Who attended Fall meeting

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:18 pm

Did any one go tonight and what happened. Yes I did attend the June meeting but I am out of state and will not make any of the meetings this weekend.

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:43 pm

I attended the townhall this evening.

Kudos to the folks at MN Hockey. Pretty much a mea culpa regarding the participation rule and the issues it brought up - which were many.

District Directors in the room were very much in favor of what I have also been promoting - Register where you live...and request a waiver if you have the need to play with 'school buddies'.

The discernment committee was going to meet to discuss options for some of the immediate issues the rule caused for this year - specifically, what if a kid didn't play in an association last year (MN Made, played basketball, went skiing, whatever), goes to school outside of the geographic community, and now wants to come back to the game and their geographic community buddies....how can MN hockey resolve this dilemma based on the new rule? They were going to meet to attempt to solve this issue and do what's best for the kids.

Meeting was well run. Dennis Green, Bob Halverson, etc. admitted that the policy has caused a lot of hassle for everyone, and that they will make sure that for 10-11 a better policy or adjustment to this policy is made. While the policy may not be changed at this meeting....the District Directors in the room seemed pretty unanimous that this was the happy medium for virtually all of them.

I am pretty confident after walking out of the room, for 2010-11 it will be - register where you live (geographic school district boundaries)......request a waiver to where you attend school if you wish to leave your geographic buddies.

That's a rule that is simple and easy to understand for parents, registrars, and affiliate board members!

N. Pike · Post by **N. Pike** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:10 am

Although I did sense that a significant number of Board members were concerned about the rule and realized that some changes need to be made, there were a few who seemed to favor the current rule. One in particular expressed the view that he had fewer complaints this year than he had in prior years. This person didn't seem that concerned about the fact that some kids who didn't play in a MN hockey association last year wouldn't have a "one-time" choice this year. Another raised concerns about making changes to accommodate the needs of vocal parents could raise unintended issues for others. Another person observed that just because there were many complaints about the rule may not mean that the rule is not positive for a majority of participants (that people who were satisfied with the rule wouldn't necessarily contact MN hockey to express support for the rule). I don't know the politics of this group but I left the meeting still uncertain what will be done this year and for 2010-11.

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:30 am

N. Pike wrote:Although I did sense that a significant number of Board members were concerned about the rule and realized that some changes need to be made, there were a few who seemed to favor the current rule. One in particular expressed the view that he had fewer complaints this year than he had in prior years. This person didn't seem that concerned about the fact that some kids who didn't play in a MN hockey association last year wouldn't have a "one-time" choice this year. Another raised concerns about making changes to accommodate the needs of vocal parents could raise unintended issues for others. Another person observed that just because there were many complaints about the rule may not mean that the rule is not positive for a majority of participants (that people who were satisfied with the rule wouldn't necessarily contact MN hockey to express support for the rule). I don't know the politics of this group but I left the meeting still uncertain what will be done this year and for 2010-11.

I disagree N. Pike. Yes, these things were brought up...but everyone, including the MN Hockey Board members at the front of the room were in acknowledgement that this rule has caused a lot of chaos.

Worse, next year they all know that they will be forcing kids to register where they don't want to play.

The District Directors that are most effected by this rule - Districts 1 and 2 were vocal in their membership's dissatisfaction with the rule.

ALL of the District Directors when polled by Dennis Green agreed that they could live with the rule - Register where you live....waive out if you would like to your school if it is outside of your geographic boundaries. No District Director objected or said they couldn't work with this rule. It's clean and simple.

One District Director stated they had already dealt with 540 emails regarding this issue. Next year, when the current rule really kicks in, he can expect 1500 in my opinion.

The concern of some of the District Directors in the past as was brought up in the meeting is that affiliates had the right not to grant waivers to those wanting to waive to an association where they attend school. Irate parents showing up on their doorstep. They were the bad guy...caused a lot of hassle and stress. The simple rule outlined above eliminated this issue for District Directors. They are no longer the 'bad guys'.

It was pretty clear to me that MN Hockey was committed to listening to not only all of the District Directors - but the one's most impacted by the current rule. It will change based on what I heard in the meeting.

yeahyeahyeah · Post by **yeahyeahyeah** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:26 pm

District 2 voiced dissatisfaction? D2 director Greg Nagan co-authored the policy didn't he? So he is unhappy with his own work, finally the rest of us are not alone! I was also told (by an un-named but high up memeber of the committee) that this rule was only intended to soothe a few vocal people and it will only be in place for 1 year....Great leadership.

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:09 pm

yeahyeahyeah wrote:District 2 voiced dissatisfaction? D2 director Greg Nagan co-authored the policy didn't he? So he is unhappy with his own work, finally the rest of us are not alone! I was also told (by an un-named but high up memeber of the committee) that this rule was only intended to soothe a few vocal people and it will only be in place for 1 year....Great leadership.

