St. Cloud Youth Hockey Split

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Blue&Gold

Post by Blue&Gold » Fri May 09, 2008 8:55 am

wickedshot wrote:Blue and Gold:

I got two calls today from people who I haven't talked to more than a year. Both said they don't go to meetings now because they don't feel their voice is being heard by the current board. Interestingly, one of the callers didn't like the leader of the group I served under; so I don't quite know how to interpret that. Maybe some people are never happy.

I think if you have an organization that goes out of it's way to find people who don't necessarily agree with the majority of the committee, board etc. you have a chance at really getting something done. Hopefully, that is the case here. Every organization needs dissent; if everyone happily marches in lockstop......everyone will soon march right over the cliff.
You are correct. I don't know the current board as I lost my desire to be involved a few years before it came about mainly based on your last paragraph. I was just stating why you don't see people there anymore, and if it's still status-quo, then shame on them.

You and I talked about the need to be a volunteer organization again. We used to have a lot of people doing jobs, not just a few doing it all. I hope that can return.

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Fri May 09, 2008 9:28 am

I can tell you that while I served on the executive board for two years, there was internal dissent and the former president was over-ruled on a number of issues. One involved the 06/07 season and selection of teams at a certainl level. The two coaches pre-selected their teams (instead of having a draft where one picks then the other and this is supervised by the age level coordinator and adminstrative director). The coaches apparently got together and picked ahead of time.

The then-president objected to that and insisted we follow the procedure in place. The current president and I and another EB member disagreed and over-ruled. We won out -- never mind that we were wrong based on how one team did vs. the other. My point: Internal dissent did go on.

I also want to clarify a couple of things for readers on this board who have referred to the past board has a Tech board. While I was on the EB, we had two people who were parents of Tech kids -- me included, one Apollo and one CHS. The general board went 11 Tech parents, 10 Apollo parents and 10 CHS parents. Of those positions, CHS had 8 votes, Tech parents had 7 votes and Apollo parents had 5 votes. Furthermore, the then president only voted if there needed to be a tie break. Anyone reading this can check the old newsletters and minutes to verify my fact patterns are correct.

The only thing the president appears to have unchecked power over is in signing contracts with outside vendors. If unchecked power were the issue, I would guess the by-laws would have been re-written to prevent that in the future. To date, I don't think they have been.

huskyhockey17
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:21 am

Post by huskyhockey17 » Fri May 09, 2008 11:45 am

Wickedshot, it has been a couple days now since the SCYHA meeting in which you said you would let the board know within a day or two if you would ask Mr. Elliot to take the request for a second association off the MN Hockey agenda. What have you decided to do?

George Blanda
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: St. Schmo

Post by George Blanda » Fri May 09, 2008 11:56 am

huskyhockey17 wrote:Wickedshot, it has been a couple days now since the SCYHA meeting in which you said you would let the board know within a day or two if you would ask Mr. Elliot to take the request for a second association off the MN Hockey agenda. What have you decided to do?
The website is still up leading me to believe they are still shooting for a new association...
"they are LAME" -darkdemon on SJU hockey

elliott70
Posts: 13092
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri May 09, 2008 2:40 pm

The motion stays on the agenda.

If at the June meeting, I feel the idea has no merit, I will speak against it.
If I feel it has merit, I will speak for it.

I am not the only board member that has time invested in this thing and I will not withdraw the motion.
I will let the board decide once we have heard responses from people on both sides of the issue.

Either way, for 08-09 season, the issue will be decided at the June meeting.

Blue&Gold

Post by Blue&Gold » Fri May 09, 2008 3:42 pm

elliott70 wrote:The motion stays on the agenda.

If at the June meeting, I feel the idea has no merit, I will speak against it.
If I feel it has merit, I will speak for it.

I am not the only board member that has time invested in this thing and I will not withdraw the motion.
I will let the board decide once we have heard responses from people on both sides of the issue.

Either way, for 08-09 season, the issue will be decided at the June meeting.
So it's in your hands even if both parties in St. Cloud decide not to pursue it? Hmmm Perhaps I've misread this, but I find that just a bit disturbing, but I could be out in left field, happens a lot these days..

Blue&Gold

Post by Blue&Gold » Fri May 09, 2008 3:45 pm

George Blanda wrote:
huskyhockey17 wrote:Wickedshot, it has been a couple days now since the SCYHA meeting in which you said you would let the board know within a day or two if you would ask Mr. Elliot to take the request for a second association off the MN Hockey agenda. What have you decided to do?
The website is still up leading me to believe they are still shooting for a new association...
George, have you been reading anything between the lines? I'm not sure what I'm reading/hearing any more. :shock: I hope they can get this all figured out for the good of St. Cloud Youth Hockey... ALL OF THEM!!

elliott70
Posts: 13092
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Bemidji

Post by elliott70 » Fri May 09, 2008 4:29 pm

Blue&Gold wrote:
elliott70 wrote:The motion stays on the agenda.

