Another USGA Low (modified)

[Steve Lapper]

  As a matter of decency and in deference to the taste of others, I'm going to delete the past facutal content of this thread and instead substitute a little bit of a rant:

   My intitial thread was a reference to a recent State court ruling against the USGA for "effectively tolerating, and not adequately supervising" the computer predilections of a perverted and deviant employee. Without going further into the facts (rightfully disturbing the tastes of many), what is clear is that the nationally based institution charged with the responsibility for overseeing the game of golf has once again failed miserably in understanding the dangers of technology in our modern world.

   How and when can we the golfing public take back the game's stewardship from those whose "head-in-the-sand" and ancient and archaic practices threaten to leave the game a public glaring black eye? Where is it written that the USGA was deeded the right to mysteriously appoint only those they deem "appropriate" to the positions of authority without any democratic or sunshined process. Is it time to raise their profile high enough to allow contemporary critics a chance to expose the Executive Committee for what they really are?

   I could go on and on, but the whole thought of watching earnest contributions to the protections of the traditions of the game go squandered on the legal and financial defense of exceedingly poor decision makers is abhoring.

    I also strongly disagree with the otherwise verbally-wandering Tom Paul  (often a defender of the Folks in Far Hills, but in fairness, at least as often an eminent statesman for the better values of the game). If you want to complain about OT subjects, go ahead....but the USGA is hardly off topic and IMHO, gets off way too easily in today's world. I'll readily admit to not having the answers nor enough of the solutions, but I'd sure as hell like to see the flame of public discourse turned up!!

For the record, the USGA spent significant time and $$ trying to hide it's participation and ultimate responsibility in this matter.

[TEPaul]

If possible, it would be a very good thing to delete this thread from GOLFCLUBATLAS.com of else just padlock it. In the last week or so we have a ten page thread on the national football championship game and now one on someone who worked for the USGA who was convicted for child pornography. The prevalence of O/T threads on this website is getting out of control, in my opinion.

[Steve Lapper]

Tom, et.al.,

   As you can see I've deleted the offensive (but factual) parts of the thread. However, all golfers who either contribute to or help perpetuate the present institution known as the USGA are owed an explanation for how and where their donated dollars are spent. They also are entitled to have a public spotlight shined on the abysmal business practices of this wretchedly misguided and mismanaged fifedom.

[SPDB]

Steve -
I'm not sure what relevance the lawsuit has to the USGA's stewardship of the game. They could be wonderful stewards and this event still could have occurred.

If they had knowledge of this man's depraved proclivities and let it continue, than perhaps they should be held liable. The significant $$ they spent was, I assume, a consequence of being sued and the cost of contesting its liability.

[Steve Lapper]

Sean,

   Clearly, I'm of the opinion, their stewardship has been at least "lacking." The game is shrinking in real and statistical terms with the youth of today shrugging their shoulders at so much of what they believe the game offers.

   The facts of this case are straight forward and have been ruled upon. They knew of this pervert's proclivities, took no meaningful actions (and actually allowed him to continue to access the web through their servers) and spent $$ both defending, hiding and denying their passive participation....downright revulsive to me (especially as a father of daughters and a neighbor).

[TEPaul]

"They also are entitled to have a public spotlight shined on the abysmal business practices of this wretchedly misguided and mismanaged fifedom."

Steve:

What do you mean by that? I'm likely going to the USGA annual meeting in about a month, would you like me to pick you up a copy of the USGA's annual financial report?

"and spent $$ both defending, hiding and denying their passive participation...."

SPDB:

Is that what they did or did they merely appear in court as the defendant in the lawsuit with their lawyers defending them?  The lawsuit against the USGA was brought by the the 'pervert's' wife as the plaintiff in this case. If you were a defendant, as the USGA was in this case, or the lawyer for the USGA, what would you do, just recommend the USGA go into court and throw themselves on the floor remorsefully? Interesting idea,  but defendants and their lawyers generally don't do things like that. And I notice the USGA prevailed as a defendant in the lower court.

[Steve Lapper]

Tom,

    It's hardly the financial report that qualifies for abysmal (although tell Eric Gleacher* that, post his forced departure). As you well know, the $$ they have in their coffers has finally swelled to large enough amounts that they can afford to think in insular terms.

