Care to share any insights on the participation rule/vote in St. Cloud? Also, any news on redistricting from the meeting? I am interested in hearing both of your takes from the weekend.
Thanks.
I was not there, prior committment.
But when my assistant sends me his report I will gladly share it.
Hockey daddy,
Had you chosen to attend you would understand and it is not R rated. There are some items to be addressed first before anything else is done and the appropriate people will be contacted first and I agree with their discretion.
Well, not everyone could attend, and not because we just don't care enough.
So, what's the deal? Why the secrecy about this? It must be a redistricting, that's about the only thing that would need to be kept secret, I would think.
Maybe it's disciplinary in nature - they've aquired the forum NOC list and have discovered the secret identities and are deciding how to dole out retribution.
Burnbabyburn wrote:Well, not everyone could attend, and not because we just don't care enough.
So, what's the deal? Why the secrecy about this? It must be a redistricting, that's about the only thing that would need to be kept secret, I would think.
I would bet there are Associations being moved out of their District to another and need to be told before the hammer drops....
A few years ago, one association sued the neighboring city claiming they had to be given access to the city's ice. The association based their claim on the fact that their association had the sued city's kids within their boundary and kids went to their schools. The case never went to trial in part because the city's youth hockey association stated to the court that they would never deny any of the city's resident's kids access to their hockey program even though they were going to another school outside their boundaries.
The new rule will never work without significant compromises. It retricts the legal rights of individuals (parents/kids). Further Minnesota Hockey is not a government organization and has no legal basis for abridging the courts, cities, and counties and making law.
Today, this new rule puts the sued city's association in a very awkward position. If they chose to follow Minnesota Hockey rules, they will violate stated positions made to the city and the courts.
frederick61 wrote:A few years ago, one association sued the neighboring city claiming they had to be given access to the city's ice. The association based their claim on the fact that their association had the sued city's kids within their boundary and kids went to their schools. The case never went to trial in part because the city's youth hockey association stated to the court that they would never deny any of the city's resident's kids access to their hockey program even though they were going to another school outside their boundaries.
The new rule will never work without significant compromises. It retricts the legal rights of individuals (parents/kids). Further Minnesota Hockey is not a government organization and has no legal basis for abridging the courts, cities, and counties and making law.
Today, this new rule puts the sued city's association in a very awkward position. If they chose to follow Minnesota Hockey rules, they will violate stated positions made to the city and the courts.
Fred.... here's my (somewhat uninformed) take on this
Their move is legal, because Minnesota Hockey is a voluntary organization, and by becoming a member, you agree to abide by its rules and regulations.
whether this is morally right or wrong, I'm not going to say, but legally, I'm guessing they do have the power to make these rules.
I also had a previous commitment and couldn't attend. I did voice my opinion to my DD since I would not be there.
Fred, I'm not sure what you wanted them to do. I read lots of you posts and find them very good. But all the talk of legal issues on this post is making my head hurt.
dumb blonde wrote:I also had a previous commitment and couldn't attend. I did voice my opinion to my DD since I would not be there.
Fred, I'm not sure what you wanted them to do. I read lots of you posts and find them very good. But all the talk of legal issues on this post is making my head hurt.
Yeah... Anytime you mix youth sports and legal issues, you seldom see anything good coming out of it.
dumb blonde wrote:I also had a previous commitment and couldn't attend. I did voice my opinion to my DD since I would not be there.
Fred, I'm not sure what you wanted them to do. I read lots of you posts and find them very good. But all the talk of legal issues on this post is making my head hurt.
Yeah... Anytime you mix youth sports and legal issues, you seldom see anything good coming out of it.
Hockeydad,
That is my point, anytime you mix legal issues and sports, you seldom see anything good coming out of it. Minnesota Hockey, in this new ruling, has set the stage for doing that.
greybeard58 wrote:Hockey daddy,
Had you chosen to attend you would understand and it is not R rated. There are some items to be addressed first before anything else is done and the appropriate people will be contacted first and I agree with their discretion.
However, if it has to do with district realignment than people need to know before tournaments are booked or teams accepted into tournaments, to provide a quality experience for the kids. Don't want to be playing the same teams five times a year.
greybeard58 wrote:Hockey daddy,
Had you chosen to attend you would understand and it is not R rated. There are some items to be addressed first before anything else is done and the appropriate people will be contacted first and I agree with their discretion.
However, if it has to do with district realignment than people need to know before tournaments are booked or teams accepted into tournaments, to provide a quality experience for the kids. Don't want to be playing the same teams five times a year.
Nothing will happen this year.
The 'secret' nature of the thing is to stop questions, complaints, comments before something somewhat concrete is ready to go. As of right now it is not to the point for discussion and tweaking.
