Mn Hockey summer meeting

[jollyroger]

......... Any other ideas as to why the residency rule needs revision? Who else it might benefit? ........

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.

I already mentioned the situation of associations charging families for Waivers (Como).

You make it sound like MH and its affiliates are some kind of benevolent monarchy who make kind and righteous decisions for the members 99% of the time, and if one or two unfortunates get hurt, that's OK because the masses are being served righteously. That's a very Marxist view of life. The American view would be that if one person gets hosed, we all suffer.

The real problem is that the rules are loose enough that one or two people get way too much power to 'interpret' them as they see fit. How else could an association get away with charging families $35 for signing a piece of paper as MH stands by and watches. MH gets to have it both ways: on one hand they rule with an iron fist, deciding who plays where, how many games a team can play and against whom, what the rules of the game are on the ice, etc. Yet when an association decides to shake down its members, MH can throw up its hands and claim it's powerless to do anything about it.

[observer]

What's your specific beef and maybe it can be resolved? Are you from Como? I think the Como charging families $35 for waivers has been resolved. Even if it wasn't is that the end of the world. When associations don't offer A level they stand to lose important members of their association, volunteers, coaches, players and revenue. I think they wanted to recover a little something for the $600-$1000, or whatever, they were losing when the players left because they didn't have a product for them.

Both Johnson and Como had no A teams at the PeeWee level last year due to insufficient numbers of A level kids. Hopefully the two of them are discussing a co-op, at least at the A level, so they can retain the kids in their own associations. Otherwise, they should offer a free pass out.

[frederick61]

InigoMontoya asked “What legal authority does MNH need to obtain?” MNH survives because of cooperation with communities that associations rely on to provide and maintain the arenas that each association is given access to. Every resident of a community, regardless of association boundary, is entitled to fair access to the community resources that his taxes pay to build and maintain.

In smaller towns where the association boundaries and city boundaries are the same, there is little conflict. ISD boundaries often follow the same association and town boundaries (but are becoming more confusing as ISD’s set up more co-op teams).

In the cities, ISD boundaries overlap with community boundaries and a city’s association boundaries tend to be drawn to support a specific school (not the ISD) since the school is often in an ISD with more then one high school. Some association’s such as Eastview (and the new Eagle Ridge high school in the Woodbury/Cottage Grove area) have no community and rely totally on sharing community resources with other associations. Kids in the Eastview situation can change associations and never change residency or the arenas they play at. They only change their jersey and probably play with kids from their own school regardless of which association they play for.

The reason for bringing this up is that the rules trying to regulate movement of kids can become unevenly applied because Minnesota Hockey can not prevent kids who live in these areas from moving around without changing address. And if they seek to in effect “fine kids” through a registration fee or something, it puts Minnesota Hockey in a difficult position and appearing to be the “bad guys” plus it makes the association a villain to parents and kids and discourages their participation in hockey. All this goes against what Minnesota Hockey promotes.

If as Elliot70 says is true that 1) Minnesota Hockey has great latitude and authority to make decisions and 2) who owns the sheet of ice is not part of the equation, then I suggest that Minnesota Hockey should by vary careful on what implied authorities that are given to associations. The associations can become very political when it comes to player movement and there have been a number of cases where local associations have already stretched their interpretation of Minnesota Hockey rules.

The people at the District level has been an effective counter balance to an association’s pushing it’s interpretation of the rules. The emphasis in developing or looking at any state level ruling should start with this in mind. Minnesota Hockey may already be starting there.

Further, in developing the rules, they should keep in mind what is best to grow participation in the sport and reflect the needs of the current economic and hockey interest in the state (adding rules to support co-op teams among associations, looking for ways to increase opportunities for teams to play against similar competition, etc). What Minnesota Hockey does not need to do is to try and set rules that attempt to regulate movement in the belief that it can control competitive level of play among associations through restriction of player movement. It will never work because it attempts to regulate unique situations that parents and kids can circumvent legally or in other ways. Such rules will be a negative on the growth in participation.

