directors - problems with people comparing what happens in the next district / associatin over.
general members - want their kids to play with school chums as they go to a school closer to where mom and dad work or to a private school.

WHAT HAS CAUSED THIS TO BE A MAJOR ISSUE/DISTRACTION WHEN THERE ARE BIGGER FISH TO FRY?

Discernment thought it would be easy.
WHAT PARTIES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DRAFTING?
Rules committee, discernment committee.

I am sure this policy has wasted a lot of peoples' time already. Guaranteed it will be unanimously, or almost unanimously (perhaps the drafters will vote for it), voted down at the State meeting.

The first go around was thrown out.
D16 will vote no on this one also.

When someone begins explaining the answers to my questions above so that the proper context can be understood, then they may get it passed.

jollyroger · Post by **jollyroger** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:47 pm

I'm not sure why you want to vote 'no'.
Isn't the issue really that every association and district handles waivers differently, many without 'compassion' or a rationale other than $$?
How about the association that charges each waived kid a $35 'processing fee' (Como, maybe others) above and beyond the Minnesota Hockey $45 fee, even if they don't have a team the kid can play on (think girls). In court that would be called embezzlement, or least robbery, but in Minnesota Hockey it has been given free reign. I'm glad there are some in MH who want to put a stop to it.
If you're voting 'no' you must be in favor of giving small people big power, which as often as not is going to be abused.

observer · Post by **observer** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:13 pm

Here's the way it should be written to prevent confusion. Use the fewest words possible for the greatest understanding as opposed to the most words for the greatest confusion.

Kids play where they live until they attend high school.

jollyroger · Post by **jollyroger** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:31 pm

observer wrote: Kids play where they live until they attend high school.

And if the association 'where they live' doesn't have a team for them to play on, really STICK IT TO 'EM! MAKE IT HURT.......

council member retired · Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:19 pm

Kids play where they live until they [b]attend[/b] high school.[/quote]

So if they live in Burnsville, but attend Lakeville schools, they should play for Burnsville hockey association until they are in 9th grade? Then they can play u14 or bantams for Lakeville?

observer · Post by **observer** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:48 pm

Listen you babies, stop trying to make things more confusing than they need be. Are you saying no one from that particular neighborhood ever played hockey before? I'm sure there's a consistent solution that has been used. That's the answer and it's not up to you to develop another answer that suits your selfish situation better. As Elliott stated, each association has a Minnesota Hockey affiliate agreement and a map of it's boundaries.

Then the other question. Associations commonly allow waivers if they don't field an appropriate level team for a particular player. The district that I reside in allows for waivers to neighboring associations if there isn't an appropriate level team. Could be no A, or no C, waive to the neighboring, closest association that does have an A or a C team. Look, associations, if you don't have an appropriate team for an individual child please allow them to waive to the closest neighboring association, in the same district, that does.

If the rule is written simply there will be fewer exceptions and necessary waivers. The way the new one is drafted it will cause many more problems and confusion. I'll guess hundreds more problems, confusion and issues.

observer · Post by **observer** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:12 pm

Look CMR,

No. Until they try out for the team where they plan to attend high school they live within the boundaries of a particular youth hockey association. They would complete their youth hockey years, on a youth hockey team, based on where they live.

Lakeville High School doesn't offer youth hockey teams. Lakeville Youth Hockey doesn't offer a high school team as they serve several. There's a clear distinction. It's the same in Burnsville. There's a Burnsville Youth Hockey Association and a Burnsville High School Hockey team. They have nothing to do with one another. Kids play youth hockey with their designated youth hockey association affiliate and then try out for the high school team when they attend high school. Remember, there are bantam teams that send their players to as many as 7 different high schools. I think that's cool. Youth Associations need to be in the business of developing hockey players without loyalty to any particular high school. As 501c3 organizations they can't discriminate (Stillwater). Discrimination has to be removed for it to work best. Just develop all the players equally and then comes high school.

I know some of the issues and agree there are some grey areas. Some high schools start in 9th grade and some in 10th. But, the high school open enroll and transfer rule is based on where the child starts 9th grade.

Carl Racki · Post by **Carl Racki** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:43 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look CMR,

No. Until they try out for the team where they plan to attend high school they live within the boundaries of a particular youth hockey association. They would complete their youth hockey years, on a youth hockey team, based on where they live.

Lakeville High School doesn't offer youth hockey teams. Lakeville Youth Hockey doesn't offer a high school team as they serve several. There's a clear distinction. It's the same in Burnsville. There's a Burnsville Youth Hockey Association and a Burnsville High School Hockey team. They have nothing to do with one another. Kids play youth hockey with their designated youth hockey association affiliate and then try out for the high school team when they attend high school. Remember, there are bantam teams that send their players to as many as 7 different high schools. I think that's cool. Youth Associations need to be in the business of developing hockey players without loyalty to any particular high school. As 501c3 organizations they can't discriminate (Stillwater). Discrimination has to be removed for it to work best. Just develop all the players equally and then comes high school.

