HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/ ... /homepage/

Interesting.....

Glad to see the legislature reallly focusing their energies.

clojacks1 wrote:http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/ ... /homepage/

Interesting.....

Glad to see the legislature reallly focusing their energies.

Exactly. The legislature rarely has thier heads where they really should be.

Sure hope the bill never passes - if it even gets that far.

wbmd:

Why don't you want this bill to pass? Coaches have rights that need to be protected against unrealistic parents...

wbmd wrote:

clojacks1 wrote:http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/ ... /homepage/

Interesting.....

Glad to see the legislature reallly focusing their energies.

Exactly. The legislature rarely has thier heads where they really should be.

Sure hope the bill never passes - if it even gets that far.

Why wouldn't you want this bill to pass? Seems fair to me.

"A bill now before the Legislature would add a sentence to the existing Minnesota law that governs the rights of coaches to contest their dismissals. It says that parent complaints can't be the sole reason for letting a coach go."

I too don't see the downfall.

There should be more reasons as to why a coach should be ousted.

Who's ever against this bill, please enlighten us as to why you oppose it.

It seems kind of pointless to me.

No school board or AD would ever admit that parent complaints were the SOLE reason, even if they were.

bestpopcorn wrote:It seems kind of pointless to me.

No school board or AD would ever admit that parent complaints were the SOLE reason, even if they were.

Touche'!

Here is the existing statute. The proposed additional language (introduced as HF984) is shown in italics.

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 122A.33, subdivision 3
Subd. 3. Notice of nonrenewal; opportunity to respond. A school board that declines to renew the coaching contract of a licensed or nonlicensed head varsity coach must notify the coach within 14 days of that decision. If the coach requests reasons for not renewing the coaching contract, the board must give the coach its reasons in writing within ten days of receiving the request. The existence of parent complaints must not be the sole reason for a board to not renew a coaching contract. Upon request, the board must provide the coach with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the reasons at a board meeting. The hearing may be opened or closed at the election of the coach unless the board closes the
meeting under section 13D.05, subdivision 2, to discuss private data.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls88

The Senate companion file is SF1037, and is scheduled to be introduced to the Senate tomorrow by Carla Nelson (R), Assistant Minority Leader. They'll obviously need some help from the DFL leadership in both houses.

almostashappy wrote:Here is the existing statute. The proposed additional language (introduced as HF984) is shown in italics.

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 122A.33, subdivision 3
Subd. 3. Notice of nonrenewal; opportunity to respond. A school board that declines to renew the coaching contract of a licensed or nonlicensed head varsity coach must notify the coach within 14 days of that decision. If the coach requests reasons for not renewing the coaching contract, the board must give the coach its reasons in writing within ten days of receiving the request. The existence of parent complaints must not be the sole reason for a board to not renew a coaching contract. Upon request, the board must provide the coach with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the reasons at a board meeting. The hearing may be opened or closed at the election of the coach unless the board closes the
meeting under section 13D.05, subdivision 2, to discuss private data.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls88

The Senate companion file is SF1037, and is scheduled to be introduced to the Senate tomorrow by Carla Nelson (R), Assistant Minority Leader. They'll obviously need some help from the DFL leadership in both houses.

Sounds like they are making the administration accountable for their decision. Don't see how this is bad for either side!

mulefarm wrote:

almostashappy wrote:Here is the existing statute. The proposed additional language (introduced as HF984) is shown in italics.

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 122A.33, subdivision 3
Subd. 3. Notice of nonrenewal; opportunity to respond. A school board that declines to renew the coaching contract of a licensed or nonlicensed head varsity coach must notify the coach within 14 days of that decision. If the coach requests reasons for not renewing the coaching contract, the board must give the coach its reasons in writing within ten days of receiving the request. The existence of parent complaints must not be the sole reason for a board to not renew a coaching contract. Upon request, the board must provide the coach with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the reasons at a board meeting. The hearing may be opened or closed at the election of the coach unless the board closes the
meeting under section 13D.05, subdivision 2, to discuss private data.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls88

The Senate companion file is SF1037, and is scheduled to be introduced to the Senate tomorrow by Carla Nelson (R), Assistant Minority Leader. They'll obviously need some help from the DFL leadership in both houses.

Sounds like they are making the administration accountable for their decision. Don't see how this is bad for either side!

Who protects the coaches from "Bad Administrators"? re: Maple Grove....

Now this could get interesting....

http://www.wdio.com/article/stories/S29 ... ?cat=11802

Here is a what if, what if parents complaints are good reason for coach to be dismissed...

preferhockey wrote:Here is a what if, what if parents complaints are good reason for coach to be dismissed...

That's fine,
But it can't be the ONLY reason.

And, it will maybe make some of these administrations think a little more before they make any moves.

Investigate more, talk to the coaches more, etc, etc,.
Get the parents and the coach together to discuss more.
And on and on.

preferhockey wrote:Here is a what if, what if parents complaints are good reason for coach to be dismissed...

I would think an administrator would hear these compalints and decide if further action is needed. What players got cut , playing time and basic coaching decsions probably would be excluded. I would say this is a win win for both parties.

When has a player ever complained, would think most if not all would be intimidated by the process. So who else would bring up a coach issue if not a player or player's parent. Who else, a fan, the radio guy, who... can not think of anyone with a vested interest.

preferhockey wrote:When has a player ever complained, would think most if not all would be intimidated by the process. So who else would bring up a coach issue if not a player or player's parent. Who else, a fan, the radio guy, who... can not think of anyone with a vested interest.

Please be a little more specific? Not sure I understand what your point is?

TTpuckster wrote:

preferhockey wrote:Here is a what if, what if parents complaints are good reason for coach to be dismissed...

That's fine,
But it can't be the ONLY reason.

It's too ambiguous to help solve the problem that it's supposed to fix.

Most of us here can draw a clear distinction between parents who complain that their kid was cut or isn't getting enough playing time, and parents who complain that their child's coach is being abusive. This proposed amendment doesn't make that distinction.

It also is stupidly restrictive. If Johnny's grandparents complain about his playing time, is that still okay? How about the family's lawyer? Next-door neighbor?

And what about any evidence that is collected as a direct result of a parent's complaint? Is that okay to use, or fruit of the poisonous tree (to borrow a phrase from Law & Order)?

Soon there will be no one left that "wants" to coach or officiate at the high school level.

Then the parents and fans can have their say, and take care of the whole ball of wax.

I think we need more laws to help us through our pitiful lives. We can't do it on our own.


It is just another example of our legislators keeping busy to justify their jobs.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/21 ... om-parents