To provide information on it at this time would be to create unnecessary work. Such as having a committee of 500 working on it. That will come in time.
frederick61 wrote:A few years ago, one association sued the neighboring city claiming they had to be given access to the city's ice. The association based their claim on the fact that their association had the sued city's kids within their boundary and kids went to their schools. The case never went to trial in part because the city's youth hockey association stated to the court that they would never deny any of the city's resident's kids access to their hockey program even though they were going to another school outside their boundaries.
Today, this new rule puts the sued city's association in a very awkward position. If they chose to follow Minnesota Hockey rules, they will violate stated positions made to the city and the courts.
This case has been referenced a couple of times in this thread and there was a lot more to that case than just getting equal access. The question was whether the city should be allowed to run their facilities in a way that they feel is best for all of the taxpayers (ie. generates the most revenue) or should they be told how to run their facility by a small group of taxpayers. The 'suing' group also did not want just any ice time but was very particular about wanting prime ice hours during the winter months. In other words, they felt that residency should be used to determine the amount of ice per year a group got and they should get to choose to use all of their hours during primetime in the winter.
In the case you are referencing, the city had long time relationships with several entities including the local H.S., the local youth hockey association and a figure skating club. These groups were primary sources of revenue for the rink during the prime season and also benefited them during the off season through clinics etc.. These groups had also made commitments years ago which allowed the city to add another rink to their facility. If residency was the basis for ice allocation then the figure skating club and High School could also be affected and could lose icetime. The figure skating club generated large amounts of revenue for the city over the entire year (not just primetime hours in the winter) and there was a good chance that they would consider going elsewhere if restricted in hours. Should a city be required by a few taxpayers to limit hours that could drive out a year round customer and then lose revenue or should they be able to make their own decision as to how best to run the facility? It also seemed ludicrous to possibly limit the local H.S. access based on residency (many H.S. players came from a nearby city without a H.S.). The cities long term relationships with these groups had helped them generate the most revenue for the facility and therefore was in the best interest of the majority of taxpayers.
At the time, the local youth association also correctly stated that any resident of the city would be allowed, through waivers, to participate in their youth program no matter where they went to school. This had already happened numerous times and the association merely made it clear that they would sign any waiver if it was requested. This would allow all of the affected taxpayers more access to the rink without disrupting long term relationships or hurting the revenue of the city. Of course, the 'suing' group of taxpayers wanted no part of this because it wasn't just access that they wanted...it was access on their terms. If youth hockeys governing body has now changed their rule then that only means that players would now be required by Mn. Hockey to change schools. It doesn't put the local association in an awkward position. All of the other good reasons for not telling a city how to run their facility still apply. Even though I agree with many peoples stated views regarding this being a bad decision on Mn Hockey's part, each city should still be able to determine how best to allocate the ice in their arena.
Livingthelife wrote "If youth hockey’s governing body has now changed their rule then that only means that players would now be required by Mn. Hockey to change schools".
This is not about a kid just simply changing schools.
The new rule means that a 9-10 year old kid can not play in the association where he lives, but in the association where he goes to school. For example if a kid lives in the suburbs, but for number personal reasons, the parents send the kid to an inner city private school; then the kid has to play in the association where his private school resides. To ease the pain, Minnesota Hockey is giving the kid one year (this coming season) to opt to either association-where he lives or where he goes to school. After this year, they will punish kids for playing in the resident association or for changing schools and will force the resident association to execute that punishment. It is no longer a simple waiver process and Minnesota Hockey likely like never adjudicate one waiver, but force the resident city association to follow the new rule or the association would be punished.
The case I believe we are talking about is a city that has one local association and five other associations within its boundaries. Two years from now, a 9 year old kid living within the city but living within one of the arbitrarily defined “other association” boundary will be forced to play with the “other association” or face punishment. The resident association will be required to deny the 9-year old kid access to their association leaving the kid facing potential penalties in the coming years until he or she play high school hockey or quit hockey.
This makes me mad. I am a strong supporter of Minnesota Hockey on most issues, but I reject the idea that they are part of my “government” and can make “rules” that abridge law. If I am a taxpayer to the city and the tax money I pay to the city via my house taxes support the city ice arenas, then no non-government entity can tell me that a child of mine cannot skate in my city’s program. Nor can they implement punishments if I choose to do so.
Hockeydaddy wrote:So, there will be no association changing districts this year?
There will be no associations told they are changing districts. It is always a possibility that 2 DD will accept a change requested by a local association.
There are none that I am aware of at this time.
frederick61 wrote:Livingthelife wrote "If youth hockey’s governing body has now changed their rule then that only means that players would now be required by Mn. Hockey to change schools".
This is not about a kid just simply changing schools.
