>>[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?