Finally, Minnesota Hockey should recognize that associations are highly political from year to year as parent participation at the association board level constantly changes as their kids grow. The focus of Minnesota Hockey in setting rules affecting associations should be designed to encourage the association to become stronger and more stable and discourage practices that eventually weaken the association (some parent/board members just don’t care about the long haul, but only about their kids for the next two years)

[InigoMontoya]

Every resident of a community, regardless of association boundary, is entitled to fair access to the community resources that his taxes pay to build and maintain.

With all due respect to your limitless knowledge of MN peewee hockey, some of your rationale behind your responses in regard to this issue are quite simply a load of bunk. I pay property taxes in my community which pays for the school district: I am not entitled to play on the high school basketball team; I am not entitled to shoot baskets in the gym. I pay taxes in our county and municipality: I am not entitled to use the swimming pool. The extent of my entitlement resides in my ability to vote for those in city, county, state office that make decisions and hires & fires the workers that administer these facilities.

[observer]

That's interesting but I have to believe that both the Eastview and Apple Valley Youth Associations have a map with an agreed upon border between their two youth associations based on residence. What they'll end up doing in Woodbury, Cottage Grove and Eagle Ridge is being worked on now I presume. Everyone, please disconnect Youth Hockey discussions from ISD or High School discussions. They are not really related. Nor should they be.

Stillwater is an interesting example. They have a Youth Hockey Association that has been known to discriminate against youth players who attend, or plan to attend, a school outside their community. It must stop. The youth players families live in the Stillwater community and pay taxes just like any other family that lives in the community. The taxes were used to build the St. Croix Rec Center which is used by the Stillwater Youth Association. How a 501c3 organization, like Stillwater Youth Hockey, can discriminate against another member of the community, with an equal financial interest in building the Community Rec Center, is not right. Interestingly I went to the Stillwater site to review their bylaws as a 501c3 organization. What I found was a surprise and should probably either be rewritten or Stillwater Youth Hockey should lose their 501c3 designation. The bylaws constantly name school district 834 and the relationship with SD 834.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.ngin.com ... _FINAL.pdf

That's wrong and discriminates, which violates a basic tenet of being designated 501c3. A youth association needs to provide equal opportunities to all tax paying members of the community with no regard to where they attend, or will attend, school. Please Stillwater, rewrite your bylaws so as not to discriminate against members of your own community and violate a basic principle of being a non-profit.

Kids play youth hockey for the community based youth hockey association where they live. Youth Hockey Associations need to provide a good product to all members of the community through youth hockey years. Then comes high school hockey. Focus on developing good players and be proud when they go off and have successful high school hockey careers wherever they decide to attend. Now that's the model of a successful program.

[InigoMontoya]

MH gets to have it both ways: on one hand they rule with an iron fist, deciding who plays where, how many games a team can play and against whom, what the rules of the game are on the ice, etc. Yet when an association decides to shake down its members, MH can throw up its hands and claim it's powerless to do anything about it.

They have it both ways with many "rules" including, but not limited to, number of games, whether an A team can play a B team, against whom you can or cannot play, requirements for coaching on the bench, etc. Most everyone will concede that some association are run by individuals who are less than altruistic. The districts are run by folks who used to run the associations...

[frederick61]

InigoMontoya, the property taxes you pay are split between city and county only. The school's are funded out of state taxes on a per student basis. The only school taxes paid by you should be specifically for improvements to the schools facilities under any passed school referendum.

In paying those taxes, you have equal access that any other community member has to the city and its facilities. The city can not directly or indirectly allow another community member access and restrict your access. Access does not guarantee success, that is the competitive process. In youth hockey, no kids are turned away. They play based on where they are competitively placed.

Minnesota Hockey's principle value is in establishing rules so that youth hockey teams can compete with each other and more importantly the kids on the youth hockey teams have the opportunity develop because they are playing against similar competition. They have done a great job in doing that. Now Minnesota Hockey is trying to figure out what should they do this coming year, what is the good and what should be changed. That's great.

