[wsmorrison]

I was kindly given access to a very important set of club documents by the Merion Cricket Club.  As of 1942, the Merion Cricket Club and Merion Golf Club officially split from one another.  While there is a large cross-membership, the two entities are completely separate.  Any considerations by the Cricket Club towards me are greatly appreciated and must be respected in return.  They have just taken the first step in organizing their archives.  They don't have policies and procedures in place to manage access and use of their club documents.  So any expectation of access and dissemination of primary source material is unfounded and this is what I tried to address in an earlier post.  That was misinterpreted; I think more by distrust and disharmony than anything else.  Maybe the culture of private clubs is not well understood by some on this site.

The Merion Golf Club Archives is perhaps the leading club archives in the country.  We have had a few years to organize and establish principles and practices.  Access to this Archive may be granted if one follows certain procedures and fills out the proper forms.

It seems to me that some members of this site believe that private documents from private clubs should be freely accessible.  I cannot understand why that is, but they are surely mistaken.  I'm sure members of private clubs have a better understanding of this and accept the fact that privacy is very important and supersedes the public's right to know in most cases.  The instant demand for sharing information  to which I have just become familiar with is unsettling.   Original source material is the property of the Merion Cricket Club.  I will not share transcripts I made at this time nor without permission at any time. 

The first step is to study the transcripts, put together a presentation and make that presentation to the Merion Cricket Club and the Merion Golf Club.  Then the clubs can consider the presentation and decide for themselves what can and cannot be disseminated and in which forums.  Taking their views into account is vital.  I am a member of Merion Golf Club and not a member of Merion Cricket Club.  However, I would follow this line of behavior if I didn't have anything at all to do with them.  I respect their right to privacy and am obligated to follow their rules when allowed access.  By their rules, not the unwritten rules of this website.

When Tom MacWood and David Moriarty conduct their exhaustive efforts and come up with their conclusions, right or wrong, they should be obligated to share that information with the clubs involved as a first step, as a matter of courtesy.  They should allow peer review during their processes.  It is vital to do so.  To present original work on this website without regard to the clubs involved is in bad form.  For the founder and administers of this site to allow this information on the site without some established procedures is reckless and has caused many of these problems.  Is this a blog or a platform striving to achieve a higher potential?  Endorsing such findings without being informed enough to do so is harmful.  Presenting interesting ideas as fact is also causing us problems within the site and beyond.

Allow me the time to do a proper job with my research.  I was just introduced to this material.  I will work with others as I proceed to make sure there are checks and balances.  Lastly, let me address the clubs first.  In due time, I feel certain that the information will be made available, IF the clubs decide to allow it.  Questioning my motivations is more revealing of the questioners than the object of those questions.  It is not for the site to determine what should be done.  It is not proper for members of this site to question what is being withheld and what truths may be hidden or what myths are being protected.  Stop browbeating, stop fighting and stop speculating.

This site could be acclaimed for its fair and objective research and its dissemination of results, yet it has failed miserably.  We have lost opportunities time and time again to engage clubs and share information with each other in a cooperative effort.  Some passionate researchers seem more interested in making a name for themselves and revising history than conducting proper research with peer review.  We all have a part in this, including Ran and Ben. 

We’ve already seen that a few very important clubs state that they will not make their archives available to researchers for fear that their club histories will be questioned and their club character and ethos questioned as has been done on this site to Merion.  To its credit, Merion has stayed above the fray.  Yet it is certain that such uniformed opinions of information and motivations presented as fact harm the regard for the website and limit the potential good that can result from this platform.  Not only is this site damaged, but I fear that clubs will think twice before they wish to provide original source material to the USGA golf architecture archive and research center considering the behavior of some on this site, some of the poor quality of the analysis and a lack of common sense and courtesy.

So what shall we make of our opportunities?  We are not very good at self-regulating ourselves.  Our founder and administrators are rarely engaged.  Shall we continue to self-destruct or work together in a cooperative and respectful manner going forward? 