   Their Executive level decision-making (and it is mostly unique to their Exec. level) is woefully short on modern and effective management practices. If they were a for profit publicly-traded business, activists would steadily be crying for the disbandment of the board. Sorry to break it anyone, but these bluebloods have lost touch with nearly everything but the men's grille menu.


BTW....do you think they'd be anywhere close to this flush without Gleacher's expertise and previous guidance?

[Steve Lapper]

[quote author=TEPaul
Is that what they did or did they merely appear in court as the defendant in the lawsuit with their lawyers defending them?  The lawsuit against the USGA was brought by the the 'pervert's' wife as the plaintiff in this case. If you were a defendant, as the USGA was in this case, or the lawyer for the USGA, what would you do, just recommend the USGA go into court and throw themselves on the floor remorsefully? Interesting idea,  but defendants and their lawyers generally don't do things like that. And I notice the USGA prevailed as a defendant in the lower court.

Tom,

    If you look at the presented facts in this case, the USGA continued to allow this pervert access to web and posting to it inside their servers...AFTER THEY NOTED HIS ABERRANT BEHAVIOUR.. Should that be acceptable to anyone who has donated to their coffers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lapper,

I suspect your issues with the USGA transcend this isolated incident.

Law firms have created new departments specializing in "Employment Practices"  Fire someone, you get sued, don't fire them. you get sued.  Every employer treads gingerly through this litigious mine field, but, that's a diversion from the USGA's mission or obligation to golfers.

You've called for the disbandment of the Executive Committee, what would you replace them with ?

How would you structure and run the organization ?

I've known a good number of Executive Committee Members and Presidents and from my interaction with them, some of which occured over the last 40 years, they were decent, bright individuals with extensive business or professional experience, who donated their time, without compensation, to an organization they were attracted and attached to through their interest and love of the game of golf.   Most were also decent to superior players.

Who amongst them is a "Blueblood" ?
And, what does that mean ?

I'd prefer to find fault with allowing a new ball with a hollow metal core that reduces spin, thus preventing hooks and slices, clubhead sizes, shaft lengths and THE BALL, rather than an employment issue that could happen to virtually every employer in the U.S.

[JohnV]

Having read the 31 page decision, I think there are a few things that should be pointed out.

The problem occurred between 1999 and June of 2001.  As it was, the actual usage of the USGA computer for sending out child porn appears to only have occurred during the last few weeks of that period.  The employee was looking at porn websites before that, but there was little, if any, evidence that it was child porn.

At the time, there were people at the USGA who obviously did not have a good concept of what the rights and responsibilities of a company in regard to employees using corporate computers to regulate the viewing of non work-related websites.  There were obviously some management personnel who felt that personal privacy was more important than monitoring.  Many companies felt that way then.  Few, if any, do today.

What the employee was doing was terrible, the bigger issue was his photographing his step-daughter at his home.  The court in reversing the lower court decision said the USGA could and should have taken steps to prevent the employee from using the computer to view and, eventually, send pictures to porn websites, but not that they were responsible for the pictures being taken.  As to whether the planitiff was damaged by the USGA's actions (or lack thereof), the trial court will have to decide that.

To use this as another way to bash the USGA is wrong.  There are hundreds if not thousands of companies (including some where some of us have probably worked) where management used similar poor judgement in handling issues like this in the 90s and early 2000s.  Most know better now as I'm sure the USGA does.

[Steve Lapper]

Pat,

   You asked, I'll answer:

    I'd start afresh with the EC by instituting the following parameters:

 1) A Committee makeup that dictates the inclusion of representatives from the public side of golf and might well include some of the regional association heads.
 2) I'd welcome seasoned executives from varied backgrounds, with significant diversity, and have requirements that include something other than an impressive resume of private club affiliations and so-called "love of the game." (Hell, JakaB, you and I love the game as much as any of them...but I'm not sure any of us would be a good choice
 3) I'd hope that 1-2 spots might be filled by golf industry executives and look to add specially-suited (very intelligent and open-minded thinkers) people whose golfing resumes are easily surpassed by their life experiences (i.e ex Judges, Educators, etc...).
 4)All of the above would be chosen by a special nominating committee (culled from a much wider advisory board) that would have an adequate set of checks and balances and place a premium on independence and integrity.
 5)The issue of compensation would be addressed by paying them (the present, donated time theory, does little to attract the best and brightest whose degree of diversity). Present funding is more than adequate to achieve this.

