St. Cloud Youth Hockey Split

[greybeard58]

There are reasons for motions, probably in this case,the group had requested time to appear before the Mn Hockey board. With no motion pending, the President could have limited the time each side could use to present their case. When a motion is made and seconded debate can now continue until there is a call for the previous question( which is used to end debate and needs a 2/3 vote) and if passed then there is a vote on the pending motion, the motion can be withdrawn or tabled. I understand the motion was tabled, which means it will be brought up at the next meeting in July.
In all reality it probably would be good if the numbers were there to form competitive teams along school attendance to include the private school. If the numbers can not support 3 teams then maybe two using the public attendance and have the private players on the team that would need the competitive balance. A city the size of St Cloud should have a larger group of players to draw from. There is no easy answer for this and blame should not be placed on anyone past or present,just work harder to increase the numbers.
I am glad to see some who are from the area that post here are talking in a civil manner and are thinking about the players. If the talk is positive a lot can be accomplished,but when it turns to negative talk the players will suffer.

[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.

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.

No board member voted for or against the motion.
No board member identified their intention to vote one way or another during the discussion.
All discussion was geared to finding of information.

The board member that made the motion identified his positon on the motion to both parties involved.

The others need to be incriminated as they have tried in various ways, some above baord and others not qqbove the board, to force their positon on others rather than allow for debate and others to make their own decisions.

If you were present and have been present in the past you would know this.

[elliott70]

[quote="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.[/quote

The MN Hockey handbook clearly identifies the right of MNH membes to make such a request. Making the motion and voting for a motion are two separate matters.

To be continued.

As an example: You drive down the street, stop at a stop sign and then pull away. A police officer stops you and issues you a ticket for running the stop sign.

You plead not guilty, but the prosecutor call me, the judge. He says the cop, a second cop in the car and 2 eye witnesses say you ran the stop sign. He says we should not bother with a court case.

I decide we need a court case and you bring inthe video tape your daughter was running while seated itneh car with you. It clearly shows you stopped, started but slowed and then pulled away.

Do you not have the right to be heard?

I hope the MH board will always keep an open mind, listen to what is presented and make our minds up as individuals based on what is heard, what our governing dcouments say and apply our own knowldege to the situation.

If it means 71/2 hour days four times a year, so be it.

[wickedshot]

I don't recall anyone taking a position yesterday on the board, one way or the other, other than Mr. Green and Mr. Graber who I figured would state their position after conversing with them through e mails the past four weeks. Other board members did not indicate which way they would vote, should it come to a vote. But a motion was necessary for discussion. Mr. Green clearly did not want any discussion and tried to make a motion to that effect, but there was already a motion pending, which as indicated was tabled until MN Hockey's next meeting.

[BlueGoose5]

[quote="elliott70"][quote="MetCenterFan"][quote="elliott70

The others need to be incriminated as they have tried in various ways, some above baord and others not qqbove the board, to force their positon on others rather than allow for debate and others to make their own decisions.


Are you referring to the renegade Tech Board with this statement? This is exactly what they have done in St. Cloud. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[BlueGoose5]

The above question is for Elliot, as it's his own statement.

[Can't Never Tried]

I don't recall anyone taking a position yesterday on the board, one way or the other, other than Mr. Green and Mr. Graber who I figured would state their position after conversing with them through e mails the past four weeks. Other board members did not indicate which way they would vote, should it come to a vote. But a motion was necessary for discussion. Mr. Green clearly did not want any discussion and tried to make a motion to that effect, but there was already a motion pending, which as indicated was tabled until MN Hockey's next meeting.

IMHO the D10 board has pretty much always been over the top on themselves...it's "their hockey" not their customer's.
I once wanted to get involved when my kids were smaller, but quickly changed my mind after attending several years of coaches meetings and hearing the same canned tough guy speech year in and out.
Arrogant comes to mind!
They got the reputation "Guys in the Green jackets" and it wasn't all that great if ya know what I mean!