[Phil_the_Author]

Wayne,

You speak on a subject that you are uniquely qualified to explain and intimately involved in, and not just from the Merion perspective, but all of Flynn's clubs, many of which gave you and Tom access to very sensitive materials.

You have been both given and earned the trust of these clubs and so can speak to this issue and all should carefully listen and apply in their actions your recommendations.

I would like to add a few comments of my own to this if you don't mind.

Although all on the site love talking the history of the game there are very few who can be characterized as "serious researchers." I would define that as someone whose work is intended to lead to publication. Someone who simply wants to learn as much information as possible may be highly curious, but they are not a "serious researcher" as a golf club would view them.

This is an important point because most, even on here, don't fully appreciate what is being asked of clubs when someone approaches them for access to their private archives. Just as we as individuals feel a right to privacy, golf clubs do and deserve to have this respected.

Let me give an illustration how access requests may make it more difficult rather than easier for a "serious researcher" to obtain it for himself.

Several years back I wanted to write a book about a certain golf club. It's long and short-term history was both socially important and emotionally moving. I wrote a letter to the board including an introduction letter from and signed by one of their more prominent members and another fromthe architect who had recently done a major restoration of the course.

I was turned down.

The reason? They had received so many requests for access to their records and archives to aid in writing books and even producing several film documentaries about the club and the course that they decided to curb access to all. They want to take their time and consider if and when a book should be done and by whom as they want to control what information is disseminated to the public. They did say that they place me on a short list of those they would consider when the time is right.

It is now five years since the rejection and neither word nor rumor that they are ready to grant access to anyone.

If someone, from this board or not, wants to do serious research they should. Feel very free to seek permission from a club to access it's archives. Don't be surprised or dismayed when you are turned down. Be ecstatic when you are given permission.

Recognize that you are a guest in their house and not a reporter working on a story. Always alert the club to what you find out about their history FIRST and get permission BEFORE you let anyone else know.

For the record, I am currently working on two club histories where I was sought out to author them. One by the club and the other by the state golf association who wants to give it as a gift.

[Peter Pallotta]

Wayne, Phil - excellent posts. I'm not a serious researcher, but in the past was involved in (i.e. wrote) a number of television documentaries. I think this point of Phil's is most accurate and important:

"They had received so many requests for access to their records and archives to aid in writing books and even producing several film documentaries about the club and the course that they decided to curb access to all. They want to take their time and consider if and when a book should be done and by whom as they want to control what information is disseminated to the public."

In short, the great and historic clubs (or institutions or people etc) don't need anything and aren't asking for anything. It's the "serious researchers" who want and need and are asking something from them; it's the researcher who will gain from the process (money or being published or self satisfaction) -- the clubs don't need any of that.

When we approach them, we're asking for a favour.
 
Peter
   

[Rich Goodale]

Good thread, Wayne.  By Phil's definition I guess I am a "serious" researcher, in that I write for publication, but by my own definition I am just an honest and respectful voyeur.  Over the 3-4 years of my writing "career" I have had clubs as venerable and respected as Merion give me essentially complete access to their materials based only on my good looks and charm and others of similar stature completely shut me out, for no apparent reason.  It's just the way life is.  In one of these situations I came upon factual information which seemed to solve a puzzle for me, but would have been embarrassing to the Club (if I were right), and I chose not to pursue that line of enquiry.  I think I made the right decision.

At the end of the day, we as GCA.com wing-nuts are just indulging our fantasies, whilst Clubs and many of their members take what we casually chat about very, very seriously.  Whether we respect or disrespect that attitude, we should respect their right to maintain it.

Finally, if only the impressive intellectual and social capabilities of the participants on this board could be focused as much on trying to solve the health care crisis, or Darfur, or even the ball and implement issues in golf, rather than trying to build speculative scenarios around a very sparse set of "facts" re: the creation of Merion (the answer to which, in the end, is basically trivial), we would all be better for it, particularly our children and grandchildren.

