---

Dear Editor;
I'd like to offer a response to some of the statements from the Dodgeville School Board meeting regarding its uninformed decision to approve a co-op with Sauk Prairie for high school hockey.
1. "...the co-op would be a more 'consistant opportunity' as opposed to the Ice Wolves, where participation numbers can often fluctuate year to year." Yes, our numbers have been down. Our high school players have been playing on a Midget team in Verona for the last two years and, the two years before that, had to combine with players from Onalaska in order to have enough for a team. We've also had a Bantam team (age 13 and 14) only two of the last several years. All this is a direct result of one thing: the decision, several years ago, to form a co-op between Sauk Prairie and Mount Horeb. We lost several high school and bantam age players, which has created the situation we've been in ever since. As for the more "consistent opportunity," Sauk has since added Wisconsin Heights and River Valley to the co-op and now, potentially, Dodgeville. Obviously they too are having issues with "participation numbers."
2. "I think it's an opportunity for our kids to have another shot at playing hockey. It's just another avenue for kids to take. As far as I'm concerned, I think it's a good idea." Making this statement shows how little concern there actually is for all the kids involved. It's giving one handful of kids another avenue while ensuring that another handful of kids (from Platteville, Fennimore, Highland, Mineral Point, Ridgeway and all points in-between), who have been skating together for years, essentially will not have a team to play on. (Re-read number 1 above for proof of this.)
3. "...spoke with Sauk Prairie's athletic director, who said he is interested in building a hockey program so they can continue to compete with other schools." Well, of course he's interested in building Sauk Prairie's hockey program. That's his job. Apparently, building Sauk Prairie's hockey program is also the Dodgeville athletic director's job.
4. "Parents and players will pay the entire cost to participate in the co-op." This is what the decision really boiled down to. The board approved the motion because the families agreed to be responsible for all the costs, not because it's thought to be best for (a few of) the kids.
5. "We may not be as aware as we need to be." This is actually the best statement to come out of the meeting. It should have been followed by this, "We need to reach out to other families affected by this decision before making it."
Ultimately, this is an Ice Wolves issue. As long as there is no cost, it is of no consequence to the school district that a couple families want to go somewhere else to play hockey. That's fine, but don't try to offer justifications for approving a motion on an issue you don't really need to care about without at least making some attempt to acquire some pertinent background information and gain some sense of how your decision will affect many families that really do care, very deeply.

Chris Rusch
Highland