I know some of the issues and agree there are some grey areas. Some high schools start in 9th grade and some in 10th. But, the high school open enroll and transfer rule is based on where the child starts 9th grade.

Observer
That is a load of crapola, youth programs/high school programs definitely have something to do with one another. Ask any public school high school coach, well if they are any good and devoted they are active in the youth program helping development, building school/town pride, teaching teamwork.
Wow thats just the problem with all the crazies, it's all about me or my kids. Loyalty, lifelong friendships, school pride I guess just does not matter anymore :?

TriedThat2 · Post by **TriedThat2** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:59 pm

Elliot,
How come District 5 & 6 have open enrollment? And why are they allowed to do that?

observer · Post by **observer** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:43 pm

I agree partially but some associations have as many as three different high school coaches running clinics, etc. All good. It's a metro thing for the most part. Obviously the smaller the community, the more likely there's a direct connect. If you grow up in Roseau, you'll likely play youth hockey in Roseau. I get that. Those youth association/high school relationships are different than in the metro. There's only one high school. Kids from Wayzata, Edina, Eden Prairie, White Bear, Woodbury, Lakeville, all strong metro associations, will attend several different high schools so how to best handle the relationship with the high schools is something all metro youth associations consider differently. In those situations the relationship can't be the same. But, youth associations in the metro now compete with MM and have to improve their product so as to compete. Players involved in MM Choice Leagues will attend several different high schools. Metro Associations are the same, and can work with multiple coaches to provide better product to their members. It's a neat opportunity.

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:53 pm

One point that no one has made yet is the authority Minnesota Hockey does not have. If you live in Burnsville, you pay city taxes that support two sheets of ice and can not be denied playing in the Burnsville youth hockey program even if you live in the Lakeville, Apple Valley, or Eagan association boundaries. Further, since Apple Valley and Eastview use the same two sheets for their youth program, the kids can switch programs very easily because their parents are paying Apple Valley City taxes that support one sheet of ice and ISD 196 taxes that support the second sheet of ice.

There is no way that Minnesota Hockey can write a general rule across the state that works. They simply don’t have the legal authority to cross “city” lines with association boundaries. The rules have to be flexible to account for situations like the above as well as others yet unsaid.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:26 am

What legal authority does MNH need to obtain? I don't see anything in its bylaws that states it will be held accountable to property tax boundaries. MNH is a monopoly, and they set up the affiliates as monopolies within their own boundaries established at the discretion of MNH. The sheriff will not show up and force Eastview to give a jersey to an Apple Valley kid. The best hope for the kids is that each of the two associations in question have wise and benevolent leaders. Unfortunately...

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:20 am

They probably wouldn't do that anyways. It's an unlikely scenario so probably doesn't deserve a lot of discussion. People like to throw out little examples that impact a family or two but the rules should but written for what's best for the majority not to benefit a selfish few. Most players aspire to play for their community based public high school team and the youth hockey association boundaries, I presume, closely follow the high school boundaries. I doubt there's a neighborhood that falls into the Eastview Youth Hockey boundaries but the Apple Valley High School boundaries. So Frederick, is there someone this is causing a problem for? You just brought it up for discussion? Find it interesting? People also like to bring up one situation but apply the ruling to another. Any other ideas as to why the residency rule needs revision? Who else it might benefit? This particular Eastview/Apple Valley example can't be the reason. Nor the Lakeville/Burnsville example stated earlier.

So, a couple of examples where the situation needs review, clear rules need to be applied and managed:

Eastview/Apple Valley
Lakeville/Burnsville

More unique situations? Someone asked about inconsistent policies in Districts 5 & 6.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:32 am

TriedThat2 wrote:Elliot,
How come District 5 & 6 have open enrollment? And why are they allowed to do that?

Their district board's adopted the policy.

Many question it, but bottom line is that the district director controls waivers within his/her district.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:36 am

frederick61 wrote:One point that no one has made yet is the authority Minnesota Hockey does not have. If you live in Burnsville, you pay city taxes that support two sheets of ice and can not be denied playing in the Burnsville youth hockey program even if you live in the Lakeville, Apple Valley, or Eagan association boundaries. Further, since Apple Valley and Eastview use the same two sheets for their youth program, the kids can switch programs very easily because their parents are paying Apple Valley City taxes that support one sheet of ice and ISD 196 taxes that support the second sheet of ice.

There is no way that Minnesota Hockey can write a general rule across the state that works. They simply don’t have the legal authority to cross “city” lines with association boundaries. The rules have to be flexible to account for situations like the above as well as others yet unsaid.

MN hockey via USAHockey via Congress has great latidtude and authority to make decisions on how players are rostered.
Who owns the ice sheet is not part of the equation.

I agree that a general rule across the state is very difficult to define based on the variety of programs.