Cheers

Rich

[henrye]

Allow me the time to do a proper job with my research.  I was just introduced to this material.  I will work with others as I proceed to make sure there are checks and balances.  Lastly, let me address the clubs first.  In due time, I feel certain that the information will be made available, IF the clubs decide to allow it.  Questioning my motivations is more revealing of the questioners than the object of those questions.  It is not for the site to determine what should be done.  It is not proper for members of this site to question what is being withheld and what truths may be hidden or what myths are being protected.  Stop browbeating, stop fighting and stop speculating.

Great stuff Wayne and thank you for responding, pot shots and all.  This is the best news these Merion threads have received.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

That's a very good explanation on your part and I hope this time all who use this website consider what you said very carefully.

I would like to make a certain distinction though.

I see nothing wrong with people not connected to these clubs using and discussing anywhere, including on this website, any and all material about a club which is already out there in the public domain somehow. Obviously that includes things like old newspaper articles or any other material a club let get out there for whatever reason, and that would certainly include something like Crump's death certificate---eg the club can't control that and never did. I think writing about something like that with or without discussing it with the club first is more a matter of just good old fashioned consideration.

But for people on here to expect and virtually demand raw resource material like MCC's almost hundred year old board meeting minutes is a whole diffrerent matter, in my opinion. That stuff has never been put in the public domain for fairly obvious reasons and if that stuff is going to be used in a public domain like this I think permission from the club should be gotten in no uncertain terms at all. I think there should be no doubt left with a club what it will be used for and how and by whom. And I very much think that's the responsibility of a researcher without question.

That's really what I'm talking about in the context of this very detailed oriented and heated discussion about Merion East on this website. Matter of fact, I guess I've let a few things slip out and on here when I shouldn't have and for that I really do apologize to both MCC or Merion and certainly to you! It won't happen again.

But, look, I'm not kidding myself or you or anyone else because we all pretty much know that raw research material like that stuff can and does and will tell the real story of what happened with the move to Ardmore of MCC that would eventually morph into Merion G.C. over thirty years later.

And I think that's why people like you and I on here have always said if one truly wants to know the story of some of these details of a club like this and its move they pretty much have to know the whole story and not just discuss a few of its details taken out of context of its WHOLE STORY.

I think that's exactly what's taken place on here for about the last five years and it gets really misleading.

[BCrosby]

What do you serious reserachers see as the reason for the reluctance of clubs to open their archives? On the surface, I can't think of really good reasons. I mean, these aren't state secrets. You aren't going to undermine national security or put people in jail.

Does the reluctance simply boil down to clubs wanting to control their own history? Out of concern about how an outside historian might deal with possbily embarrassing episodes? They can do with their archives what they want, but those aren't terribly laudable motives.

Otherwise, I don't get it. I don't get why most clubs don't act like Merion and swing open the doors.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Those are all good questions.

I couldn't possibly answer what the motives are of some clubs to not put their archives in the public domain because I doubt anyone could ever generalize some one reason.

But from dealing with a whole lot of clubs over this kind of thing, I would say that many clubs just like the idea of privacy and that's why they want to keep some things to themselves. Whether their reasons are good, bad or indifferent, that's probably a discussion for another time but the point is this is their stuff and not ours!

After a while we just have to draw the line somewhere and to me this is it, unless some of us think that anyone should have the right to just march right into our homes too if they feel like examing our lives and then going out and discussing and critiquing it in some public domain.

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

In general, Henry Longhurst's old statement to the effect of:  "You can drink their women and screw their booze, but don't say anything naughty about their Club and/or course" is one reason.  Another is the fact that that there ARE skeletons in them there closets regarding, e.g. the REAL reason that Mr. Haversham resigned from the club after the incident at the "Blue and White Ball."

I for one am all in favour of full disclosure, but the members of many clubs will not agree with me......