There was one older gentleman who was the PW coordinator, that in my opinion was the only original guy in the bunch, always saw him at the games, and he was approachable and actually asked for you opinion.
I think it was Hansen or something stand up guy!

[Rocket78]

Renegade Tech Board!!! Wow. So if I felt that John Marshall would be better served to have it's own separate hockey association you are branding me as a heretic?

In our case the RYHA has an upper and lower bantam A team but they are feeding 4 high schools. JM (and Mayo I think) has former bantam C kids playing on their varsity because there were very few JM kids on the bantam A teams. The rationale has been that they only play kids at the A level that they feel have the speed, agility and strength to play bantam A. I can understand somewhat when you are looking at a 13-14 year old that they may not be ready to play at that level but I think some of the problem is that they did not play A hockey at squirts and peewees. I personally would like to see RYHA acting as the parent organization with a subgroup internally that looks out for the interests of the individual schools. If that failed to work out then I would consult with coach Lecy and attempt to organize a JMYHA.

As it is, I no longer have sons in youth hockey and I don't have the same commitment level of a Mr Kennedy.

[54fighting]

D10 is a joke. The DD should be embarrased by the way it is run.
He is so arrogant (as was the one before him) that he will not even return your e-mails. I had to cc the president of MH hockey before I could even get a response from him and that was very generic and did not even address my question. I finally gave up on him. Thankfully I no longer have kids skating in the youth programs so I don't have to deal with him any longer. I feel bad for all of the people that still have to deal with the D10 board. They just stick their heads in the sand and say " not our problem".
Too bad all districts do not have someone like Elliott that will listen to someone who has a concern and try to deal with it openly and honestly.

Keep fighting the good fight Elliott, we are behind you.

[elliott70]

[quote="elliott70

The others need to be incriminated as they have tried in various ways, some above baord and others not qqbove the board, to force their positon on others rather than allow for debate and others to make their own decisions.


Are you referring to the renegade Tech Board with this statement? This is exactly what they have done in St. Cloud. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Some on MN H board have tried to influence or outright control somethings without following proper protocol.

As far as St Cloud both groups that I spoke with yesterday were cordial with me and each other and seemed genuinely interested in doing 'good' for the kids of St Cloud.

Other than that it would not be right for me to speak of anything that has happened in St cloud in the last few months or years.

[Can't Never Tried]

Elliott, we are behind you.

Quite a few calenders behind I might add!

[BlueGoose5]

There sure has been a lot of talk about the "Rochester model", as if this is the wonder system for the high schools and youth hockey. Wicked sure seems to think so (probably because he's from Rochester) with his idea of forcing this on the SCYHA, even though there's not more than a drip of interest locally within the association for his viewpoint.

This is exactly the point that's being made here. What is best for SCYHA and how should that decision be made? Should a self-interest (sounds better than renegade) group like Wicked's make the decision, or is everyone better served by having the association make the decision it feels is best for its membership? To me, the answer is an easy one, especially when one group's plan means the decimation of the other.

Perhaps Rochester should look toward the "St. Cloud model" as a system to marvel.

[elliott70]

Elliott, we are behind you.

Quite a few calenders behind I might add!

I do know where you live.

[Can't Never Tried]

Elliott, we are behind you.

Quite a few calenders behind I might add!

I do know where you live.

OK good!! I want a new plasma TV for x-mas Santa!

[elliott70]

Quite a few calenders behind I might add!

I do know where you live.

OK good!! I want a new plasma TV for x-mas Santa!

I got just the one, a black and white floor model somewhere in my basement, not as old as I am but just as gray with the dust covering it has.

And a statue of a lion for the front yard thrown in.

[Can't Never Tried]

I do know where you live.

OK good!! I want a new plasma TV for x-mas Santa!

I got just the one, a black and white floor model somewhere in my basement, not as old as I am but just as gray with the dust covering it has.

And a statue of a lion for the front yard thrown in.

Still sounds like an upgrade..throw in the digital converter box I'm gonna need too, will ya!