Clearly the present structure of a head administrator (and a strong manager like a David Fay) that runs the day-to-day and answers to the board would suffice. No need to shake up the whole ship. In fact, 99% of the USGA's staff (at least all that I've encountered and worked with) appear to be solid, hard-working and decent people.

You ask (rather rhetorically I think) what and who is a "blueblood." I'll offer a simple (but likely insufficient for you ) answer: those with over 3 private club memberships and/or a trust fund source of income. What it simply means, at least to me, is that they have been way too insulated from the real world for too long to be of much good to a contemporary issue-bound institution like the USGA.

As for making this a simple employment issue, that's jabberwocky for turning one's head away from what is clearly wrong and has never had a place during working hours.

John,

 How can you mask this with an otherwise lame attempt at valuing "personal privacy?" Jeez, should any organization allow an employee on the job the right to use "privacy" as an excuse to broadcast any questionable image or idea to the outside world? The argument holds no water.

  An organization's computers and systems are it property and not personal property. Please don't tell me there is any question that the USGA should be absolved of accepting responsibility for CONTINUING to allow this type of deviant behavior to exist within their walls. Whether 1999-2001 or 1980 or 2080....right and wrong are indeed crystal clear here!

 I never suggested that they were responsible for the actual picture taking, but allowing its dissemination by effectively condoning an employee's actions is negligent and irresponsible. Like many other issues, only years later, does the USGA "get it."

  As for bashing, I've never spoken out before about what I think about their spectrum of malfeasance. Until now, I thought it no more than policy disagreement for me.

 What really crossed the line here is their very present attitude to spend real time and $$ to defend this egregious error as well as hide their complicity (trying to close the court records, etc..). That's what is most appalling in this case. They should have reached a settlement (and it was offerred multiple times by the plaintiff!!!) and admitted the error and if necessary, publicize a zero-tolerance policy. Any part of this would have been better than spending hundreds of thousands of American golfers hard earned money to "sweep this under the rug."

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Steve, I am with you 100%. The USGA has failed the game in so many ways over the last 20 years that I have lost count. I agree a little sunshine into there meetings and their organization would be good for the game and the organization. The same could be said fo the Olympics and the NCAA.

[Craig Sweet]

Steve, in your post you said

"ancient and archaic practices"

Are you talking about the USGA or those posters to GCA that advocate "firm and fast", a "roll back" of the golf ball, the "ground game", and "old courses are better than modern courses?

[Steve Lapper]

Steve, in your post you said

"ancient and archaic practices"

Are you talking about the USGA or those posters to GCA that advocate "firm and fast", a "roll back" of the golf ball, the "ground game", and "old courses are better than modern courses?

Maybe they are one and the same in some minds, however one group is certainly more benign and enlightened vs. the other

[Alfie]

Steve Lapper,

I think you're absolutely right to point out this "pervert" issue - which has apparently occurred under the watch of the USGA. And it's true, that such a "sick" thing could happen to ANY organisation ! What matters, surely, is how that organisation handles the situation ?

WHATEVER happens within the USGA / R&A organisations - has EVERYTHING to do with golf !

I also concur in totality with your other views relating to the USGA (but don't forget the R&A !) and hope that you continue to speak frankly and honestly as opposed to apologetically. It's just a pity that there aren't few hundred thousand more of you on BOTH sides of the pond (or perhaps a few hundred more on this discussion group ?).

I too, could go on, and on, Steve. And I will, till such times as this litigation, litigation, litigation threat is put asunder by people willing and able to stand up and fight for a worthwhile cause. In this case - the future of GOLF !

My compliments to you Steve.

Alfie.

[SPDB]

"and spent $$ both defending, hiding and denying their passive participation...."

SPDB:

Is that what they did or did they merely appear in court as the defendant in the lawsuit with their lawyers defending them?  The lawsuit against the USGA was brought by the the 'pervert's' wife as the plaintiff in this case. If you were a defendant, as the USGA was in this case, or the lawyer for the USGA, what would you do, just recommend the USGA go into court and throw themselves on the floor remorsefully? Interesting idea,  but defendants and their lawyers generally don't do things like that. And I notice the USGA prevailed as a defendant in the lower court.

Tom - I think this comment was intended for Steve and not for me. My response to the $$ spent on the litigation was that they were only contesting their own liability for failing to monitor/control their employee, which costs $$.

