365: MemberVetting, Inclusivity, & Non-Discrimination in Private Clubs w/ Paul Dank

Transcript

WEBVTT

00:00:00.359 --> 00:00:01.582
The club has the right to say no.

00:00:01.582 --> 00:00:09.855
We did gauge you on that and we decided that that isn't demonstrative of how we would act at the club.

00:00:09.855 --> 00:00:20.327
Or if there's things that you find in someone's background that show that they're not going to fit within your decorum policy, right, they're going to violate that code right away.

00:00:20.327 --> 00:00:23.109
They've demonstrated it and you just don't feel it's the right time.

00:00:23.109 --> 00:00:36.049
There's usually that confusion where they say maybe this is about my class status and not about me, so being able to demonstrate to them and explain to them why they weren't allowed in goes a long way.

00:00:36.049 --> 00:00:40.427
So I don't think it happens often, but here's the thing it's pretty upsetting.

00:00:40.527 --> 00:00:53.435
Hey everyone, welcome back to the Private Club Radio Show where people come to learn all about the ins and outs of the world of private golf and country clubs, from people who are brand new to the industry, complete outsiders to industry professionals and veterans.

00:00:53.435 --> 00:01:02.189
We go over any and all the topics, ranging from marketing, branding, food and beverage, governance, hospitality, leadership, management, you name it.

00:01:02.189 --> 00:01:02.930
We got it.

00:01:02.930 --> 00:01:03.972
Thank you all for being here.

00:01:03.972 --> 00:01:05.734
I'm your host, denny Corby.

00:01:05.734 --> 00:01:29.468
Welcome to the show In this episode, sitting down again with a show partner and friend and all around good person, paul Dank, from over at membervetting membervettingcom the choice the people to go to when it comes to fact-based member vetting and background checks and research and making sure the right people and members are getting into your club.

00:01:30.290 --> 00:01:40.896
And he and I were talking and just I thought a lot more clubs did vetting or I should say more in-depth vetting.

00:01:40.896 --> 00:01:52.102
I think it's super important because we're letting people outsiders into a club, into our environment, and I think they should be vetted a little bit more than just the average little background checks.

00:01:52.102 --> 00:01:56.352
There should be some more detail that goes into it.

00:01:56.352 --> 00:02:10.979
And Paul and I were talking and he told me that one of the main reasons that people clubs are sometimes a little bit hesitant to more in-depth fact-based member vetting is because they're afraid of discrimination.

00:02:10.979 --> 00:02:19.899
They're afraid of getting sued and discriminatory I can't talk today, but they're afraid of lawsuits.

00:02:19.899 --> 00:02:22.068
They're afraid of discrimination lawsuits.

00:02:22.068 --> 00:02:27.492
They're afraid of getting in trouble for discriminating against people coming into their clubs.

00:02:27.860 --> 00:02:31.770
We talk about the balance between fact-based vetting and legal safeguards.

00:02:31.770 --> 00:02:32.772
Where is that line?

00:02:32.772 --> 00:02:51.032
How does it work in a private golf and country clubs and having equal treatment for all applicants and why transparency and fairness can all mitigate legal risks when it comes to the vetting process?

00:02:51.032 --> 00:03:06.651
And really all of this is kind of just shedding light on the misconceptions that you know stringent vetting increases lawsuits and risks, but what it really boils down to is that the only risk is actual discrimination, which is what we're not doing.

00:03:07.233 --> 00:03:25.645
So anyway, and before we go on, I shouldn't mention that, if you are interested in a little bit more about member vetting, maybe what the Kenis approach is and how it, how it differs and cause they have a bunch of different levels and layers to how deep that they go to get and find information.

00:03:25.645 --> 00:03:28.131
There's so many different layers and packages that they have.

00:03:28.131 --> 00:03:33.127
So if you are interested, head on over to membervettingcom and set up a call with Paul Dank.

00:03:33.127 --> 00:03:41.640
Super nice guy, great fun conversation you're going to have and all about how you can protect your club and members a little bit more.

00:03:41.640 --> 00:03:43.125
On that note, let's welcome Paul Dank.

