SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP SCYSA Special Commission Report

NECSA Bylaw Complaint (Adobe Acrobat)

February 15, 2006

SCYSA SPECIAL COMMISSSION REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On November 28, 2005, a grievance was filed by Ron Tryon, President of the North East Columbia Soccer Association (NECSA), with SCYSA alleging the Carolina Elite Soccer Association (CESA) was in violation of South Carolina Youth Soccer Association (SCYSA) rules and bylaws, as they pertain to SCYSA District boundaries and the “operation” of SCYSA clubs within those territories described the SCYSA Rules and Bylaws.

On January 19, 2006, an attempt to “mediate” this dispute proved unsuccessful. Therefore, in accordance with SCYSA Bylaw 702, a “Special Commission” was appointed in consultation with the SCYSA Board of Directors (BOD) and a hearing was scheduled on February 11, 2006, to resolve this dispute. Members of the SCYSA “Special Commission” are; Barry Bynum, Bob Brantley, Sharon Bieber, Michele Jenkins, and Steve Ballentine, Chairman.

HEARING

The hearing was convened at 11:00 am on February 11, 2006, by the SCYSA “Special Commission”. Ron Tryon and Samuel Mokeba were present to represent NECSA. Russ Aucoin, Pearse Tormey, and Andrew Hyslop, were present to represent CESA. Both parties presented their case to the commission in the time allotted and the hearing was adjourned at 12:00 pm.

OPINION

After assessing and evaluating all of the information presented by both parties and reviewing the SCYSA Rules and Bylaws pertaining to this issue, the SCYSA “Special Commission” made the following opinions:

*SCYSA Rules and Bylaws are specific regarding the organizational structure of SCYSA as they pertain to District territories and geographic boundaries for clubs within each of our three Districts. Refer to SCYSA Bylaw 109, item 3 and 4, SCYSA Bylaw 321, section 1 and 2, and SCYSA Bylaw 322, section 1, 2 and 3.

*It is apparent to this “Special Commission” that SCYSA Rules and Bylaws clearly indicate that a club must “operate” in a specific geographic District as defined by the SCYSA BOD. However, the definition of “operate” is not clearly defined in the SCYSA Rules and Bylaws.

*This ambiguity as to the specific meaning of the word “operate” has allowed CESA the opportunity to test the rules and bylaws of SCYSA by trying to expand its District territory into the Mid-State District of SCYSA.

*SCYSA has for many years acknowledged and allowed teams to train and practice outside of their club’s District boundaries, therefore setting a precedent to permit such training.

*With the authority vested by the SCYSA BOD, this SCYSA “Special Commission” is compelled to interpret and define the word “operate” as it pertains to SCYSA clubs and the registration and training of their players within each District in accordance with SCYSA Rules and Bylaws.

*This “Special Commission” is also compelled to decide and rule on other matters as they pertain to this issue as noted in the “decision” from this “Special Commission” listed below.

DECISION

*SCYSA has specific Districts with well-defined geographic boundaries in which all affiliated clubs and leagues must “operate”.

*“Operate”, as it pertains to the registration of players within a club, shall be defined as: Fifty percent (50%) of the players on a team must reside within the District in which the club is affiliated. All U19 teams shall be exempt from this provision.

*“Operate”, as it pertains to the training of players within a club, shall be defined as: A team may “train” or practice on any SCYSA field, in any District, which has been properly approved in accordance with SCYSA Risk Management Guidelines.

*SCYSA does not recognize the “partnership” between any SCYSA clubs. Each and every SCYSA club is an organization member of SCYSA and responsible for its own individual members and their own actions, as noted in SCYSA Bylaws 211, 212 and 231.

*All SCYSA clubs, including CESA, will immediately cease the advertising or promoting of a “partnership” with any other SCYSA clubs.

RESPONSE TO NECSA GRIEVANCE ITEMS 1 - 8

(1) CESA will immediately cease the advertising or promoting, in any manner, its intentions to establish teams or programs outside the Piedmont District.

(2) Same as item #1

(3) Same as item #1

(4) Not required

(5) Not required

(6) CESA is required to act in accordance with this decision

(7) Not required

(8) Not required

CONCLUSION

In accordance with SCYSA Bylaw 702, “the decision of this “Special Commission” is final and binding on all parties”. Therefore, effective immediately, all parties are required to comply with the decision of this “Special Commission”. Failure to comply with the provisions of this report will result in this “Special Commission” levying fines and / or sanctions upon those SCYSA organization members or individuals involved.

Respectfully submitted,

Steve Ballentine
Special Commission, Chairman

Cc: SCYSA BOD
Ron Tryon, NECSA Pres.
Russ Aucoin, CESA Pres.

South Carolina Youth Soccer Association
121 Executive Center Drive Suite 140
Columbia, SC 29210
Phone (803) 798-5425
Fax (803) 798-4242

[ February 20, 2006, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Kyle Heise ]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I disagree.