If at the June meeting, I feel the idea has no merit, I will speak against it.
If I feel it has merit, I will speak for it.

I am not the only board member that has time invested in this thing and I will not withdraw the motion.
I will let the board decide once we have heard responses from people on both sides of the issue.

Either way, for 08-09 season, the issue will be decided at the June meeting.
So it's in your hands even if both parties in St. Cloud decide not to pursue it? Hmmm Perhaps I've misread this, but I find that just a bit disturbing, but I could be out in left field, happens a lot these days..
You have to remember, we did not go out and get it.
It came to us.

But beyond that, if both parties come and say, we are working things out, and feel we have it under control for the best interests of all; where would the merit fall?
It would become obvious to me how to vote or precede on the issue.

Now that is not to say that some other source or information may alter that opinion, what that would be I do not know.
(Holding Kennedy's kid for ransom or vice versa or something not as violent, but still underhanded may cause one to go against the grain of what was brought by both parties - again, I do not know what that would be.)

George Blanda
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: St. Schmo

Post by George Blanda » Fri May 09, 2008 6:58 pm

Blue&Gold wrote:
George Blanda wrote:
huskyhockey17 wrote:Wickedshot, it has been a couple days now since the SCYHA meeting in which you said you would let the board know within a day or two if you would ask Mr. Elliot to take the request for a second association off the MN Hockey agenda. What have you decided to do?
The website is still up leading me to believe they are still shooting for a new association...
George, have you been reading anything between the lines? I'm not sure what I'm reading/hearing any more. :shock: I hope they can get this all figured out for the good of St. Cloud Youth Hockey... ALL OF THEM!!
I don't know what to believe anymore. They say that they are willing to work with SCYHA to come to a resolution...but they still have their website up and haven't thrown away their proposal. It's hard to believe anything either way considering the behind closed doors approach they went about in starting this club.
"they are LAME" -darkdemon on SJU hockey

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Fri May 09, 2008 7:33 pm

I'm not sure what to believe anymore, either. I was invited to SCYHA board meeting Wednesday in the spirit of cooperation and trying to work together. Instead, I got drilled like a piece of pine in 8th grade woodshop class.

I volunteered to be on the association's recruitment committee and find several volunteers for the committee from the girls perspective. I then e mailed President Kissner the next day requesting to be on the hockey committee or have me and someone else from our group on the hockey committee. I got an e mail today turning me down on that request.

They told me Wednesday night they couldn't approve my idea for a new committee to study all split options and possiblities because that falls to the hockey committee -- then we get turned down to be part of that. Anyone who wants to see the short, terse e mail President Kissner sent me, let me know. I'll forward it to you. So much for cooperation.

It was clear they do not want any option for split teams to be discussed under any form.

council member retired
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:12 pm
Location: Nordeast Mpls

presidents letter

Post by council member retired » Fri May 09, 2008 10:09 pm

wicked shot : you could copy and paste the e-mail here.. thatta boy

St Cloud members, please take advantage of the summer meeting being in your fine city... Show up in droves, and let DeMeo know what you think of his single site state trny...

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Fri May 09, 2008 10:27 pm

Here's the response I got from SCYHA to have someone on the recruitment committee.

Mike,
We are looking for people to serve on the Recruitment committee who can address the girls program - not people for recruitment AND girls committee. The girls committee has been formed and is half way through their process right now. We are looking for someone to be on the RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, not the hockey committee. This was specifically stated at our meeting on Wednesday and you agreed to it. Recruitment is our priority and where we would like the involvement. As I stated on Wednesday night, please provide one or two names that will take part in our Recruitment Committee. If possible, we would like to know by next week Tuesday.
Thank you,
Laurie Kissner
President
SCYHA

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Fri May 09, 2008 10:28 pm

That should have read Hockey Committee at the top. I did agree to be on recruitment but we also would like representation on the hockey committee, which supposedly will look at any future split. By the way, there are two people on the recruitment committee -- three if you count me. I'm waiting for some of the other vocal members who grilled me to step up.

BlueGoose5
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:06 pm

Post by BlueGoose5 » Sat May 10, 2008 11:29 am

I don't mind grilling you, Wicked.