[playwithyourgrade]

" In youth hockey, no kids are turned away."

MN Hockey is turning away kids in youth hockey. MN Hockey it is time to make improvements, and go with your demographics. Make hockey better, keep more kids.

[InigoMontoya]

The city can not directly or indirectly allow another community member access and restrict your access.

I'm sure if the kid scraped together his lawnmowing money he could rent as many hours of ice as he would like. However, I still don't see the connection between that and requiring MNH, the districts, or the associations to conform to tax boundaries. That is just simply not a law. If The State of Hockey law is passed, and in a surplus budget year that state decided to build 20 low cost arenas around the state; would any kid from around the state be allowed to walk up to the association in one of those communities and demand to play there?

I'm also not aware of the laws surrounding non-profits and the legal basis behind their requirement to accept individuals as members; aren't there countless examples of organizations that limit their membership at their discretion? That verbage may exist in the affilliate agreements, but is it part of the IRC?

[DMom]

The city can not directly or indirectly allow another community member access and restrict your access.

I'm sure if the kid scraped together his lawnmowing money he could rent as many hours of ice as he would like. However, I still don't see the connection between that and requiring MNH, the districts, or the associations to conform to tax boundaries. That is just simply not a law. If The State of Hockey law is passed, and in a surplus budget year that state decided to build 20 low cost arenas around the state; would any kid from around the state be allowed to walk up to the association in one of those communities and demand to play there?

I'm also not aware of the laws surrounding non-profits and the legal basis behind their requirement to accept individuals as members; aren't there countless examples of organizations that limit their membership at their discretion? That verbage may exist in the affilliate agreements, but is it part of the IRC?

The courts already established that this isn't so, in the winter there are not enough hours to go around in the metro area and the lack of available prime time ice time is exactly what prompted the Apple Valley lawsuit, and will prompt more in the future.

If you think some associations are not happy places to be now, just wait till little johnny doen't make the A team because a kid from two cities over was given the slot. Maybe his Uncle is the A coach, maybe not.

I know of a family who needs a place to play next year. Their son open-enrolled with two weeks left in the school year. For academic reasons? I don't think that those two weeks helped him academically. Tell me, how does he receive a report card for two weeks of work? Did they think that those two weeks would fulfill the one year requirement that MH was kicking around?

Regardless of who is mandating what, MH can't change the local association wording that says a 'waivered in' player may not tryout the first year in the association, I guess we'll know who comes in for academic reasons as they won't be complaining about that wording, they'll just be happy their child is receiving a superior educational opportunity.

[TriedThat2]

MH can (and should) change the local Association's wording. The local Association is bound by the Affiliate Agreement. Page 3 of that agreement says, "Affliate must provide an equal competitive opportunity.....to amateur athletes..."

The Affilitate is obligated, and must allow the skater to try out.

[dumb blonde]

If you think some associations are not happy places to be now, just wait till little johnny doen't make the A team because a kid from two cities over was given the slot. Maybe his Uncle is the A coach, maybe not.

Interesting and very true statement. Community hockey becomes something else when eligibility rules change. It's a slippery slope.

What I wonder is this - An association today can simply verify player eligibilty at registration by reviewing their boundaries and addresses and if something doesn't seem right then it can be cross checked using public tax records to see if the resident address being used is within the school district you are registering to play your youth hockey for. If its okay the player is registered and if it is not they either play where they live or ask for a waiver to where they want to play. I realize the waiver piece of this does not always end in what the family pursuing the waiver wants due to many factors.

The new membership rule opens the door to associations through open enrollment not residence. Now, how many associations have access to school records to determine eligibility? Unless you are a school district employee, this info is not public record. Sure you can go around to every 4th grader in your association to see if the kid is really going to your school or, one of the many in your district, but is that really how MN Hockey wants this done. How about the kids attending Private Schools? They can now play for the association that their PS city calls home. How do they verify attendance? I don't see any language regarding waivers in the new proposal but I haven't checked the wording lately.

