SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Columbia Soccer: How Does It Get Better? *

top rows diamond and the bottoms all gold.

Regulators, ride...

Acres, like you I had heard rumors of a complaint being filed. Unlike, everyone else, I had not heard that it was filed to keep CESA out of Cola. I had heard that it was about an alleged bylaws violation and the complaint was filed to have the bylaws enforced, if it was found that there was a violation.
I had heard that the complaint had to do with a club being bound by its geographic area. If that was found to be true then it stands to reason that no club which was already operating in one geographic area could not operate in another geographic area. As was pointed out earlier in this thread no resonable person could read the bylaws and come to that conclusion.

However, if you read the SCYSA rules they state:

B. AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS (Structure and SCYSA membership requirements)
1. AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION is a club or league that is properly registered with and
recognized by the SCYSA and which pays dues to, and receives benefits or services from, the SCYSA.
a. A CLUB is an organization operating within a specified community or other defined
geographical area that is a member of SCYSA and that has an identifiable membership of at
least one hundred (100) youth soccer players. This organization is in place to carry out
SCYSA’s programs for youth players.

All of rules can be found and downloaded on the SCYSA website.

Now, I consider myself a resonable person and I read that to say "A CLUB is an organization operating within a specified community or other defined geographical area..." and the SCYSA bylaws are very clear on just where the district boundaries are.

To me there is a huge difference between whinning because you don't like what is happening and asking that the rules be enforced. Like it or not rules are rules and everyone has to abide by them no matter if you are the biggest dog on the block or the smallest.

Having said all that, I AM NOT an expert on bylaws or rules so draw your own conclusions on the issue. Ultimately, only SCYSA can make the determination.

I do agree that some of the request are way over the top.

The SCYSA bylaws are likewise clear on what the state of South Carolina is. They are completely blank on what a "specified community" is. Thus, this rule is completely dependent once again on how it is interpreted. If you interpret it based on the SCYSA mission statement (develop, promote, and administer youth soccer) then you want strong clubs serving as many kids as possible.

On the deleted thread, I repeatedly made the point that the SCYSA is an elected body and operates in a political fashion. I got continual flack for this -- folks trying to imply that I was somehow questioning the integrity of the SCYSA. No...association boards operate as an association board. It doesn't mean that the SCYSA is bad -- they just operate as they are constructed. We have a judicial system that operates (at least theoretically, and I believe in the vast majority of the cases) apolitically.

Personally, what I honestly don't understand is why bylaws aren't added to specifically restrict clubs if the majority of the SCYSA membership want it done. Trying to tip-toe around it through some adding caveats to the interpretation of all of this seems as if it will have this tied up in court for years.

Here's a ignorant comment for thought.

Do all organizations in the State follow bylaw 214, Section1 (4)?

4) provide and coordinate opportunities for every player under its jurisdiction to participate in soccer at the developmental, intermediate, and advanced levels;

After a self-imposed exile from this forum, I thought I would weight-in on this issue. KH, I hope this is ok.

First, a disclaimer...I have not been on the SCYSA board since my term expired in August. I am not connected with any club other than my son plays for NECSA and I'm a former NECSA board member (left almost three years ago).

Second, my guess is that I know less about the NECSA/CESA complaint than anyone else around because I have not paid any attention (and don't want to).

Chico wrote: "Personally, what I honestly don't understand is why bylaws aren't added to specifically restrict clubs if the majority of the SCYSA membership want it done. Trying to tip-toe around it through some adding caveats to the interpretation of all of this seems as if it will have this tied up in court for years."

The problem I saw with rules and by-laws at SCYSA is that you just cannot write a rule or by-law that covers everything.

We would write a rule. Some club or coach (and I am not accusing anyone in particular--this applies to lots of clubs and lots of coaches) finds a way to bend the rule, avoid the rule, break the rule. Honestly, sometimes I would think that soccer folks are just a bunch of cheating bast--ds.

So, we would have to deal with it. Re-write the rule, interpret the rule, threaten to sanction the violators, etc. My experience was that the folks on the SCYSA board tried to fairly enforce the rules for the good of the largest number of youth soccer players.