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Finally, if only the impressive intellectual and social capabilities of the participants on this board could be focused as much on trying to solve the health care crisis, or Darfur"



Richard the Maa, MU-aah, Maauuh-gnaah....., OH, never mind:


What is Darfur? Is that a golf club? If it is, unless there are some of those terrorists with cloth on their heads around, I want you to arrange for me to have complete access to all their archives and if you don't do that you're nothing more than a defensive swine-pig!

[Kirk Gill]

I'd like to state up front what a privilege it's been being a party to this discussion. I jumped into the fray on the Missing Faces of Merion thread because there was an opening for the likes of me, an essay which had been posted along with an invitation to criticize and comment. I've never played Merion. I knew only the Merion history that a lot of golf course nuts know - mainly the history that has been made by those playing the course. But I do have some experience in literary criticism and analyzing essays. So I read David Moriarty's essay, and found it both interesting and frustrating. For me, more than anything else, this essay and the discussion surrounding it was a window into something I'd never had a chance to learn about before.

Like many, I posted regarding MacDonald's letter to the Committee, about the inferences made regarding what it really contained, and wondered aloud about whether or not it could be found. The letter seemed like a linchpin in some of David's arguments. The fact that it wasn't extant allowed for a host of possible suppositions as to its contents.

Amazingly enough, Wayne Morrison was allowed access to the records of Merion Cricket Club. Can you imagine the feeling of walking onto those grounds and being allowed access to those records, not knowing what you'll find? As Mr. Goodale said above, on a certain level the specifics of who did what back in 1910 may be considered trivial, but for a person who has a personal interest in the material, it must have been quite the experience. And in amongst other records, the letter was found. Again, imagine flipping over a piece of paper and finding there the letter that has been the source of so much speculation!

I can't even imagine the sensation.

And a GCA.com wingnut like myself got to witness it all. If I'm sounding a bit "gosh-golly-gee" about the whole thing, I plead guilty. It is, to use the vernacular, pretty damn cool.

I can understand that for some this is just a tantalizing taste of the real nuts and bolts history of this club, and they want more. It's also pretty easy to understand that for these clubs, it is THEIR history first, regardless of the fact that releasing information to the public won't, as BCrosby said, "undermine national security. On a certain level, it just isn't anybody else's business.

Perhaps it is appropriate, then, to thank our lucky stars. Really. Thanks to David Moriarty for all of his work, for sharing it with us all, and for handling all of the slings and arrows that have been cast his way. Thanks to those like TEPaul and Wayne Morrison who are closer to the club and its membership than the rest of us, who feel these issues more strongly than those of us at a distance can be expected to understand. Thanks to all of those who have stuck their noses into the issue, and found new angles of interest and understanding. For those of you who see all of the threads about the history of Merion as some kind of negative for this site, I have to strongly disagree. It's been fascinating, and it's not over. There are more notions to prove or disprove, more mysteries to be solved, and more history to uncover. Take away all the personal invective that is somewhat inevitable when strong-minded people disagree, and you are left with a group of interested parties whose passion for the subject is evident. If you share that passion, what could be more interesting than seeing it all unfold. That's one guy's opinion.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I understand those concerns. There are some secrets at my club in Atlanta (think Xmas Ball, behind the club manager's desk, low gutteral noises, unhappy wife). All clubs have stuff like that.

I'm not sure I see how that ought to be a bar to architecture research. Especially research going back the Golden Age or before. In short, their concern is privacy about what, exactly?

Bob  

[Adam_Messix]

Wayne--

Great post....  I know from experience that you know when it's appropriate to speak about something and when it's not.  Private clubs are just that:  PRIVATE.  It's really none of anyone outside the club's business what happens at the club unless the club is willing to allow someone to research their archives.  

I was recently involved in a research project that eventually led to some surprising new information.  It was something that at the time we thought was not a big deal because it did not factor into the research we were doing and were just going to ignore it, but given the Merion thread(s) we are going to address it because we don't want anyone coming along in 50 years and catching it and potentially drawing the wrong conclusions.

