hockey_is_a_choice wrote:Until recently the law of the land in Minnesota Hockey was that parents had the right to choose to sign their child up for any private program they wanted to and have their child participate in association hockey, as long as the child was not registered to play on two MH/USA sanctioned teams at the same time. Why did Minnesota Hockey and District 6 choose to become officious intermeddlers and change this practice?
Do District 6 and Minnesota Hockey really believe they are in a better position to protect children from burning out on too much hockey, letting down their association teammates, or being injured in other hockey programs than the child’s parents?
Last time I checked, I did not abdicate my parenting responsibilities to Minnesota Hockey, district officials, my association, my association board, my son’s coaches, or the parents of my son’s teammates, even though some of them seem to believe they are entitled to tell other people how to raise their kids—and spend their money—by limiting choices that have always been available, until recently.
Why do elected officials or, in this case, some appointed officials, believe they have the right to suddenly change the rule and limit my ability to choose where and when to sign my child up for a privately managed hockey program?
Apparently, certain MinnHock officials now want to expand their mission to defend the rights of all children. Give me a break.
Under this new restrictive regulation, which will likely be the new law of the land in the People’s Republic of Minnesota Hockey, my child will have to pick between participating in Minnesota Hockey’s program and another program offered by a competing for-profit company. Why?
Why is my freedom to choose both options being taken away from me?
Admittedly, I’m a Libertarian
and I believe my individual right to choose to have my son participate in both programs should trump Minnesota Hockey’s desire to protect its turf. Some people disagree with me, but I firmly believe this lawsuit is about Minnesota Hockey protecting its revenue stream. It’s also about BM protecting his revenue stream. In a nutshell, we are witnessing a classic commercial litigation dispute between entities that want to protect their businesses. There’s nothing wrong with that, but, as a nonprofit and a monopoly, Minnesota Hockey must play fair and it must be honest about its reasons for changing the status quo and adopting a rule that violates Minnesota Hockey’s core mission—to promote hockey in the State of Minnesota.
Let’s look at the nonprofit versus for-profit issue since Mr. Hewitt raised it in his public comments to reporters. Minnesota Hockey, District 6, and its associations are all nonprofit companies, specifically they are 501(c)(3) legal entities. MM is a for–profit corporation. As nonprofit corporations, Minnesota Hockey, District 6, and its associations are a tax exempt organization, which means they do not pay most income taxes. In short, nonprofits ride on taxpayers’ coattails because they are supposed to be providing valuable public services. For profit corporations, on the other hand, can provide the same service for a fee and a profit, but they have to pay taxes on any profit.
Minnesota Hockey has approximately $1M in the bank, see Minnesota Attorney General’s 2009 report on Minnesota Hockey, Inc., set forth below and available on line and the September 2010 Minnesota Hockey Board meeting minutes. As you can see from the report, Minnesota Hockey pays permanent staff approximately $236,000 to manage and grow the business. Yes, for the record, Minnesota Hockey is a business, just like MM and other private hockey programs are businesses. However, because it chose to go the nonprofit route to avoid paying taxes, Minnesota Hockey must strictly follow its stated purpose, which is set forth below.
Nowhere in Minnesota Hockey’s stated purpose is it authorized to discourage athletes from participating in private hockey programs by excluding athletes from Minnesota Hockey sanctioned programs if they choose at the same time to supplement that experience and improve their skills by also skating in what is ultimately a developmental program/league run by a private company. Ultimately, Minnesota Hockey’s purpose is to create and promote interest in youth or amateur hockey in Minnesota. In my opinion, forcing parents and athletes to choose—and declaring publicly that your new mission is to protect all the children [from the evil empire and their clueless parents]--is not creating interest in youth hockey. It’s telling prospective hockey parents to stay away from youth hockey because it is too political and the people associated with managing it have run amok.
2009 Report For Minnesota Hockey On File At the Attorney General's Office
Organization Name MINNESOTA HOCKEY, INC.
Organization Type CHARITY
Address 317 WASHINGTON ST
City ST PAUL
State MN
Zip Code 55102
IRS Code 501(c) 03
Purpose or Description To encourage and improve the standard of youth and other amateur ice hockey in the Minnesota area; to conduct ice hockey tournaments and to select representative teams to participate in tournaments; to associate with other ice hockey associations: to do any and all acts necessary or desirable in the furtherance of the foregoing purposes; to buy, sell, lease and otherwise deal in all kinds of property, real, personal and mixed, for the purpose of creating further interest in youth and other amateur hockey.
Status ACTIVE
Organization Name MINNESOTA HOCKEY, INC.
Federal ID# 411458420
For Fiscal Year Ending 8/31/2009
Income
Direct Public Support $124,637
Government Grants $47,325
Other Revenue $1,169,182
Total Revenue $1,341,144
Expenses
Amount Spent for Program or Charitable Purposes $1,019,329
Management/General Expense $236,761
Fundraising Expense $11,408
Total Expenses $1,267,498
Excess/Deficit $73,646
Total Assets $805,435
Total Liabilities $2,900
End of Year Fund Bal/Net Worth $802,535 talk about going off the deep end!!