Sorry, it was District 8's director...not 2...had my Districts screwed up.

Perhaps the D2 Director was the guy with the sharpie at the front of the room. MN Hockey asked for feedback we had received and I stated that the policy "forces kids to play where they don't want to play in 10-11". The guy with the sharpie not only didn't put my input down on the sheet, but stated that "associations are going to lose private school kids anyways to where they go to school so let's let it happen". This just isn't the case. I can assure you in Minneapolis this is not the case as most of our kids play baseball, soccer, lacrosse, etc. with each other and also want to play hockey together. They have their school friends and their neighborhood friends and they are happy with both.

The guy with the sharpie was the only guy I was disappointed with at the meeting as he seemed to not care about the dynamics or situations of other associations under this rule and was only viewing the situation from his vantage point. Don't know if he was the D2 Director or not.

Again, I believe that MN Hockey will make the right decisions based on the discussion that took place in that room and the almost unanimous position of the District Directors that they could live with - register geographically - obtain a waiver if you want to skate with school buddies.

council member retired · Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:13 pm

[quote="greybeard58"]Did any one go tonight and what happened. Yes I did attend the June meeting but I am out of state and will not make any of the meetings this weekend.[/quote]

Did you think the members of MH should voice their concerns over the new participation rule? Or others things they should be bringing up? thanks

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:10 am

CMR
I feel that all members should be voicing their concerns not only for the participation rule but if there is an issue that is important to the majority it should also be brought up. These meetings are one place the other is through the local District meetings. The one thing to remember the best part of Mn Hockey is the diversity f the Districts, what works great in District 4 might not work in District 6 and so on.
But I also feel strongly that if it is best for the majority of the youth/girls then it is worth it, if change is for the vocal which usually are few then it is not

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:11 am

CMR
I feel that all members should be voicing their concerns not only for the participation rule but if there is an issue that is important to the majority it should also be brought up. These meetings are one place the other is through the local District meetings. The one thing to remember the best part of Mn Hockey is the diversity f the Districts, what works great in District 4 might not work in District 6 and so on.
But I also feel strongly that if it is best for the majority of the youth/girls then it is worth it, if change is for the vocal which usually are few then it is not.

multiplesportskids · Post by **multiplesportskids** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:21 pm

SWPrez,
Did I read your post correctly in that you think MN Hockey will be more
willing to grant waivers to players to skate with their school buddies?
Provided of course, the changes go as you hope. I just know from years past, it was nearly impossible to get a waiver using the "school" as a reason for the request.

SWPrez · Post by **SWPrez** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:47 pm

multiplesportskids wrote:SWPrez,
Did I read your post correctly in that you think MN Hockey will be more
willing to grant waivers to players to skate with their school buddies?
Provided of course, the changes go as you hope. I just know from years past, it was nearly impossible to get a waiver using the "school" as a reason for the request.

Virtually all - if not all - of the District Directors stated that they could live with "Register geographically - request an automatic waiver to school if located outside of your geographic area".

My interpretation would be that the waiver would be an automatic formality when requested.

trippedovertheblueline · Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:52 pm

SWPrez wrote:
multiplesportskids wrote:SWPrez,
Did I read your post correctly in that you think MN Hockey will be more
willing to grant waivers to players to skate with their school buddies?
Provided of course, the changes go as you hope. I just know from years past, it was nearly impossible to get a waiver using the "school" as a reason for the request.
Virtually all - if not all - of the District Directors stated that they could live with "Register geographically - request an automatic waiver to school if located outside of your geographic area".

My interpretation would be that the waiver would be an automatic formality when requested.

this seems very logical, especially with the district directors standing by to approve or just say we will if it get to use: our assocation has always accepted players that enrolled into our boundaries, and waivered out kids that didn't. Also I should add these kids all had been doing this since mite age, not a must go there great squirt team.

cantstanzznomore · Post by **cantstanzznomore** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:55 am

Define "register geographically" for me , please? Many Association's affilliate agreements are based on high school boundaries. These high school boundaries overlap city boundaries in many instances. The city of Eagan is divided up into parts of 3 school districts. Apple Valley is another city divided up by competing affiliate agreements. Toss in Anoka-Hennepin and Osseo-Maple Grove School Districts and I'm not sure it's as easy as it sounds.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:16 am

cantstanzznomore wrote:Define "register geographically" for me , please? Many Association's affilliate agreements are based on high school boundaries. These high school boundaries overlap city boundaries in many instances. The city of Eagan is divided up into parts of 3 school districts. Apple Valley is another city divided up by competing affiliate agreements. Toss in Anoka-Hennepin and Osseo-Maple Grove School Districts and I'm not sure it's as easy as it sounds.