00:03:44.008 --> 00:04:00.007
Sometimes, when I'm pitching a club, they come out with the theory that if they start using fact-based vetting and saying no based on things that they normally wouldn't know about, that opens them up to discrimination lawsuits.

00:04:00.007 --> 00:04:14.681
Right, that increases the risk that they're going to get sued, and it's a small thing.

00:04:14.681 --> 00:04:16.244
But using facts and having standards is different than discriminating.

00:04:16.244 --> 00:04:21.173
In order to get sued for discrimination, you, number one, have to be dealing with someone that fits into a protected class, right?

00:04:21.173 --> 00:04:22.826
So that first thing's first.

00:04:22.826 --> 00:04:34.141
So if you have an applicant that doesn't fit into that, it's very unlikely they're going to be able to come at you, no matter how unhappy they are with your decision, and say that you weren't allowed in because you were discriminated against.

00:04:34.141 --> 00:04:51.031
Having standards and saying irrespective of who you are in terms of whether or not you fit into a protected class or you don't, we treat everyone on the entry decision the same and we can articulate how we do that.

00:04:51.432 --> 00:04:54.144
And when we said no, we can articulate why we said no.

00:04:54.144 --> 00:04:56.670
And so you don't have a right.

00:04:56.670 --> 00:05:01.809
You have a right not to be discriminated against, but you don't have a right to be allowed access to a club.

00:05:01.809 --> 00:05:05.740
Obviously, anything I'm talking about you should talk to an attorney about.

00:05:05.740 --> 00:05:19.564
But the concept of using facts in the vetting, somehow increasing the risk when you're dealing with someone that fits in a protected class being sued for discrimination, it doesn't make any difference.

00:05:19.564 --> 00:05:21.750
Use whatever your standard is going to be.

00:05:21.750 --> 00:05:40.476
If there's someone in a protected class who comes to your club for their interview and is caustic to the doorman and belittling to the coat check person and shows you their true behaviors, you're not going to let them in, irrespective of whatever their protected class is.

00:05:41.600 --> 00:05:49.122
Clubs somehow or sometimes feel like that's a very understandable, objective thing that I can take action on.

00:05:49.122 --> 00:06:06.892
But if I go out and I fact check their application and I find that they lied to us or misled us or that they engage in behaviors that don't work here, right, and that they don't fit our standard, our colorblind standard, right?

00:06:06.892 --> 00:06:08.605
You know the symbol of justice.

00:06:08.605 --> 00:06:10.050
She's blindfolded with her scale.

00:06:10.050 --> 00:06:23.225
If they don't fit and I can show you why and I use the same standard and would say no to the very next person, irrespective of who they are and if they're in a protected class, it doesn't add any more.

00:06:23.225 --> 00:06:31.432
It doesn't add any more volition to the idea that someone's going to file a suit against you, but it seems to come up.

00:06:31.432 --> 00:06:41.483
It's almost this natural reaction and I think maybe it's an idea of hey, if we're vetting a little more stringently than we had been, we're going to draw that in.

00:06:41.610 --> 00:06:43.797
I guess from a numbers perspective, maybe you could.

00:06:43.797 --> 00:06:50.156
But I keep going back to and the people that I know that engage us to do this.

00:06:50.156 --> 00:06:55.016
They say the same things you have to actually discriminate to get in trouble for discrimination.

00:06:55.016 --> 00:07:11.976
Now, yes, anybody can sue anybody, but unless there was a secondary secret reason and you're being extra stringent or extra weird with this person because of their protected class status, it doesn't make any difference, but clubs seem to worry about it.

00:07:11.976 --> 00:07:15.879
So it's kind of an interesting byproduct of using facts.

00:07:15.879 --> 00:07:23.593
In fact, it's the only time when I've ever heard anybody say you know what, if we start using more facts, we're really going to get in trouble here.

00:07:23.593 --> 00:07:30.285
Let's keep it subjective, and that's been interesting to me, those conversations.

00:07:31.129 --> 00:07:33.699
How many clubs have get sued for discrimination?

00:07:33.699 --> 00:07:35.233
I think that's the other thing is like.

00:07:35.233 --> 00:07:37.281
Is that a common?