Let's start by turning the tables with a hypothetical. Let's say you have your Tech association up and running and out of nowhere 3 disgruntled members and one non-member (who claims to call all the shots for this group) come forward to steal 70% of your association from you, even though they can't find anyone else in the community to support their effort.

This group begins to work against you, sends out letters to your association members (using your association's mailing list), sets up a web site, and holds a community-wide meeting where pretty much everyone who shows up grills their self-proclaimed president, yet they keep moving forward.

Now, this group holds a trump card. Behind the scenes a former leader and perhaps a former board member of your association are working against you at the District level, politicking and lobbying for the change. The District, which by the way should be backing you as an affiliate member, instead has a few members who hear only one side of the story and now feel that this renegade group should be given an ongoing forum to bring forth this change.

And it gets better. This group even has the support of a pontificating, motor-mouth state board member who even lambasts his own colleagues at the state hockey association.

This is the team working against you. It's also the extent of your opposition, for there is no, and I mean absolutely no support for their effort within the local community, yet they continue to move forward.

Now, forward-wind. The predatory group's leader gets himself on your board's meeting agenda in an effort to form a committee to work on following through with the split of your association. It'd be pretty safe to assume that your association does not roll out the red welcoming carpet for this guy. You can also assume that this guy's actions have really offended many members of your association and local community, who volunteer their time for the kids rather than for ulterior motives. On top of that, two District board members attend and voice an opposition to the split based on numbers.

So, Wicked, this begets the question: How would your Tech association respond? And, what would Wicked do?

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Sat May 10, 2008 12:43 pm

I'd expect nothing less than what SCYHA has done so far, leading right up to the Minnesota Hockey meeting. In other words, I would expect them to fight against another association and do everything they have done. I'd do the same.

Each group made their short presentation to the MN Hockey Board and the board voted to table it, pending some kind of cooperation. That's the operative word here -- cooperation.

I came to that board meeting to ask that ALL options be looked at by a committee or the hockey committee with no specific option prevailing. Just consideration of ideas with people on the committee who have differing views.

Judging by your assessment of dissent on the MN Hockey Board, no one should disagree or be a voice of opposition. Apparently, in your view of the world, there is no room for disagreement and dissent. Everyone better cow-tow to the way the leader wants it. And if everyone doesn't agree with your beliefs, you resort to slamming people personally like the MN Hockey Board member. Nice.

In addition, where's the vast majority who are against considering the alternatives. They didn't show up at your town hall meeting and only 25 showed up at ours. And only 30 or so people showed up at the board meeting the other night, about six of whom were among the 25 that showed up at our meeting. Where is the groundswell of opposition? Why wasn't that room full of people, knowing I would be sitting there?

Several of the posters on this board who disagreed with two assocations agree with splitting teams at the pee wee and bantam levels, but that can't even be considered. Apparently that idea is so threatening to some it doesn't merit consideration.

frederick61
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm

Post by frederick61 » Sat May 10, 2008 12:43 pm

From “Wicked”, “Here's the response I got from SCYHA board to have someone on the hockey committee." Wicked in this thread represents the interest of re-structuring St. Cloud hockey and is trying to develop an answer to go back to Minnesota Hockey in June.

Answer from the SCYHA Board:
We are looking for someone to be on the RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, not the hockey committee.

This is a fine example of what a hockey board is capable of doing, making a unilateral decision to stock a committee to get a quick answer that fits their view. Each of the board members should consider resigning because by giving this answer, it is apparent they have no interest in furthering St. Cloud youth hockey. They do not want to spend the time to address the issue as an opportunity to form a vision for the future of the kids, but they would rather be fishing. So go fishing and let someone with a passion and an interest take your place on the board.

wickedshot
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Post by wickedshot » Sat May 10, 2008 12:52 pm

Oh by the way, Goose, you are quite the mindreader, being able to calculate everyone's motivations. Everyone else's are suspect, but yours and the leaders of SCYHA are only pure.

You live in a world of absolutes -- oh if only everything in life were that clear -- black and white, good and bad, right and wrong. Got to hand it to you. You can see what no one else can. Your special.

Gold and Blue Too
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 2:13 pm

St. Cloud Youth Hockey Split

Post by Gold and Blue Too » Sat May 10, 2008 2:44 pm

To: BlueGoose5

Do you feel the current Board has no one at the District level politicking for ourselves? I think that we have two Representatives down at each meeting each month. Leave the District 10 Board Members out of this, they are volunteering their time for the better of hockey and the kids involved (whether you see it that way or not). QUIT the assuming...Remember Assume means "you make an ASS out of U and ME" when you dont know the FACTS.