IMO this proposal muddies the water further and probably opens the door for Private Schools to start up associations (Blake). Wasn't the idea behind this to fix the inconsistencies from District to District on allowing waivers? Some districts follow the rules and others are lenient. I hope that MN Hockey really does think about the ramifications that this change could bring.

[frederick61]

Each association exists because the community gives them access to the facilities that the city owns and maintains through taxes on the people. If an association tries to say to a Burnsville kid who lives in an area designated by the associations as Apple Valley (or Eagan or Lakeville) because they will go to these schools, they can be sued. The associations can try to rationalize with reciprocal agreements, but the fact remains that the Burnsville Parents are paying taxes to the city of Burnsville and the association is denying their kids the opportunity to play there.

Eastview is not a city. Eastview is a high school. The parents who kids go to Eastview pay taxes to the city of Apple Valley. The Apple Valley and Eastview High Schools are on the same street (but about 4 miles apart) and in the same school district (ISD 196). ISD 196 owns one sheet of ice (attached to the Apple Valley High School) and the city of Apple Valley owns one sheet of ice near the Apple Valley High School. Both Eastview and Apple Valley associations are given access to both sheets of ice. The elementary and middle schools are not clearly divided with Eastview kids going to an Eastview elementary school or Apple Valley kids going to a Apple Valley elementary school. Hence ISD 196 recognizes that and is tolerant in allowing kids choice.

In the Eastview example, the school is not the issue. The associations had a hard time resolving how to coexist. Any rules by Minnesota Hockey that impact this situation (because the rules work elsewhere in the state) upsets the status quo and will force some law suit somewhere. It would hurt both programs. Apple Valley and Eastview rely on other means to attract kids to the sport and it has resulted in one of the best rivalries in the state.

[DMom]

MH can (and should) change the local Association's wording. The local Association is bound by the Affiliate Agreement. Page 3 of that agreement says, "Affliate must provide an equal competitive opportunity.....to amateur athletes..."

The Affilitate is obligated, and must allow the skater to try out.

I don't believe that's true. The rule is not discriminatory, it is for all skaters who do not reside within the affiliate agreement area. The rule is readily accessible to be read by individuals hoping to waiver into an association. The child who is a resident, who does not make the team within their affiliate of residence would be discriminated against by the association deciding to forego rules that were duly voted on and put in place and are the standard operating agreement of the association.

[TriedThat2]

Mom,
I think if it was challenged the local Affiliate would be forced to comply as MH is granted preeminence with rules and governing.

I'm not disagreeing with you, and your comments about the resident being bumped are very true, however, I'm quite sure, if challenged, the local Affiliate would have to drop their language to comply with the governing, and sanctioning body.

[jollyroger]

Each association exists because the community gives them access to the facilities that the city owns and maintains through taxes on the people. ......
ISD 196 owns one sheet of ice (attached to the Apple Valley High School) and the city of Apple Valley owns one sheet of ice near the Apple Valley High School. Both Eastview and Apple Valley associations are given access to both sheets of ice.

I believe the ice arena situation isn't a big part of the issue. HS teams, as well as associations, have to rent ice time from arenas the same way as anybody else. If they get sweet deals from certain arenas that's great, but they're customers of the arenas. The WBL youth association has no more 'right' to skate in WB County Arena than anybody else. Or, for that matter, at the WB Sports Center.

[DMom]

Mom,
I think if it was challenged the local Affiliate would be forced to comply as MH is granted preeminence with rules and governing.