00:07:37.281 --> 00:07:38.574
I haven't really heard it.

00:07:38.574 --> 00:07:41.839
I mean, I know it's out there, but is it a common thing that happens?

00:07:41.839 --> 00:07:54.206
Or are they just even worried at the hint that someone might for call them out for even potentially discriminating?

00:07:55.089 --> 00:07:55.170
Yeah.

00:07:55.170 --> 00:08:01.843
So litigation has you know that tipping point where you actually file a suit, right?

00:08:01.843 --> 00:08:15.341
There's a lot of people that go out and retain lawyers and contact people and say you know, we have a formal dispute with you, we can start to negotiate and talk about this and you can make my client whole right now, or we can do it in court.

00:08:15.341 --> 00:08:25.516
I work for a number of lawyers who the first thing they'll do is they'll send the complaint over and say this is what I'm prepared to file.

00:08:25.516 --> 00:08:28.903
Would you like to talk or would you like me to file and we can spend the time in court.

00:08:28.903 --> 00:08:37.128
And so I don't know that there's a good metric on how many that anybody's even tracking how often it happens.

00:08:37.128 --> 00:08:38.974
I don't think it happens very frequently.

00:08:38.974 --> 00:08:47.980
I also think that there's probably more frequency of people saying I feel like I was mistreated because they misunderstood the circumstances.

00:08:47.980 --> 00:08:53.735
Right, I wasn't allowed in the club, I'm in a protected class, so I'm making an assumption.

00:08:53.735 --> 00:09:08.779
It's about my lifestyle, it's about my race, it's about right, something that puts me in that protected class, and it's not about the fact that I'm not a good fit or that the club has a requirement and somehow I failed them and somehow I failed them.

00:09:08.779 --> 00:09:22.359
So anybody can make an argument to say I didn't mistreat the valet and I didn't mistreat the Kocek person and I feel like my behavior was wonderful and you should allow me in the club has the right to say, no, I don't.

00:09:22.359 --> 00:09:29.321
We did gauge you on that and we decided that that isn't demonstrative of how we would act at the club.

00:09:29.321 --> 00:09:39.778
Or if there's things that you find in someone's background that show that they're not going to fit within your decorum policy, right, they're going to violate that code right away.

00:09:39.778 --> 00:09:42.553
They've demonstrated it and you just don't feel it's the right time.

00:09:42.553 --> 00:09:49.333
There's usually that confusion where they say maybe this is about my class status and not about me.

00:09:49.333 --> 00:09:55.485
So being able to demonstrate to them and explain to them why they weren't allowed in goes a long way.

00:09:55.485 --> 00:09:57.894
So I don't think it happens often.

00:09:57.894 --> 00:09:58.738
But here's the thing.

00:09:58.738 --> 00:10:01.410
It's pretty upsetting Clubs.

00:10:01.490 --> 00:10:06.042
For a long time you know you go back to the 80s and 90s there were still clubs that didn't allow women in.

00:10:06.042 --> 00:10:12.373
So the club world was one of because you're allowed to pick and choose who you wish to associate with.

00:10:12.373 --> 00:10:14.097
Constitution guarantees it.

00:10:14.097 --> 00:10:35.961
Because of that, I think it was one of the last adopters to say, hey, we should really be following all the regulations, even the ones that we could make an argument don't apply to us Things like the Fair Housing Act, things like the Fair Credit Reporting Act and, to a much greater degree right, the Civil Rights Act, americans with Disabilities Act.

00:10:35.961 --> 00:10:49.015
So there was probably times where clubs weren't very willing to follow those acts and said we're going to discriminate and use whatever judgment we want to.

00:10:49.015 --> 00:10:52.484
I don't think you have to go too far back in history to see that.

00:10:53.070 --> 00:11:04.359
The point is, I think almost every club that I've dealt with very much is not caught up in a world where they don't want to be diverse and they don't want to have members from all segments of society.

00:11:04.359 --> 00:11:05.322
They're very open to it.

00:11:05.322 --> 00:11:12.601
In fact, I've had many a conversation where they said I wish we had a more diverse selection of people applying for membership in the club.