The new rule means that a 9-10 year old kid can not play in the association where he lives, but in the association where he goes to school. For example if a kid lives in the suburbs, but for number personal reasons, the parents send the kid to an inner city private school; then the kid has to play in the association where his private school resides. To ease the pain, Minnesota Hockey is giving the kid one year (this coming season) to opt to either association-where he lives or where he goes to school. After this year, they will punish kids for playing in the resident association or for changing schools and will force the resident association to execute that punishment. It is no longer a simple waiver process and Minnesota Hockey likely like never adjudicate one waiver, but force the resident city association to follow the new rule or the association would be punished.
The case I believe we are talking about is a city that has one local association and five other associations within its boundaries. Two years from now, a 9 year old kid living within the city but living within one of the arbitrarily defined “other association” boundary will be forced to play with the “other association” or face punishment. The resident association will be required to deny the 9-year old kid access to their association leaving the kid facing potential penalties in the coming years until he or she play high school hockey or quit hockey.
This makes me mad. I am a strong supporter of Minnesota Hockey on most issues, but I reject the idea that they are part of my “government” and can make “rules” that abridge law. If I am a taxpayer to the city and the tax money I pay to the city via my house taxes support the city ice arenas, then no non-government entity can tell me that a child of mine cannot skate in my city’s program. Nor can they implement punishments if I choose to do so.
While I tend to agree with you, the flaw in your logic is that you state it is a particular city's program. It is not. Associations are non-profit organizatins established via USAH. They buy ice from where ever or play outdoors. They hire refs, coaches, and gather volunteers. The 'Association' does these things, not the city.
MH can and does tell the local associations what to do. The unfortunate thing is the way the MH board is chosen. For the most part, those governed the most, have the least amount of votes. The board is controlled by itself.
That particular issue was brought to the attention of the USAH and MH presidents and was brushed aside.
frederick61 wrote:This makes me mad. I am a strong supporter of Minnesota Hockey on most issues, but I reject the idea that they are part of my “government” and can make “rules” that abridge law. If I am a taxpayer to the city and the tax money I pay to the city via my house taxes support the city ice arenas, then no non-government entity can tell me that a child of mine cannot skate in my city’s program. Nor can they implement punishments if I choose to do so.
I totally agree with you about the rule being a bad one. My point was that the association in your example is not an a "awkward" position. There was a lot more than one reason and, at the time, what they stated was true.
I do agree that Mn Hockey should stay out of trying to answer every issue. The local associations and Districts for the most part have handled these situations. Of course there are always some who are not happy with decisions but leaving things to the local level as much as possible is better than trying to dictate rules for the entire state. Each area of the state is completely different and 'one size fits all' rules don't work.
I will however mention that most associations are not "city programs". If a city wanted to put together their own in-house league no one could stop them from allowing all residents in their city access to the league. Associations are typically separate from city programs but are part of Mn. Hockey...therefore they are subject to the rules of Mn. Hockey no matter how bad the rules may be.
frederick61 wrote:Livingthelife wrote "If youth hockey’s governing body has now changed their rule then that only means that players would now be required by Mn. Hockey to change schools".
This is not about a kid just simply changing schools.
The new rule means that a 9-10 year old kid can not play in the association where he lives, but in the association where he goes to school. For example if a kid lives in the suburbs, but for number personal reasons, the parents send the kid to an inner city private school; then the kid has to play in the association where his private school resides. To ease the pain, Minnesota Hockey is giving the kid one year (this coming season) to opt to either association-where he lives or where he goes to school. After this year, they will punish kids for playing in the resident association or for changing schools and will force the resident association to execute that punishment. It is no longer a simple waiver process and Minnesota Hockey likely like never adjudicate one waiver, but force the resident city association to follow the new rule or the association would be punished.
The case I believe we are talking about is a city that has one local association and five other associations within its boundaries. Two years from now, a 9 year old kid living within the city but living within one of the arbitrarily defined “other association” boundary will be forced to play with the “other association” or face punishment. The resident association will be required to deny the 9-year old kid access to their association leaving the kid facing potential penalties in the coming years until he or she play high school hockey or quit hockey.
This makes me mad. I am a strong supporter of Minnesota Hockey on most issues, but I reject the idea that they are part of my “government” and can make “rules” that abridge law. If I am a taxpayer to the city and the tax money I pay to the city via my house taxes support the city ice arenas, then no non-government entity can tell me that a child of mine cannot skate in my city’s program. Nor can they implement punishments if I choose to do so.
This keeps coming up and I have the same question. Suppose your kid plays mite hockey in Shakopee but "then" goes to private school in Bloomington in 1st grade and beyond. Can you kid continue to play Shakopee Youth Hockey through Sqrt, PW and Bantam? My take is they can but if they've never played Mite Hockey then go to Private school in Bloomington then they'll need to play Bloomington Hockey. I see they have a
Under the new rule, the resident’s city association can no longer claim preference to ice time. The local association is no longer providing access to all of the city’s residence, but limiting access to those residents living within the local association boundaries. Hence the adjoining associations can now claim access to the city’s ice on an equal basis (premium time during the hockey season).