How big is the Lion statue? my development is pretty conservative

And I don't want to split up the neighborhood

[frederick61]

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.

Elliott70,
Based on the above, the first motion made and seconded allows St. Cloud to esablish a second association. The second motion was passed allows the St. Cloud association until the middle of June to come to a consensus based on the "agreement" on how the split would be managed the first two years or so operating as a split within the current association.

If the St. Cloud association in mid-June does not have a consensus opinion or a viable plan, what can Mn Hockey decide other then to keep the status quo? If D10 is to be split in two years, does the St. Cloud association have to accommodate a potential D10 shift in their mid-June planning? Does the St. Cloud association have to discuss their plans with D10 officials? Can the St. Cloud association discuss their plans with districts other then D10 to explore possible future alignments and incorporate that in their mid-June response?

[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.

Elliott70,
Based on the above, the first motion made and seconded allows St. Cloud to esablish a second association. The second motion was passed allows the St. Cloud association until the middle of June to come to a consensus based on the "agreement" on how the split would be managed the first two years or so operating as a split within the current association.

If the St. Cloud association in mid-June does not have a consensus opinion or a viable plan, what can Mn Hockey decide other then to keep the status quo? If D10 is to be split in two years, does the St. Cloud association have to accommodate a potential D10 shift in their mid-June planning? Does the St. Cloud association have to discuss their plans with D10 officials? Can the St. Cloud association discuss their plans with districts other then D10 to explore possible future alignments and incorporate that in their mid-June response?

The second motion was to table the first motion.
This was done after I met with both sides in very quick but friendly exchange where both sides felt they could sit down together and find a way to accomodate teh needs of both under the same, existing umbrealla organization.

If they cannot do that, the MH board will consider if a split is necessary and proper.
It does not gurantee one side anything. MH will at that time review information and allow for new informatin and arguments to be submitted. Upon review a vote will be taken. I would hope all MH board members would have an open mind to for or against until the time to vote.

My hope is that everyone can work out their differences and, perhpas split the organization in the future when their numbers and resources are stronger than they are now, if a split is desired.

[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.

Elliott70,
Based on the above, the first motion made and seconded allows St. Cloud to esablish a second association. The second motion was passed allows the St. Cloud association until the middle of June to come to a consensus based on the "agreement" on how the split would be managed the first two years or so operating as a split within the current association.

If the St. Cloud association in mid-June does not have a consensus opinion or a viable plan, what can Mn Hockey decide other then to keep the status quo? If D10 is to be split in two years, does the St. Cloud association have to accommodate a potential D10 shift in their mid-June planning? Does the St. Cloud association have to discuss their plans with D10 officials? Can the St. Cloud association discuss their plans with districts other then D10 to explore possible future alignments and incorporate that in their mid-June response?

Any restructuring or redistricting of D10 or any other district(s) has no effect on what all of are trying to see happen in St Cloud.

D10 will be working with St Cloud to find solutions to give everyone opportunities. I also voluntereed to assist if they desired.

Discussing future potential district lines by neighboring associations is a very good idea. It is not part of what is happening now.
Recruitment, resources, and development for all is the key to the current discussion.

[2pipesnin]

Greybeard - you obviously do not know St Cloud. We do not have the luxury of getting players from the outlying areas. Players have to play for their respective associations, Sartell, Sauk Rapids and River Lakes. St Cloud just doesn’t have that many hockey players anymore. Market all you want, pickup another 15 players….that’s 2 at each level (including girls) It still will not give you the numbers to run 2 “A” teams at any level in St Cloud. The skill level between the top players and bottom players is to wide and it only creates problems between players and parents (not to mention if St Cloud even has 4 “A” goalies at each level)
Keep the association as ONE. Put the top 17-20 players on one “A” team at each level and then maybe split the rest of the players on “B” teams according to the High School they plan to attend. Then let the high school coaches work with the “B” players. Because those “B” players are the ones the high schools need to develop (2nd and 3rd line players) The “A” team will develop just fine.