*It is apparent to this “Special Commission” that SCYSA Rules and Bylaws clearly indicate that a club must “operate” in a specific geographic District as defined by the SCYSA BOD. However, the definition of “operate” is not clearly defined in the SCYSA Rules and Bylaws.

I see no where in the bylaws where it says "operate". It clearly says be a member. Two totally different things. Is Germany a member of the EU? Do they operate in countries that are not members?

Just to clarify-

This means they have ruled in favor of NECSA/CSC. They have ruled against a CESA branch in Cola?

So to the layman.....

What does this mean?

From what I read... Congaree is no longer a partner but CESA can still hold practices anywhere in the state for their players.

But with it not require a CESA employee/volunteer to run the sessions and would it not then be "operating"?

Here's the original post from this forum:
(1) Immediately retract by way of public press release any and all plans to form recreation, academy and/or select teams based in Columbia or anywhere in the Mid-State District;
(2) Immediately cease any and all advertising activity which is currently being run or which is schedule to be run, shown or distributed at State Cup and/or elsewhere which informs or has been designed to inform the public and/or SCYSA players and their parents that CESA is planning to, preparing to or seeking to form recreation, academy and/or select teams or otherwise train youth soccer players in a CESA operated youth soccer program based in Columbia or based anywhere in the Mid-State District or based anywhere outside the Piedmont District for that matter;
(3) Immediately cease any activity seeking to form recreation, academy and/or select teams or otherwise train youth soccer players in a CESA operated youth soccer based in Columbia or based anywhere in the Mid-State District or based anywhere outside the Piedmont District for that matter;
(4) Identify the names of all coaches from Mid-State Clubs with whom CESA’s Co-Executive Directors of Coaching have been in contact with concerning coaching and/or training opportunities within the unauthorized Columbia area CESA program.
(5) Identify the names of all currently registered Mid-State players, and the parents of any such players, who have communicated in writing, in person or by telephone with Andrew Hyslop or to any CESA coach or representative in response to the CESA press release dated November 15, 2005.
(6) Prohibit CESA, its coaches, trainers and it’s and their independent contractors from setting up and conducting soccer training sessions in the Mid-State area as well as in any location outside the Piedmont District on any day other than on a scheduled PMSL, SCSCL or RIII match day on which the team who seeks to train is in fact playing a match in any such league.
(7) Require it’s Academy and Select coaches and its Co-Executive Director’s of Coaching to print, read and sign the SCYSA Code of Ethics/Conduct on an annual basis and submit the same to the SCYSA Registrar prior to issuance of Coaching Cards and DOC Passes each year.
(8) Issue a written apology to the Presidents of all Mid-State District clubs for its unilateral, unauthorized and highly disruptive actions.

So, CESA is required to abide by #6. Does that mean they are not allowed to have any practices in Columbia? Even though the teams have 50% of the players from the Upstate District? Seems to me GFC had set the precedent years ago, by having training sessions in Columbia. Why is that not allowed now , if the 50% team requirement is met?
Seems like the SCYSA board is penalizing players wanting to play at the highest level. The board is making it harder for them. That's a real shame, because I thought soccer was all about the kids...If the sessions were allowed in Columbia, everything would be status quo.

What a shame for the kids of Columbia. We have actually taken a step back and not even maintained the status quo.

Maybe I"m wrong...I hope so..Can someone clarify?

What a shame for the youth of Cola - both the underserved areas that CESA/CRSA were trying to reach as well as the high level players who choose to play for CESA.
I believe that the restrictive rules regarding the districts are arbitrary and do not serve the youth of this state. I also believe that the more open atmosphere of US Club Soccer will be taking over this state in the future.

By the way, if this occurred on Feb 11, why is it only just now becoming public?

CESA,US club soccer; I'm lovin it.

>>[L-E Dude] This means they have ruled in favor of NECSA/CSC.<<

Yes.

>>[L-E Dude] They have ruled against a CESA branch in Cola?<<

Yes, CESA may not have any SCYSA registered team that consists of no less than 50% of kids from the Piedmont District.

>>[soccermom1121] So, CESA is required to abide by #6. Does that mean they are not allowed to have any practices in Columbia? Even though the teams have 50% of the players from the Upstate District? Seems to me GFC had set the precedent years ago, by having training sessions in Columbia. Why is that not allowed now , if the 50% team requirement is met?
Seems like the SCYSA board is penalizing players wanting to play at the highest level. The board is making it harder for them. That's a real shame, because I thought soccer was all about the kids...If the sessions were allowed in Columbia, everything would be status quo.

What a shame for the kids of Columbia. We have actually taken a step back and not even maintained the status quo.

Maybe I"m wrong...I hope so..Can someone clarify?<<

When it says on (6) "CESA is required to act in accordance with this decision" what they are referencing is the earlier part of the decision to wit: "*“Operate”, as it pertains to the training of players within a club, shall be defined as: A team may “train” or practice on any SCYSA field, in any District, which has been properly approved in accordance with SCYSA Risk Management Guidelines."

In other words, any club may train players anywhere in the state.

This is America...Right?