That puts the local association in an awkward position and could re-open issues that have been resolved. Remember, Mn Hockey has chosen to penalize associations/kids who fail to follow the new rule.
You are right, Mn Hockey should never have attempted to make a state wide rule, but left the matter to the districts/associations.
People, why the change? Could be a four word rule. Play where you live. Interesting discussions here but none get to the point of the change from my perspective. A lot touch on why there shouldn't have been a change but no one has a juicy reason why the change. So, who does this benefit? I believe it benefits a small number of families somewhere that have an agenda. I can't figure out who, or where they live, or even their agenda, but can't believe the "residency discernment committee" went to these great, confusing, distances without the rule really benefiting someone.
Who's the winner? Name the winner and lay out the why they're a winner scenario? I can't figure it out. Discernment Committee, can you weigh in please? Why? And, who does it benefit? Someone (I believe it's someone that stands to personally gain) muddied this up big time. I'm starting a tar and feather team but don't know who to go after?
Some parents want their kids to play with their classmates.
Some parents want their kids to play with their neighbors.
I would guess that for a vast majority (80...90...95...99%?), there is no difference. For that 1% that have a difference between the boundaries in which the house sits and those in which the school sits, it seems that what MNH is trying to implement (though maybe not very successfully) is, "Pick which option you want, but you're going to have to stick with it once you choose."
As an out-stater I don't feel the passion that is obvious from many. Therefore, I am not seeing the support of the conspiracy theories that some are proposing (and I may never understand the Taxpayor-Ice-Entitlement situation). If the kid wants to go play somewhere else, let him.
Community Based wrote:People, why the change? Could be a four word rule. Play where you live. Interesting discussions here but none get to the point of the change from my perspective. A lot touch on why there shouldn't have been a change but no one has a juicy reason why the change. So, who does this benefit? I believe it benefits a small number of families somewhere that have an agenda. I can't figure out who, or where they live, or even their agenda, but can't believe the "residency discernment committee" went to these great, confusing, distances without the rule really benefiting someone.
Who's the winner? Name the winner and lay out the why they're a winner scenario? I can't figure it out. Discernment Committee, can you weigh in please? Why? And, who does it benefit? Someone (I believe it's someone that stands to personally gain) muddied this up big time. I'm starting a tar and feather team but don't know who to go after?
Is it to late to return to the 4 word rule?
I believe the main reason for the change was to allow youth athletes to make a choice to play with their school friends or neighborhood friends. I'm personally aware of several situations where mite aged players were open enrolling to a bordering public school for educational purposes. These athletes, 5-8 year olds were being denied waivers from their home residency association to play with their school friends because their home association had a zero waiver policy in effect. These players never played for their home association and never plan on attending school in their home association. This change allows them to play with their school friends.
I'm a supporter of the rule change because it benefits the youth athletes choice, but I'm surprised that it wasn't a choice beyond the 1st year to allow them to choose to play where they live or where they go to school.
Either way, I believe most on this board that are against it are overacting and feel that the change was made for cynical reasons. Let the rule run it's course for a year and let the rule prove it self out. If not. make changes to it to further clarify or improve the language. The old rule by itself was out of date to address open enrolement, especially considering that MH didn't have specific guidleines in place that addressed when a waiver should be approved or not. Rather every association handled them based upon their own reasoning whether or not it benefited the playing experience of the youth athlete.
Last edited by nhl'er on Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
InigoMontoya,
Let me try explain the taxpayer-ice situation. Most ice arenas in Minnesota are run as a business by the city. In theory that means selling ice to everybody on a first come basis. But from October to the end of February each year, the premium hours (usually 6-10 each week day evening) are sold, but not on a first come basis. They are instead allocated and sold by the city usually to three groups (high school, figure skating club, and local youth hockey association). Each youth hockey association then has to allocate the hours among the teams they have and search outside the city for additional hours to meet their program needs.
Since the city is giving special preference to the local youth hockey association, the association can’t deny any citizen residing in the city access. There has been an implied agreement with the local association that they would not deny any resident kid from participating. The reason the city did this is because house property taxes in this state go to three local governing units, the county, the city and the independent school district (special referendums only) in which the house sits. The city is taking part of the money paid by the resident’s property taxes and funding the operation of the ice arena.
So the association and the city sign a contract which specifically states (not implies) this relationship?
If that is the case, from the previous posts, I'd assume that if the city and association boundaries were superimposed, you'd find that all of them are breaking the law.