MAHA Rule Changes

[elliott70]

There are some proposals that will be voted on at the June meeting.
Two topics of most interest probably will be:

1. region/state host requirements
2. residency/waiver rules

They and others can be found at the Minnesota Hockey web page.
www.minnesotahockey.org

[lxhockey]

Ackowlegement of Open Enrollment is really a Pandora's box. D6 has been allowing this and for those that use and abuse it, it adds A LOT of additional work for registrars. I'm not so sure that the youth developmental hockey programs need to follow the HS programs on this.

It opens the door even more for elitist teams, but maybe that is the answer to resolve the AAA contentions as well. It will hinder growth of all small associations adjacent to larger ones as the parents of the handful of A players in the smaller association will move them to the larger one in hopes to be on a more successful team. Then the districts will have to contend with the smaller associations opting out of having A teams so there will eventually be just the large associations competing at this level.

This also boils down to a numbers problem. If OE takes the numbers away from an association, it cannot grow. If OE allows more into an association than it is equipped to handle, the competition for slots on a team become too intense.

If a player really needs a waiver I believe the current processes in place can accomodate. I don't think increasing the volume of these 'exceptions' is going to be good for the majority, only those that learn to use and abuse the system.

People choose to live in a community for a number of reasons. The basic premise is the ice facilities cost burden in a community is shouldered by the tax payers in that community. Why would the tax payers of one community want to be made to share their facility with OE players whose parents have not paid any taxes towards the facility? I'm not sure MN
Hockey would want to be on the recieving end of that question if it came from a Municipal Park and Rec budgetary committee.

With OE there are educational funds that get transferred from the releasing ISD to the receiving ISD. Are parents that want to use or abuse this policy willing to pay 'back taxes' for the taxpayers cost share of the ice facility they want to waive to?

[Pucknutz69]

It is such a small number of kids that you are blowing the tax issue way out of line. The key to it is they have to have a year in the school already. There are not too many that have that going for them, the other thing is they have to be let go by there home association first. If the kid is any good they aren't likely going to do that.

It has to pass before we start worrying about taxes. The arenas debt is from down time not the kids ice bill. It is just like paying for the ball and soccer fields, my boys don't use those but we still pay for them don't we?

[RLStars]

Here is the District 5 OE/Waiver rule from their website

Dist 5 has voted to use the open enrollment at a school in place of the waiver. This only with in the district. If a yourh from Monticello is open enrolled in the Buffalo school system he or she can get a letter from the Buffalo School system showing he or she is going to school there. They can play for Buffalo and have that letter with the roster book instead of a waiver. This is only with in the District.

It doesn't matter if the "Monticello" association opposes it, it is automatic. Monticello has NO say in it.

[Pucknutz69]

Where can I find one of these Waiver Forms?

[lxhockey]

Pucknutz, you pay for the ball fields in YOUR community, not someone
else's community.

You can obtain a waiver form from either your local hockey association's
registrar or president.

Edina could get pretty crowded in the next few years ....

[Pucknutz69]

So take the Ramsey county rinks for instance. They only have a couple of assc. using the rinks that actually reside in Ramsey county. What you are saying is only teams in Ramsey county should be able to use them because they are the ones paying taxes on them?

You are throwing pebbles into the ocean and trying to make tidal waves. How many kids do you think OE at the jr high elementary level? Most private schools are still in the same district that they live in.

It still has to be approved by both presidents and the district rep or appealled to the regional rep.

[puckboy]

would kids that go to private schools out of your disctrict be allowed a waiver to play in the district where the private school is located. ??

[Pucknutz69]

That is a tough one because they aren't "Open Enrolling" they are chosing private education. Technically that that isn't open enrolling.

Lets see if it passes at the meeting before we get all warm and fuzzy about it.

[lxhockey]

I do appreciate the proposed new language does include that the player would need to attend the OE school for at least a year. Why not 3 or 5 years to see if they are really committed? When does this count start - at K (mites) or 4th grade (squirts)?

OE is just as much a choice as private education. The big difference is that private education players have less in common with the majority of players in the receiving association (because they don't go to school with them) than they have with the players from their neighborhoods in the releasing association.

Why use OE for the exception basis? Why not use the community where a parent works as a qualifying exception? Now there are more choices for those folks who don't want to live in the community that they want to benefit from.
The only equalizing common denominator is to play where you live.

If MN Hockey makes allowances for OE, there will be nothing the presidents will be able to do to deny waivers without creating a lot of grievance issues at the District and MN Hockey levels.

The 'small amount' of waivers processed by our association last year was around 50. That's a collective of about 4 teams worth of players. Again, this is no small task for the registrars in both receiving and releasing associations if you had to do the paperwork and process required.

As far as the tax burden comments and the question regarding the Ramsey County Rinks: first of all, the Ramsey County Rinks I believe (I could be wrong but you may as well do some homework too) were funded through grant money the Ramsey County Commissioners worked to obtain to build the facilities without adding an additional cost to the tax payers. A real free lunch - wish those opportunities were currently available to the growing associations needing more ice. Hope everyone appreciates gifts like that and the Commissioners that had the foresight and wisdom to procure and provide.
Another person commented that the arena debt is serviced by team ice fees. Not really. Arena debt service just like your house has an initial building cost to it that is (along with interest) depreciated and ammoratized over a number of years and does make a dent in the local taxpayers yearly bill just as a new school or city building would if it is a municipal or community facility.
Now on top of that yearly cost of debt service there is an annual operating cost. The annual operating cost plus whatever revenue is planned to be made if managed properly is used to determine the hourly ice fees. A lot of nuances exist in these repayment practices, but rest assured that the local community is on the hook for it, not any neighboring communities.