My hope is that many of the great courses of this era go ahead and write the story of their club and course sooner rather than later so that the people involved can tell the story rather than having someone come along later and miss something.  

[Rich Goodale]

You tell me, Bob.  You are posher than I.

[RJ_Daley]

I've only come back into this thread to see what "perspective" has been offered by the readers of the Merion threads.  I for one, left the fray because I thought the arguments were becoming pedantic and circuitous, with nothing really new being offered.  Maybe I was wrong, and something did come out in the last several hundered posts that I skipped.  But, I don't think so.

I put myself in the curious consumers of GCA category.  I'm not a researcher, just an interested reader of GCA books, history, course design, construction and maintenance.  If there are more than a dozen 'serious' researchers on this website, I would be amazed.  

So, that leaves about 1485 GCA.com 'consumers' of the histories of these courses, design elements and how they evolved, and how courses are offered to us today as the result of what has come and been learned before.

So when I read:

They want to take their time and consider if and when a book should be done and by whom as they want to control what information is disseminated to the public.

I read "sanitize the facts".

Others above allude to what is really at stake in people getting to primary source documents held by clubs.  They aren't getting at the elements of golf course architecture and evolution of GCA style so much as getting insight into the society of the people involved, in their time.  Times change, society changes, and mores change.  The scrutiny of documents such as board minutes where influential people of their times might have sat on a club board and spouted off some proclamation about some social issue, would possibly be offensive and embarrassing now.  And, isn't that what some of you serious club researchers are guarding against or protecting from?  You tell me, if not protecting old line mores.

I think the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the revelations that certain aspects of club's histories would demonstrate prejudice attitudes that would be embarrassing by today's standards.  So, because they are a private club, and by that very definintion have set up to be "discriminating" as to who they let in, and all the other underflow of what "private" and "high society closed circles" entails, they don't want their dirty laundry scrutinized by the public in today's more modern, if not slightly enlightened mores and values.  So, they hide the stuff like the crazy aunt locked in the attic.  

Thus, each club may take a different approach to revealing their past through access to their archives.  Some may close ranks, protect the past generations of whom they hold venerable as founders, and that is their right.  Others may be OK with allowing things to come out from the archives that tell us about the previous generation's society knowing full well some of it might not be flattering, but actually those sort of clubs might revel in the fact that they have come a long way, with the mores of the times changing and take pride that they too can or do change.  

It is a collective, yet priveleged thing that Merion and others that guard their histories are entitled to withhold, because they are "private".  

But, as a consumer of interesting history of GCA, (which is really all the rest of us are) when clubs guard and hold things that are not in reality at the level of "State secrets" or as important as what really started the Spanish American War, you sort of make it easy to characterize the level of "exclusion" and history sanitizing, and all the negative connotations that come with witholding facts.  You invite speculation, you reveal your own weakness to face and deal with history, leading to assumptions that said clubs are modern anachronisms, holding on to sanitized notions of themselves, that ironically most consumers of the material might find quaintly amusing, but not admirable.

Talk about "serious researchers", I'd like to hear what a fellow like Ken Burns would have to say about this issue of disseminating information about historical events on a most favored historian basis.  I'd say he didn't sanitize the history of Baseball in his fine documentary.  My guess would be that a fellow like Burns would just laugh and not take such clubs who guard archives for sentimental ideals as seriously relavant organizations committed to real history.

[Rich Goodale]

Excellent post, Dick.

[TEPaul]

"In short, their concern is privacy about what, exactly?"


Bob:

I think you know as well as I do that it's not a matter of "privacy about what", it's just a matter of privacy period.

I do realize that the entire concept of privacy and certainly the sound and tone of it is not considered to be the coolest or most noble thing in the world these days in this world we live in and that's probably the very reason that some people like it so much. I don't think they're trying to hide anything, I just think they like the idea they can step out of the madding world and into some calm with the people they want to be around.

[Kalen Braley]

I think Barneys quote that he said months ago, couldn't be more applicable.