I'm not disagreeing with you, and your comments about the resident being bumped are very true, however, I'm quite sure, if challenged, the local Affiliate would have to drop their language to comply with the governing, and sanctioning body.

well, the language is about being granted a waiver, not about a gaurantee to tryout at the highest level. I actually don't have a problem with competition for spots on competitive teams, do the work or you won't make it. My past experience has been that people who work the rules hard, often make difficult teammates (read that difficult parents to get along with in the stands, because they are taking it far too seriously) and it ruins the team chemistry for all of the kids for the sake of one family who thinks the grass is greener, when, in fact, it is just grass and it needs fertilized no matter what association your kids play in. I live in a rainbow colored world where I want all of the kids to have a good experience

[frederick61]

Each association exists because the community gives them access to the facilities that the city owns and maintains through taxes on the people. ......
ISD 196 owns one sheet of ice (attached to the Apple Valley High School) and the city of Apple Valley owns one sheet of ice near the Apple Valley High School. Both Eastview and Apple Valley associations are given access to both sheets of ice.

I believe the ice arena situation isn't a big part of the issue. HS teams, as well as associations, have to rent ice time from arenas the same way as anybody else. If they get sweet deals from certain arenas that's great, but they're customers of the arenas. The WBL youth association has no more 'right' to skate in WB County Arena than anybody else. Or, for that matter, at the WB Sports Center.

A city runs the arena and in theory they can sell ice to everybody, but if they give priority use to their association, they can't deny equal access to all citizens of the city.

Ice arenas are a big part of the issue in the cities. The cost of ownership is high even with the advent of summer hockey. Some cities are looking at closing down ice arenas to control cost (Burnsville was one city considering that). Without access to local arenas, the association suffers.

By the way, perhaps the White Bear County Arena is funded and maintained by the county it resides in. If so, then all associations in the same county should have access. That raises another interesting, complex, situation when Minnesota Hockey considers its rules.

[InigoMontoya]

Where in the world are you getting this? The ice is controlled by the person that sells the ice / administers ice time for the arena - in your example, likely an employee of the city. He gets a raise, a bonus, a promotion, or just plain gets to keep his job based on the ice usage/revenue generated. There are no laws that state that he is required to reserve X% of hours for taxpayers. If a guy from 3 counties over is willing to pay for a ton of hours, the scheduler will gladly sell it to him - without asking to see to which address he sent his tax money. The whole taxpayer perspective is distracting those who find this to be an important issue.

[DMom]

Where in the world are you getting this? The ice is controlled by the person that sells the ice / administers ice time for the arena - in your example, likely an employee of the city. He gets a raise, a bonus, a promotion, or just plain gets to keep his job based on the ice usage/revenue generated. There are no laws that state that he is required to reserve X% of hours for taxpayers. If a guy from 3 counties over is willing to pay for a ton of hours, the scheduler will gladly sell it to him - without asking to see to which address he sent his tax money. The whole taxpayer perspective is distracting those who find this to be an important issue.

That is not true. It has to do with the financing of building, running or repairing an ice arena. Whoever gaurantees the loans, whether it be government backed bonds or a private bank they are going to get in writing exactly who the ice is going to be sold to. Those entities are number 1, 2, 3, and 4, until the management gets to a point that satisfies the banks or government backers. There is a limited amount of unclaimed ice and most of that was originally claimed and is being sold back with the permission (because they don't want it) of one of the original 1,2,3 and 4 tenants. Now, if you are talking about one of the few ice arenas that is self-sustaining and doesn't need to borrow outside cash at anytime, than yes, I guess they could sell to anyone they want, but if they are one of the many, many arenas that have needed a financial shot in the arm from time to time, than they have contracts that state exactly who they will sell ice to and even, what times of the day those hours will be and who gets first shot at open ice hours.

And there was a settlement in the Burnsville/Apple Valley deal, you could search on this forum and read the details.

[InigoMontoya]

I did not know that. And the government entity backing the funding of the arena, in exchange for ice priority, requires them to sign a membership agreement?

Is Braemar old enough that it's paid for, so Edina is exempt? Does Eden Prairie play on ice funded by the school district, so they're exempt? I assume that Prior Lake/Savage plays on ice funded by all the nickels I've lost, so they're exempt - can they turn away Prior Lake kids if they like?