So why need waivers at all? Why not allow anyone to register wherever they want? Change the language in the MN Hockey Affiliate Agreement from specifying 'natural hockey community' and create Club Hockey as that is what is really being asked for. Then you'll have the ability to have AAA hockey and as many elite teams as people want to pay for. And while the change is on, why not allow registration on more than one team?
Then parents can really play the game and broker their next NHL star out to the team that offers them the most.

I will repeat, that the only fair and equalizing common denominator is to play where you live. Once the player hits High School all the options are now there for them. I don't think it is crucial that youth hockey needs to provide all those options.

[elliott70]

I believe in community based hockey.
I will vote no on this language and will ocntinue to vote note on OE unless D16 leaders tell me otherwise.

OE is great for youth hockey players that can do it, D16 this is not possible and puts us (and other rural areas) at a bigger disadvantage than we are already.

Waivers are available, if everyone agrees to them. And a Director can step in and 'fix' this if it really is the right thing. But if you start lwtting 9 & 10 year old kids jump wherever what do have - AAA. The enjoyment should be playing hockey, not putting trophies on dad's mantel.

The argument for is that kids should be able to play with their classmates.
Well even in our small town there are more than one class of kids in a school. Most nine year olds barely know the kid in the next classroom and probably do not know a kid in another elementary school. Besides, one of the arguments about AAA being so 'neat' is that kids get to meet kids from other places. So again, that argument does not hold water.

[SEMetro]

I don't have a clue on this -

What associations are really affected by this at the youth level in D6 (that is the only place I hear it is allowed)? Is it the South Minneapolis parents that truck their kids to Edina? I don't think too many suburbanites middle schoolers open enroll to another suburb's middle school, but I could be grossly mistaken. Is this really a big issue anywhere?

[lxhockey]

Looks like D5 also allows the Monticello kids to skate in the Buffalo program if they go to school there.

Anywhere you have a growing area adjacent to an already established one will have this problem, thus hindering the growth further of the new
program. In addition to that, there would be players from the new area enrolling in private schools (that exist in another association's demographic) that will want to skate in the more established one also.

Watch the EP HS Girls team next year and pay attention to the ones that OE from Bloomington. This is what these folks are trying to do at the youth level - to allow for the creation of elite teams.

[JLS 81]

The kids suffer because the "hockey dads" want to put trophies on the mantle. These clowns care nothing about development, team play, and kill the enjoyment of playing as a kid. They will stop at nothing to get their way.

[Johnsonpres]

In distict TC now again will be called district 1 waivers are signed letting kids go from say Johnson to Highland or Como and it is OK. I think with the numbers shrinking like they are in the inter-city this practice should be discontinued. I heard that all of the presidents from each association in the district were going to get together and make a decision but that has not happened as of yet. At Johnson our policy is that if a player does not want to be here let him or her go where the grass is greener. The reason these kids want to leave is that they can go to Highland where they already have 100 or more kids at the Pee Wee level and have a better chance at going to the regionals or state tournament. Last year a goalie left our program to go play "B" Pee Wee's at Como so he had a better chance at going to state. Como did not have an "A" Pee Wee team and there "B" team ended up ranked 8th in the state in "Let's play hockey".
So much for open enrollment.

[puckboy]

Johnspez: I understand if kids don't want to be there but giving a child a waiver for that reason is totally against Minnesota Hockey policy. I can't think of another district that would allow that. Why would your district pres sign off on those.

[Johnsonpres]

That is not the reason they give the district, They say there friends from school play at these other associations and that they want to play with there friends. In our district we also have playground teams that get to play in our "B" and "C" traveling levels. Because our kids in the city bus to different public schools it is allowed.

[puckboy]

that is still not a valid reason for a waiver-

[lxhockey]

Johnsonprez,
They don't have to give the district any reason. The releasing association president is the primary accountable gatekeeper. The receiving association president is the secondary accountable gatekeeper. The District Director is the confirmation of the transaction (already decided
if the two presidents agree) or the decision maker if one of the presidents
are not in agreement.
If the waiver goes across District boundaries, then both District Directors have to confirm and sign the waiver.

Sounds like the association presidents have fallen away from exercising
their role in what the nature of community hockey is. I know it's hard to be the bad guy and say no, but you can't pick and choose what rules you want to follow.

Let's pick a lane and have everybody driving the same way. Either
OE is acceptable or it's not. I have already stated several times why
the only equitable lane is play where you live. If you NEED a waiver for a valid reason they are obtainable, but let's not open the floodgates on
this issue.

btw, each association is SUPPOSED to have their waiver policy documented and available for their members along with other operating policies and bylaws. Once you have it in black and white, it's easier to
say NO.

[hockeymasta]

Johnson:"Last year a goalie left our program to go play "B" Pee Wee's at Como so he had a better chance at going to state. Como did not have an "A" Pee Wee team and there "B" team ended up ranked 8th in the state in "Let's play hockey".
So much for open enrollment".


2 years ago and you cut him down to c peewee then he came over to como to play b peewee.Como is where his brother already played

[Johnsonpres]

Simple solution: Play where you are suppose to and make things better in your home association instead of leaving and not addressing a situation. In doing this you will be showing your son or daughter that you face things instead of showing them to just go somewhere else when things don't go right. All I am saying here is open enrollment in my opinion is NOT the answer.

[pond 15]

**

[elliott70]

Someone is a bit bitter and not very knowledgable.

Apology given.

[pond 15]

**

[puckboy]

My only point is we need to make sure everyone follows the same rules for waivers. We cannot allow some associations to waive out kids unless they have VALID reasons. The idea of club hockey or association hockey is a much bigger issue and until that is changed we all must follow the same rules.