Roger and Me ... Wasn't that the name of a documentary film made a few years ago by a fellow who wanted to help the workers at one of America's biggest corporations, General Motors?
History has shown that the film, which pointed out some of the greed and unfair tactics at GM, did cause some changes that not only made it better for the workers but made GM a much better company.
Wouldn't it be nice if something similar could happen for bowling?
This letter is ABC Executive Director Roger Dalkin's response to the February editorial I wrote in opposition to the proposed ABC and WIBC dues increases.
I can say without hesitation that in 10 years of publication, this is the nastiest letter we have ever received and the only time anyone has threatened to sue us. My editorial did get a lot of feedback, mostly by E-mail. To be exact, we had 14 E-mails in support of what I wrote, one (from a WIBC officer) against, and one whose author had not decided how he felt. Dalkin is the only one who responded on paper, and by certified mail, I might add.
I guess this all started in Albuquerque. In March, one or two of the Bowling Writers Association of America members in attendance at our annual meeting expressed their dismay at my editorial, and the next thing I knew, the BWAA Ethics Committee brought me up on "bad conduct" charges.
Three members of the Ethics Committee approached me and asked me to print a retraction or apolgize to ABC and WIBC for my editorial. A fourth committee member abstained from that meeting (or was not invited) because he didn't agree with his own committee.
The Ethics Committee chairman told me that "some people" didn't like the analogy I used in the column comparing the ABC and WIBC deception to President Clinton's lie about Monica Lewinsky. And they especially didn't like my use of the word "corrupt."
In case you missed it or have forgotten, I asked these questions in my editorial: Do you honestly think that giving more money to a corrupt and inept membership organization is going to help make bowling a better sport? Or will more money merely maintain the status quo, prolong the decline, and allow weak leaders to remain in power?
The Ethics Committee chairman said that by using the "c" word, I had implied that ABC and WIBC was, to use his words, full of people who "lie, cheat, and steal."
I told the committee that I had not referred to any individual within ABC or WIBC as corrupt, and in the context I used the word, its meaning was, "not working properly and in need of repair." To make the context clear, I pointed out that if a computer system is not working properly or has a virus, it is corrupt.
The same meaning applies here.
As for the Clinton comparison, I was simply trying to point out that we should not keep supporting people who are not truthful. In fairness, I should point out that President Clinton's deceit was purposeful, and the the ABC's and WIBC's is probably inadvertent.
I told the BWAA committee that day in Albuquerque that I would not apolgize for my editorial because it was my opinion, and we all have a first amendment right to our opinions in this nation. It is perhaps our most precious freedom. The day after our little meeting on the patio of the hotel, the Ethics Committee stood at the front of the room at the BWAA business meeting to give his report to the membership. There were probably 50 or 60 members present. The chairman told the members that they had one item of business and decided that "no action was necessary."
He should have stopped right there, but he decided to add his own opinion and told the members that "one of our members call the ABC and WIBC liars and thieves." Of course, everyone in the room knew he was talking about me, so at that point I stood up and objected to his slanderous words, but he still didn't shut up. He then added a threat: that "I would be hearing from Roger Dalkin."
When he finished, several BWAA members insisted that I get up to defend myself, so I did. I told them I thought it was a sad day when the BWAA decides to try to censure one of its members, and I explained my position and even read them the definition of the word "corrupt" in the context I used it.
The gentleman was correct: I did "hear from Roger," but it was not until April 20, two months after my editorial appeared and more than a month after the BWAA meetings.
Roger's letter puts the ball back in my court, so I choose to respond in this public forum. Just as Roger said my editorial "required" him to respond, I feel compelled to respond to his rather nasty and threatening letter to defend myself and my integrity.
I told the BWAA members that if anyone objected to my position on the dues increase, they could write a letter to the editor, and I would publish the letter. Roger wrote one; here it is.