[frederick61]

It is just not the initial acquisition costs, it is the cost of maintaining the arenas year round. The city funds that cost and covers any short fall. Burnsville would not consider closing the arena if it didn’t save the city money.

The point has been all along that the city or town is the owner and maintainer of most ice arenas. The association gets to control its allocated hours but pays only for the hours allocated at an agreed rate. Its allocated hours are usually the prime hours that everybody wants. It does not have to pay maintenance costs or other associated costs. The association sets up a youth program and cannot exclude residents of the city from participating since the city owns and uses their taxes to keep the arena running.

Edina is an older suburb and has only the one high school not far from Braemar. Braemar arena has had two sheets added since first built years ago and I suspect is owned and managed the same way Burnsville Arena is. There is less conflict in Edina because the association, community and high school are fairly geographically aligned.

Eden Prairie Ice Arena is built on school ground, but I don’t know who “owns” it, the ISD or the City or both. But ISD 196 has four high schools. Since one of the Apple Valley sheets is owned by ISD 196, it is controlled by 196. Eagan (also ISD 196) arena is built on city property and controlled by the City of Eagan. Rosemount (also ISD 196) arena built on property near the high school but I think is owned by the City of Rosemount.

This results in another oddity because on the East side of Eagan is Inver Grove Heights and Eagan kids are in Inver Grove Heights ISD. This creates the same same situation that Apple Valley/Burnsville, Lakeville/Burnsville, Eastview/Burnsville, Eagan/Burnsville have. Eagan does gain access to Inver Grove Heights ice as a result, but Eagan kids who are in the IGH school district can play Eagan hockey.

I am glad Prior Lake/Savage was brought up. There are Burnsville kids who will go to Prior Lake who play in the Burnsville program. And the Prior Lake arena is built on Indian Reservation Ground and I think directly supported by the Indians. If so, the cities of Prior Lake and Savage have no ice arena.

If White Bear Lake arena is a Washington County arena owned and operated by Washington County, then there is yet another level of complexity. And that is what will drive Minnesota Hockey crazy if they are not careful. Trying to write a general set of rules on how kids 5 years and up access hockey programs based on where they live and where they should play is fraught with legal issues.

[council member retired]

elliott

example : i have a grandson whom lives with both parents in eagan city limits. He will be a 2nd year peewee. His school ( public) is in Burnsville school district. He will eventually be a student at Burnsville high school. As written right now, can he play youth hockey for Eagan this season without a waiver?

[My_Kid_Loves_Hockey]

Where in the world are you getting this? The ice is controlled by the person that sells the ice / administers ice time for the arena - in your example, likely an employee of the city. He gets a raise, a bonus, a promotion, or just plain gets to keep his job based on the ice usage/revenue generated. There are no laws that state that he is required to reserve X% of hours for taxpayers. If a guy from 3 counties over is willing to pay for a ton of hours, the scheduler will gladly sell it to him - without asking to see to which address he sent his tax money. The whole taxpayer perspective is distracting those who find this to be an important issue.

Not sure how the "agreements" are written but our association ice scheduler tries to buy ice from at least 2 neighboring arenas and always has to wait for the local association to tell the arena what ice they don't want.

[Mac15]

The D8 board has addressed this change (residency vs membership) at two different meetings this spring. In both cases the vote was unanimously opposed to using school attendance vs residency to establish which association a player belongs to. Every association rep and all officers feel that the current residency rule and the waiver process works. Bottom line, the D8 Director will vote against the change.

I don't believe that the Director has ever denied a waiver that was signed by the presidents of the outgoing and incoming associations.

During our local associations registration process we can verify that a person's address falls within the boundaries of our affiliate agreement. The local schools will not verify if a prospective player attends their school so this is not a good method. Last year we had some players waive in from the nearby association and we had some players waive out to their association. Every request to waive out was granted and all waiver request that came from the nearby association was signed by our president. The current system works as intended.