Believe me that it is not an easy job. Anyone that complains about the board should try sitting at the table for two years.

So, Chico, while in theory, I agree with you that the by-laws should be clearly written, etc., it is not that simple in practice.

One final thought...a lot of this discussion is based on speculation. None of you (or me) knows all of the facts. My advice is to wait until more information is public, then you can jump to conclusions and insult each other. [ok, maybe that was harsh--then you can discuss the topic politely].

We are all guilty of excessive speculation regarding this issue and as TP has stated we should wait until all the issues are revealed and hopefully made more clear. This soccer community needs to respect the opinions of all involved, while we all seek what is best for the kids of the Cola. area.....not what is best for one club or the other. However, I must state that the language in the prior posted complaint from CSC/NECSA is not in the best interest of all concerned about soccer in this community.

>>[thomaspietras] [...] Chico wrote: "Personally, what I honestly don't understand is why bylaws aren't added to specifically restrict clubs if the majority of the SCYSA membership want it done. Trying to tip-toe around it through some adding caveats to the interpretation of all of this seems as if it will have this tied up in court for years."

The problem I saw with rules and by-laws at SCYSA is that you just cannot write a rule or by-law that covers everything.

We would write a rule. Some club or coach (and I am not accusing anyone in particular--this applies to lots of clubs and lots of coaches) finds a way to bend the rule, avoid the rule, break the rule. Honestly, sometimes I would think that soccer folks are just a bunch of cheating bast--ds.

So, we would have to deal with it. Re-write the rule, interpret the rule, threaten to sanction the violators, etc. My experience was that the folks on the SCYSA board tried to fairly enforce the rules for the good of the largest number of youth soccer players.

Believe me that it is not an easy job. Anyone that complains about the board should try sitting at the table for two years.

So, Chico, while in theory, I agree with you that the by-laws should be clearly written, etc., it is not that simple in practice.<<

I'm sure with your background you've worked on writing and amending corporate bylaws as have I. No one will ever do it perfectly. No reasonable person expects bylaws to be perfect. And reasonable people can read the best set of bylaws and disagree about the interpretations of spirit and language.

However, when you begin trying to interpret bylaws in such a way as to create new rules and new restrictions from arcane administrative language -- it's time to amend the bylaws. As you state above, sometimes you have to "Re-write the rule." In this case, nothing needs to be rewritten -- if the SCYSA believes it serves its mission to restrict the areas that a club can serve, it simply needs to draft that bylaw and approve it. It isn't complicated theoretically -- while of course it is deeply complicated practically -- so elected bodies tend to attempt to continually stretch existing language so that they don't have to actually go through it.

Why should the SCYSA add this bylaw specifically? Because any decision to restrict competition reeks of a political bias to maintain the status quo -- the same status quo incidentally that elects the SCYSA. Now...it may very well be that no such bias exists within the SCYSA. But the SCYSA needs to clearly explain why a decision restricting inter-club competition in an area serves the SCYSA mission to develop and promote youth soccer. In particular because the SCYSA, according to its board minutes, has seen a loss of several thousand registered players in the last few years. Going through the practical process of having bylaws approved, and taking the further step of requesting comments, puts the debate out into the open. While I would absolutely hate a decision to restrict club competition based on geography, I would absolutely respect that it was the will of the clubs in SC and the SCYSA itself if it were arrived at in this manner.

While I intellectually understand your comment that sometimes you felt that soccer folks were just a bunch of cheating bast--rds, I would point to that fact alone as evidence that there is a severe problem with the SCYSA bylaws and rules. Any time that you find yourself, even for a moment, believing that the membership you serve are a bunch of cheating bast--rds, it's time for you to reassess the system you've imposed that leads you to feel that way.

Stop here for a moment and realize that real import of what you've said. I've never met anyone who believed that the SCYSA was a bunch of cheating bast--ds; and yet your time on the board of the SCYSA led you to sometimes think that about your membership. There's no better evidence that there's something wrong and that the system is deeply flawed when as honorable a person as you has these thoughts.