I also told them that since I own this publication, I reserve the right to rebut any letter we receive and that I will always get the last word in this paper, so here are my thoughts on Roger's letter:
First of all, let's get the money issue straightened out. I said in my editorial that ABC and WIBC talks about dues money as if it was a contribution to charity. It may be "only two dollars" to ABC or WIBC members individually, but a two-dollar increase (which is what both ABC and WIBC got) translates to $14,000,000 in real money. How? The legislation that was passed allows local associations to match the national increase and most of them will. And four dollars times 3.5 million bowlers equals $14 million. Seven million will go the ABC and WIBC, and the other half will stay at the local level.
Roger says in his letter that my "facts about the dues increase are a blatant misstatement." I admit that I did misrepresent the wording of the automatic increase. When I read it, I thought the $2 increase would become $6 if membership dropped below 1.732 million members, when in fact it would go from $2 to $4.
I regret that error on my part. However, I stand by my statement that over $20 million annually will go to ABC/WIBC headquarters if the full increases asked for passed the delegates.
The simple mathematical facts are that ABC and WIBC national dues are now $8, and $8 times 3.5 million members equals $28 million. If all local associations match the national amounts, ABC /WIBC members will be paying $56 million in dues money in the 2000-2001 season.
If the maximum amount proposed had passed ($4 for ABC and $9 for WIBC), national dues would have increased to $10 for ABC and $15 for WIBC, which translates to $19 for ABC (10 x 1.9 million members) and $22.5 million for WIBC ($15 x 1.5 million members) for a total amount on the national level of $41, 500,000 annually. If the local associations increased to their maximum levels allowed, another $38.5 million would be paid on the state and local levels. Had that happened, sanctioned bowlers would have spent $80 million annually in dues money!
Just think what could have been possible if ABC and WIBC had done a good job over the past 20 years and prevented membership from dropping from almost 10 million to its present level of 3.5 million. If 10 million bowlers paid $20 each for membership in an organization they were proud of, $400 million would come from sanctioned league bowling. If strong leaders were in place, bowling would be thriving.
Unfortunately, ABC and WIBC membership has declined every year for the past 20 years, and our current crop of leaders have proven year after year that they don't know how to stop it. It is pretty obvious that the problem is systematic. To reverse the decline, they must change the system; they have not done that to a great enough degree to make a significant difference.
Please notice when you read Roger's letter that he only addresses ABC's position. My editorial was about ABC and WIBC, but there is no single leader who can respond for both groups.
I did hear from WIBC President Joyce Deitch but not directly. Her message came to me through PWBA Chairman John Sommer. Mr. Sommer called me to say that he had been told that Joyce was "very upset" and that was concerned that since I also work for PWBA that my editorial could jeopardize PWBA's current sponsorship deal with WIBC.
It looked like somebody was trying to get me fired from PWBA, but John Sommer is intelligent enough to not react to such tactics. He was not happy about my editorial, but we had a good conversation about it, and he knows that I would never do anything to harm PWBA's chances for success.
Because I respect Joyce Deitch as one of the strongest leaders in our industry, I sent her an E-mail explaining that my editorial in Stars & Strikes has no connection to PWBA. If I could not separate the two, I would be a very good journalist.
She did not respond to my E-mail.
To address the bullet points at the top of Roger's letter, the first one concerns the System of Bowling. I have been a vocal critic of the SOB from the day it was introduced in 1991. The SOB has a fatal flaw that has never been explained. It calls for minimum parameters (three units of oil) but has no maximum requirements.
It's true I didn't attend the "media day" in Greendale Roger refers to about this subject. I had intended to attend the meeting in Albuquerque, but it was held at the precise moment I was being called on the carpet by the BWAA Ethics Committee about my editorial. While Roger and Roseann [Kuhn, WIBC executive director] gave their talk in one room of the hotel, I was being confronted in another. I wonder if that was a coincidence.
If Roger knew me, he might think twice about questioning my credentials on this subject. My study of lane conditions goes back much further than the creation of the System of Bowling. I have been interested in the subject from the time I started bowling seriously in the late 1960s. I first bowled in 1958, and by 1970 I averaged over 200.