Steve -
When you say they spent money "defending, hiding and denying" you are dismissing the USGA's right to mount a defense to these claims. I can understand that they may have defending their actions in the circumstances, and denied their liability, but how did they go about "hiding"?

[Steve Lapper]

Sean,

   I don't dismiss any person or institution's right to mount a defense, but in this case, they were offerred a most reasonable settlement and one that could have easily been tailored to provide adequate future liability and risk management. Instead, they choose to fight this woman tooth and nail (their perogative perhaps, but morally and ethically an improper and wrong decision). They spent plenty of their contributors dough to appear multiple times asking the court to try to hide their name and the case's facts. Only recently did the court "unseal" the documents. I know you are a lawyer, but my Harvard Law-trained partner is right when he suggests that they so "arrogantly dismissed this woman's claim to contingent liability and so purposefully worked to hide their involvement from the public, that it yet again smacks of sheer irresponsibility".....something we both agreed the USGA has become a textbook example of.

The facts speak for themselves...they allowed the perversion his access for a period of NEAR 2.5 years!

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd start afresh with the EC by instituting the following parameters:

 1) A Committee makeup that dictates the inclusion of representatives from the public side of golf and might well include some of the regional association heads.
The USGA has already done this.  
They've had representatives from the public side of golf.
They initiated this years ago.  I'm surprised you weren't aware of it.[/color]

 2) I'd welcome seasoned executives from varied backgrounds, with significant diversity, and have requirements that include something other than an impressive resume of private club affiliations and so-called "love of the game." (Hell, JakaB, you and I love the game as much as any of them...but I'm not sure any of us would be a good choice
That's a nice general catch-all, but exactly who would you recruit, and what makes you so sure that they would put aside their personal and business life to devote the time necessary to this organization and their obligation ?

Can you provide a dozen names of suitable candidates that would fit all criteria ?[/color]


 3) I'd hope that 1-2 spots might be filled by golf industry executives and look to add specially-suited (very intelligent and open-minded thinkers) people whose golfing resumes are easily surpassed by their life experiences (i.e ex Judges, Educators, etc...).

That's probably the worst suggestion I've every heard.

Why not just let the fox guard the hen house ?

You want to give several board seats to special interests, to an industry whose agenda may be counter to the well being of the game and the very institution that they serve on ?

That's really a bad, bad idea.[/color]

 4)All of the above would be chosen by a special nominating committee (culled from a much wider advisory board) that would have an adequate set of checks and balances and place a premium on independence and integrity.

Again, those are nice phrases and words, but what would the constituencey of the special nominating committee be ?
How would they be selected to be on the nominating committee, and who would do the selecting of the nominating committee ?

Who would populate this much wider advisory board ?[/color]

 5)The issue of compensation would be addressed by paying them (the present, donated time theory, does little to attract the best and brightest whose degree of diversity).
So you would attract professional managers ?
Bureaucrats ?

Without the inherent love of the game in their hearts and souls, by what guiding principles would your new management team lead the organization ?

Would money or golf be their driving motivation ?[/color]


Present funding is more than adequate to achieve this.
At what price to the spirit of the organization ?[/color]

Clearly the present structure of a head administrator (and a strong manager like a David Fay) that runs the day-to-day and answers to the board would suffice. No need to shake up the whole ship. In fact, 99% of the USGA's staff (at least all that I've encountered and worked with) appear to be solid, hard-working and decent people.

I don't think you're very familiar with the USGA.[/color]

You ask (rather rhetorically I think) what and who is a "blueblood." I'll offer a simple (but likely insufficient for you ) answer: those with over 3 private club memberships and/or a trust fund source of income.

Why should the number of clubs be the criterion ?
Why not let the total dollars spent be the criterion ?

If someone belongs to three clubs, and the total initiation fee at all three is 35,000, but another candidate belongs to one club where the initiation fee is 250,000, you'd disqualify the first fellow and embrace the second.  That seems contrary to your theoy of anti-entitlement.

Wouldn't the fellow with more memberships have more diverse exposure to golf memberships ?

Didn't you say that you were seeking diversity ?[/color]

What it simply means, at least to me, is that they have been way too insulated from the real world for too long to be of much good to a contemporary issue-bound institution like the USGA.

So you would disqualify people like the Rockefellers and the Kennedy's because they're too insulated from the real world ?[/color]

As for making this a simple employment issue, that's jabberwocky for turning one's head away from what is clearly wrong and has never had a place during working hours.
No, it's an entirely different issue and has nothing to do with the global role of the organization.