Blue&Gold

Re: St. Cloud Youth Hockey Split

Post by Blue&Gold » Sun May 11, 2008 8:07 pm

Gold and Blue Too wrote:To: BlueGoose5

Do you feel the current Board has no one at the District level politicking for ourselves? I think that we have two Representatives down at each meeting each month. Leave the District 10 Board Members out of this, they are volunteering their time for the better of hockey and the kids involved (whether you see it that way or not). QUIT the assuming...Remember Assume means "you make an ASS out of U and ME" when you dont know the FACTS.
Leave D10 out of it because they're volunteers? Almost EVERYBODY volunteers their time to hockey.. There is a mess brewing in St. Cloud youth hockey, and D10 could help or hinder the process.. but it's beyond them now anyway.

Oh, and the responses that were against the split came from the survey. Remeber the survey? It's hard to get people to attend the meetings per one or two of my previous posts.

I'm afraid that the cuts are going to be too deep to heal fairly quickly here. We want to recruit more players, yet I predict that the numbers OVERALL will drop in the next few years and that will be attributable to this whole mess. But I really hope I'm wrong..

frederick61
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:54 pm

Re: St. Cloud Youth Hockey Split

Post by frederick61 » Mon May 12, 2008 8:43 am

Blue&Gold wrote:
Gold and Blue Too wrote:To: BlueGoose5

Do you feel the current Board has no one at the District level politicking for ourselves? I think that we have two Representatives down at each meeting each month. Leave the District 10 Board Members out of this, they are volunteering their time for the better of hockey and the kids involved (whether you see it that way or not). QUIT the assuming...Remember Assume means "you make an ASS out of U and ME" when you dont know the FACTS.
Leave D10 out of it because they're volunteers? Almost EVERYBODY volunteers their time to hockey.. There is a mess brewing in St. Cloud youth hockey, and D10 could help or hinder the process.. but it's beyond them now anyway.

Oh, and the responses that were against the split came from the survey. Remeber the survey? It's hard to get people to attend the meetings per one or two of my previous posts.

I'm afraid that the cuts are going to be too deep to heal fairly quickly here. We want to recruit more players, yet I predict that the numbers OVERALL will drop in the next few years and that will be attributable to this whole mess. But I really hope I'm wrong..
The SCYHA board reminds me of a pilot flying an airplane that crashes into a mountain and then blames the passengers. If you volunteer to fly the plane, fly the plane. Else don’t volunteer and let someone else into the cockpit. As with any inept organization or company, they are the results of their own indecisions.

BlueGoose5
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:06 pm

Post by BlueGoose5 » Mon May 12, 2008 9:17 am

Actually, the current SCYHA board has done a fantastic job this year. It was a very serene year with many new people stepping up to volunteer in different capacities, which has been great to see. It's usually very healthy for any organization to have a rotation of leadership as it brings in new ideas and prevents any one person or group from assuming too much power or control. Most organizations or boards incorporate term limits of some nature into their leadership structure, which helps build trust in the organization as a whole.

Trust, by the way Wicked, is something that you have not yet earned. The reasons for that have been well chronicled here. Right now, your words and actions aren't trusted at all.

Also Wicked, be careful with some of your tempermental responses--it's not a good leadership trait, even for a self-elected leader of four.

Freddy, I'll agree with you and leave D10 out of this issue as I know that some have strong feelings about protecting an affiliate member. However, let's just say that there's reason to believe that one or two members may not have SCYHA in their best interests and leave it at that. If you have more specific info on where the D10 board stands on this issue, it'd be interesting to hear.

zippitydoda
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:34 pm

Post by zippitydoda » Mon May 12, 2008 11:43 am

Some dandy advice in the above post.....As they say, don't get down in the mud with a pig. All that will happen is that youll both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it. Sorry, i grew up on a farm and it seems to fit.

western
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 7:16 am

Post by western » Mon May 12, 2008 11:51 am

Buy the way does any no why they extended the deadline on
the survey SCYHA did ?

ogelthorpe
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:54 pm

Post by ogelthorpe » Mon May 12, 2008 12:47 pm

western wrote:Buy the way does any no why they extended the deadline on
the survey SCYHA did ?
The agency did not include return envelopes in all surveys, so they had to post the return address on the SCYHA website so those members could return their surveys.

zippitydoda
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:34 pm

Post by zippitydoda » Mon May 12, 2008 1:31 pm

Wow -- how much did the association pay for the survey?

I heard the guy that does the admin work for the assocation makes something like $35k a year..........I can see paying someone to schedule the ice and maybe even pay something for the personw ho does the books but that seems like a lot. A friend tells me all three get paid in SCYHA.........so whats the total cost vs. the number of kids. It would be interesting.

Post Reply