In the late 1970s, I was on the lane inspection committee as a director of the Dallas Bowling Association. I bowled in the PBA on the regional level for more than 10 years. I have run tournaments and sweepers since the mid-70s for which I was responsible for the lane conditions. I have been the general manager of seven different bowling centers and the proprietor of one for three years. I am currently the regional program director for PWBA, and our program stages more than 50 pro events every year. I was PWBA's first regional director, starting the program in July of 1984.
One of my former business partners was in the lane resurfacing business. As a journalist, I have talked with and interviewed some of the foremost experts in the world on this subject. I have attended several USA Bowling Bronze and Silver Coaching Conferences where this subject is addressed.
Roger probably does not remember, but I sent him a lengthy letter several years ago expressing my concern that high scoring would ruin the ABC Tournament. The ABC Tournament scores increased drastically in 1989 in Wichita, Kansas and have remained high to this day. Roger, then ABC assistant executive director, was the man in charge of this event. In his reply to me, he described the scoring increase as a "phenomenon."
I have also exchanged letters and had a conversation with former ABC Test Lab Director Dan Speranza about the outrageous scoring, Speranza repeated the words used by the late Darold Dobs and Dalkin-So what?-meaning that he did not see any relation between the decline of ABC members and high scoring.
The point is, I know a little more about this subject than most people, and I certainly feel more than qualified to comment on it. I may not have attended Roger's and Roseann's meetings, but I did attend three of the meeting held the System of Bowling Task Force.
I gave SOB Task Force Chairman Alan Douglas written recommendations for changes. I even went the extra mile and sought input from three of the best bowlers in the world. In March of 1997, we published a feature interview with PBA stars Norm Duke, Brian Voss, and Mike Edwards entitled "SOS - Save Our Sport." It was an appeal to bowling's leadership from three of the best bowlers in the world to stop the legalized lane blocking that makes the pros look ordinary. It offered solutions, and I gave a copy of it to Mr. Douglas with my recommendations and solutions. As for attending the next "Media Day" in July, maybe I will.
The second bullet point on page two of Roger's letter is a rather weak response to my inquiry about bracket money at the ABC Tournament and at the Team Challenge tournaments. Roger says these funds "are fully monitored and the ABC proceeds are included in our operating statements and audited by the accounting firm of Arthur Anderson."
My question asked in February, "Where is the accounting of all that bracket money?" stems from a story I did a couple of years ago for Bowlers Journal entitled "Chaos in Columbus." The story was about a couple of teams being suspended from the Team Challenge event for allegedly sandbagging to keep their eligibility for the brackets in future events.
In my research on the story, I discovered that a great deal of bracket money (probably several million dollars) had been paid out in cash to Team Challenge bowlers but no 1099s [IRS forms] had ever been sent out. When I interviewed Roger by phone, he told me that he was not aware of the exact procedures, but he would make sure that the ABC would comply with the tax laws.
My impression was that he was a little shocked to hear that no 1099s had been issued, but he kept his word. A few months later, 1099s went out to Team Challenge bowlers, many of whom probably were surprised to get them. I still don't know how they dealt with the previous years, however. Since virtually all the bracket income and prizes are cash, it may have been impossible to account for the previous years unless detailed records were kept.
The bracket issue is difficult because many of the bowlers want them and because so much money can be made, but I still don't think it's a good idea for the ABC to be in the bracket business. Can you imagine the USGA running brackets in golf? The ABC-run events should be about the sport, not about brackets. I have several friends who bowl in the ABC and the WTC only for the brackets. In my opinion, that cheapens the sport and with so much cash flying around, it puts the event staff at risk.
In the ABC budget for 1999-2000, I found several references of bracket income. The budget says that $50,286 was made in the World Team Challenge brackets in 1998-99 and that $65,000 was budgeted. The 1999-2000 budget projection is $42,000. For the ABC Tournament, $330,000 was the budget figure, but the actual audited income was $541,462 in 1998-99. I'm not a CPA, but I could find no listing in the expense section for bracket prizes or payouts. Perhaps it is lumped in with overall tournament prizes.
