There are a few fescue FW and green venues around the country now. They all have a varied experience of success. I would imagine that every course utilizing fescue on greens or FWs or approaches belongs to the GCSAA since those courses tend to be cutting edge or unique. Dan Lucas was consdered one of the top fescue men in the country, to the extent he was asked to consult with PGA at WS. (BTW, I believe the fescue there is in FWs, not greens, and those FWs were specially capped with a certain rootzone blend of sands and loamy clays, if I'm not mistaken)
So, I wonder if there isn't room for a subgroup or caucus (to stay with the political season terminology) of fescue turf managers forming a sub-group in the GCSAA to put forth a newsletter or other form of internet knowledge to share experiences and cultivation practices that they see working. It seems to me that each of these fescue managers are working in the least known of the species and cultivars within the species of fescue.
In my own mind, it is not inconceivable that despite the best thought out plans to impliment a permanent sward of fescue for putting greens at CB, that enough is NOT KNOWN universally and merits asking questions of why the sward has not established better since an early 06 intitial seeding. The obvious answer in my mind is pressure-stress on the public venue. But, the root zones dynamics in the putting greens relating to the agronomic growth characteristics of fescue aren't beyond the pale of being off for whatever reasons. NO, don't ask me Ian what my credentials are.
My credentials are CURIOSITY!!! (and a fleeting amatuerish study over the years of turf science, which I have abandoned for lack of anywhere to have ever applied the limitted understandings I used to read up on a decade ago).
When customers plunk down the kind of high end expense of playing this high end municipal facility, they have an invested right to ask why they are playing on what seems universally currently perceived as substandard putting surfaces by comparisons to what they are used to. Ignorant questions aside, they have a right to ask. And, the management company has a damn highly vested interest in providing explanations, including that they may be part of the problem of forcing too many rounds through there for the proper time and rest the turf needs. It doesn't do the muni, the management company, nor the dedicated workers like the super any good for speculation to be rampant, customers to be skeptical, and ignorance to reign. There is no censorship of people asking consumer-like questions at this point. And, should not be any restraint from people giving real answers, not defensive deflections which only raise unwarranted higher suspicions in those consumers that don't know squat about turf management, but still are going to ask.
That is all just customer relations 101 in my view.