Does private business have the same employee problems ?
Does government have the same employee problems ?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that their purpose, their global objective is corrupted, it just means that people make mistakes.[/color]

[SPDB]

Steve -
First of all, I should clear one thing up - I am not a lawyer. With all due respect to your Harvard Law trained partner, it is not at all surprising to me that USGA contested their liability in this matter. It is not a frivolous position to take, and I don't know their defense to these claims should be viewed as morally or ethically dubious. I also don't know what makes your partner think the USGA's decision to contest the claims or maintain its anonymity "arrogant."

It has been a while since my torts class, but I know that NJ has always been a vanguard in terms of finding new duties, like the one in this case. Even by the plaintiff lawyer's admission the theory of liability is pretty novel (or at least untested).

It just seems to me a cheap shot to take to point to this case as representative of the problems you see at the USGA.

[Tom_Egan]

Mr. Lapper --

Please deposit the cyanide pellet on this thread.  I've read the entire g'mish and you've forced me into the position of entirely supporting Pat Mucci's point of view (if not all of his reasoning.)

That's enough intellectual punishment for one day, thank you very much!

[JohnV]

Steve,

The early complaints were not investigated was because a misguided manager had written a memo that said it was against policy to invade an employee's privacy by investigating what he/she was doing on the Interent.  This was a mistake, I never said it wasn't.  It was a mistake that other organizations also made in the early days of Internet access at work.  In some cases this mistake was caused on the advice of lawyers who didn't understand how dangerous it was to allow people unfettered access.  I never said it was a correct policy and never tried to justify it.  I was merely pointing that the reason the initial reports were not dealt with in a way that could have prevented much harm and embarassment was because of the policy.

The only thing I had read on this is the court document that Geoff Shackelford posted the second link to on his site.  I have seen nothing that says the USGA was trying to hide its identity, but if you say it was I'll assume you have heard of this in some other way.  The names of certain people in that document are known to me so I knew it was the USGA.  My reading of it made it appear to me that the main reason for any obfuscation was to prevent the identity of the girl in question from coming to light as she is a minor.

As for bashing, continuing to publicize what is a private matter between the girl, her mother and the USGA in a way that almost  gloats over the USGA's culpability does seem like bashing to me.  Geoff's pointing out how the USGA doesn't accept e-mails with obscenities but allows this is that kind of bashing.  Mainly because I doubt the USGA has allowed this in 4+ years at this point, which is probably longer than the anti-obscenity policy has been in effect.

As for defending themselves in the lawsuit, it could be argued that the USGA should have just settled and kept it quiet which is what many corporations do, just sweep it under the rug.

The appeals court ruled that the trial judge was incorrect in dismissing the case without a trial to see if there was a harm caused to the plantiff by the actions, not that the USGAs actions were harmful.  There still needs to be a trial.

In reading the first post by Geoff, I see that the girl's attorney says that there is no precedent for this. That seems odd to me.  I've heard of plenty of these kinds of workplace issues as has my girlfriend was a VP of HR for a major corporation.

[Doug Siebert]

You know, it occurs to me that the USGA holding ever-increasing amounts of money in its coffers is just an invitation for lawsuits.  After all, you sue people or organizations with money, not those which are barely scraping by.

I know the idea (other than empire-building accusations that I don't know enough about to have an informed opinion on) is that it will be used to pay legal fees if they ever get some guts and do something about the equipment.  And maybe now that Tiger has come out in favor of spinnier balls and a 56* limit on wedges, maybe it will at least get discussed!

But I wonder if that's very smart.  I'm not a lawyer, but we've got several here.  What if the USGA created and endowed another nonprofit titled "The USGA Legal Defense Fund" that existed solely to defend the USGA against lawsuits, but served to take the money out of reach of lawsuits.  Is that possible, or would a "peircing the corporate veil" type of reasoning be applicable here that would let greedy bastards go after that money anyway?

Heck, if the USGA acted strongly enough on the equipment issue to draw a few lawsuits I'd contribute to a Legal Defense Fund.  But I sure as heck won't contribute to the current organization, and the more I hear about it in GCA the less likely it becomes I'll ever write a check to the USGA.  At least the charities I support are doing things I know are good, like buying up stands of old growth timber or rainforest.