[observer]

Whoa, frankly I prefer the Lakeville model best and Rochester would be the next best model. What this new St. Cloud group is proposing is off track. First of all, this school this and that school that. Youth Hockey Associations need to be just that. They shouldn't be connected with any one school over another. Youth Hockey Associations develop youth hockey players for high school hockey WHEREVER THEY GO. If youth hockey associations are committed to doing just that, without discrimination, then they can have a good product for all youth hockey players in their drawing area. Develop all the players, equally, for wherever they play next. With that simple mission statement they can solve a lot of problems. Nowhere should a 501 c3 youth hockey organization favor one school over another. Please stop the selfish behavior and focus on developing youth hockey players. Period. Be proud of all the top players you've developed for all the various high school programs.

Rochester is probably most similar as they have to develop talent for 4 different high schools. Their A1 and A2 structure this year was a good first step. I'm relatively certain they aren't paying any attention to where the kids will attend high school. Can't and shouldn't. They do need to develop A level players for 4 high schools so I'm guessing they aspire to have 2 equal A teams at some point.

Lakeville is different and will likely never have more than two high schools, North and South. So, they divided one single youth association into 2. Lakeville Youth Hockey administers both the North and South programs. I believe they're focused on player development, not discrimination, but they have divided their kids.

What some are proposing in St. Cloud is a big mess and not in line with any other arrangement in MN. I think you can develop more, better, players with a single strong association.

Some associations develop players for as many as 8 high schools. Should each school have their own youth association? Of course not.

[BlueGoose5]

Observer, you just posted the best argument on this thread.

[Rocket78]

Observer, I think Lakeville is a fine model to pattern a program after.

On the positive side, they provide teams for the North and other teams for the South. Only when there is a lack of numbers at a certain level do they have a rainbow team that is "Lakeville". At some levels they have more than one team for a high school. At the girls levels they are still combined but I have heard that they will change that in the near future.

On the negative side, there are many in Lakeville that wanted to have one power A team that takes only the best players. Since the Lakeville board committed to an A team for each school their program had players leave early to go to St Thomas and the Fire. Their board is still holding their ground from what I'm hearing.

Rochester sends the majority of its Bantam A team to Lourdes. At the age where my kids have to be forced to attend 1 hour of church on Sunday I guess a lot of hockey kids feel that 6 hours a day, 5 days a week is cool .

[greybeard58]

Here is some info I found on line concerning High school size. St Cloud Tech has an enrollment in the top 4 grades of 1462, St Cloud Apollo has 1165, both enrollments combined are 2627does not include Cathedral. Lets compare: All are larger than St Cloud as hockey associations
St Cloud 2627
Stillwater-2898 2nd largest association in District 2
White Bear-2476 largest association in District 2
Roseville-2007 D2 #3
Centennial-2162 largest Assn in District 10
Blaine-2630 2nd largest in D10
Anoka 2375
Elk River 1606
Andover 1626
Champlin Park 3001
Eden Prairie 3099
Edina-2232
Burnsville-2984
Woodbury 2475
I got a little tired looking this stuff up but the point most of these schools have lower enrollment numbers and are larger associations than St Cloud Youth Hockey. If you added the Cathedral High school numbers the total is larger than Wayzata 3042 with the total St Cloud at 3215. Rochester, Duluth and Lakeville have a larger total than St Cloud and are larger hockey associations. This could lead one to believe that with hard work and good recruiting the St Cloud Association can increase their numbers by way more than 15.

[2pipesnin]

Greybeard…Again I don’t think you know St Cloud. You compared St Cloud to Mpls and St Paul Suburbs. Step back and look deeper:
Did you compare the average family income?
Did you compare the number of students on “assisted food” programs?
Did you compare the number of students that have “English” as a second language?

I believe St Cloud would match up better with an inner city association then the ones you quoted.

And frankly Greybeard you did a great job of re-enforcing my point……..non of the associations that you listed have 2 “A” teams at any level. So there is no reason why St Cloud should either. It's all in the numbers and our association is 400+