In terms of the SCYSA itself. What I've found is that only elected bodies themselves expect their organizations to be free from a political structure -- a self-defeating expectation -- but a universal one. The SCYSA consists of people who have sacrificed their time and energy to try to help youth soccer; I've publicly thanked them before and believe that they deserve quite a bit of thanks. But the SCYSA, as you know, has its own peculiar challenges with respect to political influence and is no less immune (and probably quite a bit more) than most elected organizations.

But continually throughout this thread and the thread I deleted (because I was concerned about excess speculation), I've taken pains to note that the SCYSA is not the organization that appears to be at the root of this mess. It is the complaining organization that would apparently rather compete via lawyer-like tactics rather than compete on services to the youth of Columbia.

>>One final thought...a lot of this discussion is based on speculation. None of you (or me) knows all of the facts. My advice is to wait until more information is public, then you can jump to conclusions and insult each other. [ok, maybe that was harsh--then you can discuss the topic politely].<<

There is a lack of transparency to the process that is more than a little troubling. You're asking people to wait to know all of the facts -- specifically how long do you expect people to wait and who is going to be distributing these "facts?" It seems at minimum you want people to wait until the SCYSA makes a decision [if they haven't already] to discuss something that directly impacts their children and the children of Columbia. As someone who actually reads SCYSA board reports when they are available, I can tell you that I don't think the facts of the matter are going to be published there unless there's a drastic change in reporting policy.

I noticed on Hotstat that the CESA U10 team consisting of Columbia kids appeared in the Sandlapper League but was removed a few weeks ago. What happened to it? Of course you don't know; neither do I. I know what the rumor is -- but I have not repeated it on this message board because I didn't believe that anyone would go after a bunch of 9-year old children. What you seem to be advising is that the parents of Columbia children should wait until more information is public while this kind of thing is going on. Respectfully, I doubt you would be advising such patience and sensitivity if it were your child directly affected.

One other note. Discuss the topic politely? Respectfully, compared to what appears to be requested by NECSA this message board has been the model of politeness. I have no doubt that you don't and would never condone the apparent request for lists of children, their parents, and coaches who have made the committed the sin of contacting someone; however, this transcends impolite behavior and appears to be bullying and coercion at its worst, plain and simple.

It makes one wonder: if club choice is restricted in Columbia, what happens with this list?

Chico/Mark?:

Every time I start on one of these threads, I'm reminded of how imperfect the format is for real discourse. I could pick up the telephone and call you, but then everyone else would not get the benefit of our collective wisdom.

First, I obviously did not take enough time to craft my initial post. Overall, my experience on the SCYSA board was very positive and my opionion of SCYSA members is very high. SOMETIMES, I felt like I was dealing with cheaters. I should have been clearer on this.

Regarding the SCYSA by-laws and rules--they are less than perfect but are the result of years of hard work, as you have noted. SCYSA is constantly looking for volunteers to help with these kinds of things. Would be a good use of your time.

How long do I expect folks to wait for a resolution? I have no idea, since I don't know when the clock started ticking. From the sound of it, this is a messy issue. Messes often take time to clean-up. With this kind of issue there are hearings, appeals, more hearings, etc. All done by volunteers who are also trying to earn livings and live real lives outside of soccer. So yeah, sometimes it takes a long time.

SCYSA and transparancy??--I'll have to agree with you there. Communication is not their strength.

I didn't really care for this comment: "Respectfully, I doubt you would be advising such patience and sensitivity if it were your child directly affected." You obviously don't know me.

Finally, based on what you know, your belief is that the request by NECSA "transcends impolite behavior and appears to be bullying and coercion at its worst, plain and simple." We all make judgments based on the information we have available. However, as I read your post, it seems to me that you are making a judgment about someone's motives and motivation. Unless you have spoken to Ron, I don't think you are in position to make an informed judgement on this. Sure, you can judge a person's motives by their observable actions. You have acknowledged (I think) that you don't know all of the facts. If that is the case, then perhaps assessing motives is premature and it is not "plain and simple".

I don't know the facts either. I do know Ron and the folks at NECSA. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.