A couple of thoughts on this bracket business:
First, that's a lot of cash going through the hands of ABC Tournament workers, and second, if the payouts are in with the tournaments prizes, why is that? Does the $600,000-plus represent all the bracket money in these two events or is it only the 121/2 cut that most bracket operators take off the top? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but it is very confusing.
The third bullet point states that "regarding the proposal for Orlando, there are no plans to spend money, and we will agree to no arrangement that is not financially beneficial to ABC." Did Roger forget about the money spent by Strike Ten Entertainment and Bowling Inc. to woo Florida legislatures in a lobbying effort? And if "no money" is to be spent, why is $90,000 budgeted for the "Florida Bowling Village" in the 1999-2000 ABC budget?
As for my suggestions to cut salaries by 20 percent and travel by 50 percent, I think it is more reasonable for an organization that is less than 50 percent of the size it was 20 years ago. And I wonder who many ABC executive officers have been given pay increases every year in spite of these losses.
As for ABC paying their employees five percent below the market rate, this might explain some of the problem. How many good people have not accepted or left ABC employment for better pay? And do you really believe that all ABC employees work at ABC "because they love bowling, not for the financial rewards"? If that's true, then Roger and some others should have no problem giving up their six-figure incomes for salaries five percent below the market rate.
Regarding salaries, people who are highly paid are expected to get good results. Steve Ryan at Strike Ten Entertainment was a good example. There was a lot of pressure on him to produce results because of his enormous salary (over $300,000 per year). When the results didn't come after three years, he was gone. Apparently this same tough but sensible business standard does not apply to ABC executives.
The final suggestion I made in my editorial was for ABC and WIBC to cut prizes and awards by 50 percent to save more than $4.5 million per year. Roger says this "exposes how little you know and understand our organization" because within that $9.2 million are the prize funds for the ABC and WIBC Tournaments.
My question regarding the "prizes and awards" is why are they lumped together in the expense category? Wouldn't it be better to separate them so ABC members can see how much is spent on over 34,000 perfect game awards and other awards last year?
Regarding Roger's statement, "the vast majority of the funds in this category is the prize funds for the ABC and WIBC Tournaments," I'd like to see the actual numbers-a simple breakdown of the total income and total expense of each individual tournament.
Most bowlers who enter tournaments want to know one thing more than anything else: What percentage of my entry fee goes into the prize fund? The ABC and WIBC Tournaments finances have become so complex, I don't even know if it's possible to answer that simple question.
Looking at ABC's Annual Report, Exhibit I STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES - TOURNAMENTS FOR THE YEARS ENDING July 31, 1999 and 1998, it shows $18,449400 on REVENUES and GAINS. On the EXPENSE side, it shows $16,423,467 paid out, for a profit of $2,425,933.
Comparing ENTRY FEES to PRIZES and AWARDS, the '98-99 statement shows $13,954,055 in entry fees and $8,317,614 in Prizes and Awards. Does that mean that about 60 percent of entry fees are returned in prizes and awards? If it does, that would not be considered a very good return for most people. Also remember that these numbers represent all ABC tournaments, so the individual events could be better or worse.
In my editorial, I called for a 50 percent reduction in travel expenses to save $845,000-plus annually. I also questioned why Roger and Jack Mordini traveled to more than a dozen cities to sell the dues increase. Roger's answer is I "missed the point."
"The vast majority of this amount is for Board and Committee travels to do the work of the Congress," he wrote. Further, the whirlwind tour, according to Roger, "involved driving at 6:00 a.m. from Fishkill, N.Y., to Syracuse, N.Y., to save ABC members $250 in airline fees and other cost saving travel, while giving up seven consecutive weekends to meet with our associations."
This raises several more questions, like how big is the association in Fishkill, N.Y., and since you didn't fly, did you rent a car? If it were me, I'd rather drive than fly on one of those small puddle jumpers anyway. And what has 6:00 a.m. got to do with it? Does this demonstrate Roger's dedication to ABC members? As for giving up seven consecutive weekends, wouldn't it have been more efficient to simply stay in Greendale and communicate by phone, fax, and E-mail with a greater number of associations?