It was something to the effect of joining a club isn't about the privelege of who you get to play with, its more about who you get to keep out.

I don't see why its unreasonable for a club to keep thier internal documents and records private.  Its no different in my mind than a privately held corporation, religious group, or anything similar otherwise.  Its thier gig, and getting "any" access to thier documentation is very much a privelege, not a right!

[Kirk Gill]

One thing I have to agree with from RJ_Daley's post, and that is that when clubs zealously guard their history, for whatever reason, a likely result of that will be the inevitable belief on the part of many that they "have something to hide."

Of course, they might feel they DO have something to hide, as Mr. Daley is correct in saying that it is very possible that "certain aspects of club's histories would demonstrate prejudice attitudes that would be embarrassing by today's standards." And what would "the dozen 'serious' researchers" on this site do if given access to a club's historical documents in a search for architectural history only to find instead a history of prejudice, or any other historically relevant but "unpleasant" documents? The researcher is then split between respecting the club and the access that the club provided to them, or respecting open disclosure of the facts. I haven't personally ever been in this situation, but I'm sure for some one choice or the other would be clear, and for others, it would be a quandary.

[Peter Pallotta]

RJ writes:

"I'd like to hear what a fellow like Ken Burns would have to say about this issue of disseminating information about historical events on a most favored historian basis.  I'd say he didn't sanitize the history of Baseball in his fine documentary.  My guess would be that a fellow like Burns would just laugh and not take such clubs who guard archives for sentimental ideals as seriously relavant organizations committed to real history..."

That's interesting, RJ.  I've enjoyed Burns' documentaries, but I think he is mainly a "story-teller"and not an "historian/researcher", and I think he's proud to describe himself that way. That's fine, but I think it's important that we don't confuse the two.

I enjoyed his "jazz" documentary, but I know and have read a bit about that subject, and so I know that he sometimes used as "facts" stories that had been re-told a hundred times in a hundred different ways, and were in fact apochraphal even when someone first told them 80 years ago. My point being simply that Burns is an excellent creator of "connecting narratives", which is essential if you're putting together 10 or 12 hours for television on baseball or the civil war or jazz. 

I know that he carefully planned and brought into his tent dozens of archivists and archive houses before starting the jazz series -- in other words, I know that he is smart and meticulous enough to gather together the true "experts" so that he has support for his main talent and love, which is "narrative story-telling".

Those two elements come together in the end, but I think they are different and separate things.

Peter

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I tend to think you are right. It's maintaining privacy on  principle. And a club has a perfect right to do that. A researcher is granted access at the pleasure of the club and he should never forget that. Indeed, a reseracher should be willing to guard secrets that don't bear on the purpose of his research.

My hope is that clubs will reconsider their privacy on principle instincts. Particularly as to research that relates to the design history of their course.

I don't think it serves any useful purpose. To the contrary, as RJ Daly notes above, their reluctance to allow access tends to give rise to all sorts of crazy (and usually baseless) speculation.

Bob   

[Melvyn Morrow]

Wayne

I agree, as per your own family history, clubs have a right to their privacy. It should be respected and honoured, However, I will say that in the UK Club Secretaries are generally not that interested, perhaps being too busy in running their clubs and tend in general to portray the image of being uninterested in the History of their clubs. I believe the post of Club Historian should be made available to those who want to record the true history of their club from the early times through to the present day.

In other words the history of a club AND course is important and should be recorded.  I do not believe that the Merion Posts have been very helpful and perhaps should be left  ’IN My Opinion’ file and not regarded as a true and complete record,  but just an opinion.

I am not a serious researcher, but I have noticed errors and incorrect statements from ‘Serious Researchers’, some based upon the records they have sourced/read or how a specific word is interpretation i.e. ‘lay out’ etc.
So IMHO we all make mistakes and a good debate is rather important, but it must be open and sincere. A high and mighty attitude ‘I have said it, so it is’ or because an individual has the ability to shout louder than others does not make their statements correct.

