>>[thomaspietras] [...] Actually, I was not trying to say that SCYSA can't make mistakes. I know that they do make mistakes. I was on the minority side of votes quite often. Sometimes all alone. (And it is certainly possible, but not probable that I was on the majority side of some mistakes).

What I was trying to say (apparently not very well) was that you might not agree with a decision and that the decision might be wrong (for you or your child or your club), but you should be careful about questioning the motivation for the decision or concluding that there was a lack of care.<<

Thanks again for engaging in this dialogue -- I honestly really appreciate the chance to understand other positions.

I actually did not mean to imply that you were saying that the SCYSA couldn't make mistakes; I'm sorry if I gave that impression. All I was noting was that if someone wasn't careful and ascribed any reasoned objection to a decision to bias, then that might lead to a situation in which there was no basis for questioning decisions.

>>Intersting, Chico, that you said you would not be welcome at SCYSA. There must be an interesting story behind this comment. Probably not appropriate for a public forum like this, but you have certainly piqued my curiosity.<<

In my very, very few interactions with selected members of the SCYSA, I have found these selected members to be...I'll try to put this politely...less than tolerant of opinions not their own. You were actually copied on one very small incident quite a while ago. In addition, it appears somewhat rare that someone who is not a relative of an existing member joins the SCYSA. I fear I lack the pedigree.

>>[...] Chico, I understand your point about straight-forward communication in order to deal with rumors. Easy to say they should come out and talk about it, but if the process is not complete, what can they say that will not just fuel more speculation and rumor? It can be a tough judgment regarding when to go public.<<

I do understand what you are saying and I certainly empathize that it's a tough thing to do; however in order to avoid rampant and out of control rumors it is my opinion that you actually have to manage limited releases of information with the promise (and subsequent delivery) of additional information whenever it is possible.

But in my opinion that's not the crux of all of this. Here's my prediction. If the SCYSA ever does rule on this [I think that they either have or will] and subsequently publicly release information concerning this, they will not explain their reasoning by quoting bylaws or rules. Instead, They will reference any vague bylaws possible with the word "district" in it and they will out of whole cloth create a ruling. They may even go for the brass ring and create rules that don't exist by stating the converse -- that because a bylaw doesn't say anything about allowing something it's not allowed. A far-fetched example of this: because the bylaws don't say anything about web sites, clubs are herefore prohibited from having web sites.

I would bet a lot of money on one thing. Any decision that the SCYSA makes will never reference their mission of administering, developing, and promoting youth soccer. Again, I think that you are an honorable and well-meant person. But in the last few years I've seen SCYSA registered membership declining and I have seen absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that foremost in the minds of the "inner-circle", or even second-most, is a driving passion for delivering on the SCYSA mission.

With regard to bylaws, I predict that they will completely ignore the bylaw that kdlsc posted earlier: Bylaw 214, Section1 (4): provide and coordinate opportunities for every player under its jurisdiction to participate in soccer at the developmental, intermediate, and advanced levels.

If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. I'd be absolutely amazed if I have to apologize.