Finally, on the third and last page of Roger's letter, Roger says he tried to determine the reasons for my editorial and says "bowling has enough people pointing out what's wrong and who's to blame."
At times, it may seem to Roger like everyone is out to get him and the ABC, but from my viewpoint, there are not nearly enough people in bowling pointing out what needs to be fixed and offering viable solutions. What I see, and what a lot of ABC members and other industry people see, is too many people "looking the other way" because they are either making a big profit from the present environment or they get paid the same no matter what condition the sport is in.
As for offering solutions, that is exactly what my editorial did, and I think I have demonstrated in this response to Roger's letter that I have offered plenty of solutions over the years. Obviously, Roger only wants solutions he agrees with or solutions that don't change the status quo.
Who knows where this will go from here, but no matter what happens, I hope Roger can figure out that I and people like me who want bowling to get better are not the enemy. And, by the way, I'm not the only person who has ever called the ABC corrupt.
In 1994, another BWAA member published an article that included the following sentence: "Bowling's leadership is corrupt. There is no genuine concern for bowling as a sport or there would be no 160-for-real average bowlers thinking they are the equal of the 200-230 averages that they see on their scoresheets."
That same BWAA member wrote: "Bowling is dying, mired and suffocating in a morass of ignominy, never to rise again because this formerly marvelous technically laden sport was taken over by the welfare state mentalities of American Bowling Congress dunderheads who failed to keep under control the sellers of bowling products, all basically innocent, ignorant souls unprepared to deal with a sport containing no defense mechanism by which to maintain a vital amount of integrity."
That was quite a statement, and I couldn't have said it better, but did it cause the BWAA to charge the writer with "bad conduct" rile up the ABC? On the contrary, the BWAA and ABC gave this writer one of its highest awards not long after that was written.
In 1998 and again in 1999, Bowling Magazine, the official publication of the American Bowling Congress, gave its top award in its annual writing contest to Steve Friedman, who wrote two articles about PBA stars Pete Weber and Rudy Kasimakas. The articles were full of obscenities and half-truths, and the Weber piece upset the entire Weber family enormously, but I don't think they sued for libel.
I didn't enter the contest in '98 or '99, but maybe I'll send in my editorial for this year's contest. Based on the standard that has been established in the past two years, it looks like a sure winner.
As for apologies and retractions, we believe that this article explains our previous editorial thoroughly and that publishing Roger's letter gives his opposing view on behalf of ABC. I told Jim Dressel of Bowlers Journal International that if any apologies were in order, it's the ABC who should apologize to its members and the industry for failing to uphold the standards and integrity of our sport, resulting in the loss of millions of ABC and WIBC members.
Who's right or wrong? It doesn't really matter, but now people can read this and make up their own minds. What's really important is our constitutional right to express our opinions and that a writer should be able to do so without fear of litigation. I hope Roger and I can at least agree on that.
I should note for our readers that Roger and I have never met. We have exchanged letters and the one phone call I mentioned, and we have exchanged "hellos" in passing, but we've never sat down together and had a conversation. Maybe all this will lead to a productive one in the future. For the sake of all of us, I hope it's not in a courtroom.
To address Roger's threat to sue me—"you leave ABC with no alternative other than to commence an action against you and your publication pursuant to the provisions of sec. 73.001 of the Texas Statutes": Needless to say, this part of the letter got my attention, and a friend in law enforcement was kind enough to send me a copy of the Texas Libel Statutes Roger refers to.
I'm not an attorney, but common sense tells me that my editorial doesn't even come close to violating these laws as written. I wonder if he read Statute 73.001 before he wrote his letter.
I would also suggest that he read Statute 73.002 because it specifically deals with newspapers and periodicals and Statute 73.003 because it suggests what evidence would be made public if a suit is filed.
Jim Goodwin's interview with ABC Executive Director Roger Dalkin (Part One)