Register based on the area defined in each local association's affiliate agreement.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:19 am

President Green has issued a letter to all of MH as of today. Essentially the letter states MH will have a change to participation rule at the January meeting.

The change is being written right now (may not be the final draft - but will b emuch easier to follow than the one we have right now).

This rule will probably be broadcasted by November 1.

The essence will be register geographically by residence with an auotmatic waiver for playing in the association where the child is enrolled in school.
Probably be one paragraph of five sentences.

frederick61 · Post by **frederick61** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:30 am

elliott70 wrote:
cantstanzznomore wrote:Define "register geographically" for me , please? Many Association's affilliate agreements are based on high school boundaries. These high school boundaries overlap city boundaries in many instances. The city of Eagan is divided up into parts of 3 school districts. Apple Valley is another city divided up by competing affiliate agreements. Toss in Anoka-Hennepin and Osseo-Maple Grove School Districts and I'm not sure it's as easy as it sounds.
Register based on the area defined in each local association's affiliate agreement.

Elliot, I suggest adding some language to allow associations that have worked out previous agreements (some through the courts), to apply those agreements in defining geographical residency. For example, Apple Valley, Eastview, and Burnsville associations have resolved the "definition of residency" because of prior court action. This will avoid needless waiver requests being processed to assure these association teams are not unduly punished during the season.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:11 pm

Sounds like a second paragraph already. By the time January rolls around it'll be six pages long with Subparagraph 6, Section A, Line 4 indicating the boundaries set around the location of where piano lessons are taken.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:29 pm

frederick61 wrote:
elliott70 wrote:
cantstanzznomore wrote:Define "register geographically" for me , please? Many Association's affilliate agreements are based on high school boundaries. These high school boundaries overlap city boundaries in many instances. The city of Eagan is divided up into parts of 3 school districts. Apple Valley is another city divided up by competing affiliate agreements. Toss in Anoka-Hennepin and Osseo-Maple Grove School Districts and I'm not sure it's as easy as it sounds.
Register based on the area defined in each local association's affiliate agreement.
Elliot, I suggest adding some language to allow associations that have worked out previous agreements (some through the courts), to apply those agreements in defining geographical residency. For example, Apple Valley, Eastview, and Burnsville associations have resolved the "definition of residency" because of prior court action. This will avoid needless waiver requests being processed to assure these association teams are not unduly punished during the season.

Those actions should be specified in their affiliate agreements already.
If not they should be added when the new affiliate agreements are drawn up (about May 1 of every year).

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:31 pm

InigoMontoya wrote:Sounds like a second paragraph already. By the time January rolls around it'll be six pages long with Subparagraph 6, Section A, Line 4 indicating the boundaries set around the location of where piano lessons are taken.

I amsure it will become a little more lengthy but lets hope not.

And, no, I did not kill your father.

nhl'er · Post by **nhl'er** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:51 pm

elliott70 wrote:President Green has issued a letter to all of MH as of today. Essentially the letter states MH will have a change to participation rule at the January meeting.

The change is being written right now (may not be the final draft - but will b emuch easier to follow than the one we have right now).

This rule will probably be broadcasted by November 1.

The essence will be register geographically by residence with an auotmatic waiver for playing in the association where the child is enrolled in school.
Probably be one paragraph of five sentences.

Elliott,
Will there be any likely changes for this season with this likely change for next season? Are they likley to allow players to waiver out of their school boundry to play in their resident boundry? Example, played at MM last season, Squirt this season, go to private school outside of their resident affiliation, bu they want to play for their resident affiliation?

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:24 pm

nhl'er wrote:
elliott70 wrote:President Green has issued a letter to all of MH as of today. Essentially the letter states MH will have a change to participation rule at the January meeting.

The change is being written right now (may not be the final draft - but will b emuch easier to follow than the one we have right now).

This rule will probably be broadcasted by November 1.

The essence will be register geographically by residence with an auotmatic waiver for playing in the association where the child is enrolled in school.
Probably be one paragraph of five sentences.
Elliott,
Will there be any likely changes for this season with this likely change for next season? Are they likley to allow players to waiver out of their school boundry to play in their resident boundry? Example, played at MM last season, Squirt this season, go to private school outside of their resident affiliation, bu they want to play for their resident affiliation?

The rules committee were giving DD's some interpretation of intent to use in making judgements.

I would suggest anyone not happy with how the new participatin rule applies to them ask the DD for guidance and perhaps waivers if necessary.

The situation that was outlined was interpreted differently by differetn people.
I believe most DD's would allow for a waiver in these types of cases.

It was clearly stated that the intent was not to punish anyone that played at MM last year.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Who attended Fall meeting

Who attended Fall meeting

Re: Who attended Fall meeting