I am for passionate debates, but I will not waste my time with closed minds.

So Wayne, I agree, we should all respect the rights of clubs to withhold their records if they so wish, it’s their property after all. Although I would love to see each club print their full history and have it made available to all for a small price.

In closing I would like to see the course designer explaining their design. Not their brief or a hole by hole guide but as a general Foreword or Preface to what they wanted to achieve and what are the challenges they have given the average golfer. This may be considered by future designers when they are asked to modify or redesign the course in years to come.
 

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

I'm very pleased that you've been given the great honor and privilege of accessing those historic records and I'm sure you'll do a fine job in your analysis.

I'm very happy for you...thrilled actually!   

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I agree with Wayne and Phil.

As some on this site know, I have been attempting to research the formation of the "historically Jewish clubs" in North America prior to WWII for a few years. There is much public information out  there and some clubs have granted me access to their records,minutes and charters and some have not. The ones that have not are the keystone to further research and I have put my project on hold. Perhaps I need better letters of introduction or more prominent members to lobby on my behalf; however, I respect the right of any private club to protect their members and not be the subject of publication or academic inquisition.  So be it.

[Peter Wagner]

Wayne,
Good post.  I agree with you 100% - ALL club records are the property of the club.  Period.  A point that many miss is that a private club isn't like a private company, it is a private company.  All records are closed to outsiders by definition and it doesn't matter how high-minded you believe your project to be.  If the club decides not to publish historical material then so be it.

Many people feel somewhat connected to a private club even though they may not be a member.  They may have been frequent guests or maybe they live nearby and to some extent may feel they have the right to pry.  This happens to me occasionally when local reporters call and want info for a story on our club or a member.  They are always insulted when I "no comment" my way off the phone.  "Your club is part of the community so you HAVE to give me the scoop" is the most common.  Sorry, we are a private club.  Click.

Bob,
You wondered aloud something like "these aren't state secrets" and so why not make it all public info?  On a very small scale I experience this issue on a daily basis.  In my last 3 board meetings we have discussed  a large number of member issues including infidelity, insubordination, expulsion, suspensions, theft, poor character, membership denial, black balling, and on and on.  The Board members and I sit in a room for hours on end talking freely about these very sensitive topics.  At what point do you want me to make these Board minutes public information?  Oh yeah, and throw in that most of these members are very prominent in their fields of work.

Think about the make up of Merion's membership in those early days.  All captains of industry.  A who's who of the American industrial age.  Those are secrets still worth keeping.  None of my business.

How long should these secrets remain?  IMO, they should always remain silent.

By way of example, a few years ago I was working on an article for a wristwatch publication (I'm a vintage watch enthusiast) and I needed to research a particular watch that may have been owned by Juan Carlos Tripp the founder and Chairman of PanAm Airways.  PanAm is or course long defunct and the records are still kept for certain research.  Luckily I was granted access and after a few weeks I found the picture and purchase order I was looking for but unfortunately the picture showed something that would be an embarrassment to the Tripp family.  I didn't publish my story as I felt it would be disrespectful and I'm now working on trying to prove what I now know to be true in a different way.

In addition, there are all of the non-member issues that are discussed at length in the Boardroom.  Think of the explosive discussions at Merion when the split between golf and cricket occurred!  That's fully an 'us vs. them' issue complete with name calling and broken friendships.  I would guess that those Board minutes are ugly.  How much of that is my business today?  Why should it be?

Then there is the issue of privacy as a protection for the Board itself.  If I knew that my comments made in private and recorded for posterity were to be made public for all to see then I would stop speaking.  Ditto all Board members in all private clubs everywhere.

And lastly, again in my little world, I know all of my members and in fact I now know more than I want to know about some of them.  I have a responsibility to keep their secrets because of my club role and because of my friendship with them.  They would do the same for me.

So, these aren't state secrets but instead they are maybe more important to the club itself.

Best,
Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()