00:11:12.601 --> 00:11:13.673
We're excited about it.

00:11:13.673 --> 00:11:18.575
It's the exact opposite of wanting to discriminate Doesn't mean that club doesn't have a culture.

00:11:18.855 --> 00:11:20.802
You know you and I were at the NCAA conference.

00:11:20.802 --> 00:11:26.522
Most of that conference was about culture and fit, and it's not just culture within staff.

00:11:26.522 --> 00:11:34.845
A large portion of it was aimed at the membership and I think NCAA did a great job and had some great speakers who articulated what it takes to build a culture.

00:11:34.845 --> 00:11:38.035
If you have people that don't fit in the culture, how are you going to build a good culture?

00:11:38.035 --> 00:11:48.258
So saying no isn't necessarily bad and you don't take on more risk just because you might be saying no to someone that does fit into a protected class, in my opinion.

00:11:48.619 --> 00:11:52.816
So I don't think it's popular, but it's also an awful stigma to be labeled that way.

00:11:52.816 --> 00:11:57.572
If you didn't discriminate and you're accused of it, it really seems crappy.

00:11:57.572 --> 00:12:01.740
So I think clubs want to go a long way from staying away from that.

00:12:01.740 --> 00:12:06.559
The other thing is the media is terrible about this stuff, so these are infrequent.

00:12:06.559 --> 00:12:12.052
But when they do find out that a club was sued for discrimination, they're going to feature it on the news.

00:12:12.052 --> 00:12:22.683
Now if an accounting firm down the road, a landscaping company, a laundromat, any other business gets sued for discrimination, no one notices and no one cares.

00:12:22.683 --> 00:12:26.251
Clubs right, it's those people up on the mountain.

00:12:26.251 --> 00:12:28.333
That's how they behave and they're awful.

00:12:28.333 --> 00:12:33.577
And Joey Lunchpail the average person thinks that's interesting news.

00:12:33.577 --> 00:12:54.274
So I understand the strong desire to stay away from ever having that label put on you, but adding facts certainly doesn't increase the liability if anything, it should probably save you right.

00:12:54.293 --> 00:12:57.750
I mean to, if someone says like I mean if someone comes after you and says hey, I'm, you know for like discrimination, I I mean I would feel happy going.

00:12:57.750 --> 00:13:02.086
Oh, no, no, no, no, look, we use kennis, we did all, we checked all the facts.

00:13:02.086 --> 00:13:03.330
You're just wrong.

00:13:03.330 --> 00:13:04.552
Like you're just not a good fit.

00:13:04.552 --> 00:13:07.120
Like you did x, y and z, this is not a good fit.

00:13:07.120 --> 00:13:09.072
Like to me that's like a lifeline.

00:13:09.092 --> 00:13:11.038
Well, it certainly.

00:13:11.038 --> 00:13:12.041
It certainly can be.

00:13:12.041 --> 00:13:17.993
I mean, you know the facts that are presented aren't necessarily going to be the reasons you're going to say no.

00:13:17.993 --> 00:13:32.653
If you were rude to the staff or if a member knows about something that you're engaged in that they find that isn't representative of the club's culture, those are really good reasons and really likely reasons you're not going to get in and that you're determined not to be a good fit.

00:13:33.275 --> 00:13:36.003
I think it's very easy for clubs to defend themselves.

00:13:36.003 --> 00:13:38.375
I think it's just a sensitive topic.

00:13:38.375 --> 00:13:45.381
I don't know whether that's because the club world in general I'm not speaking to any specific club was a little bit slower to embrace those things.

00:13:45.381 --> 00:13:49.657
Truly, private clubs do have the right to discriminate.

00:13:49.657 --> 00:13:50.839
I mean they do.

00:13:50.839 --> 00:13:52.582
That could actually be a standard.

00:13:52.582 --> 00:14:08.634
I haven't met a single club that has any desire to come within a thousand miles of the idea of discriminating to benefit a subclass of society that doesn't want people around.

00:14:08.634 --> 00:14:20.808
I don't think I really haven't met anybody that I felt even slightly was interested in that, whether that club is, you know, in the north, the south, the east or the west, and I think people are very sensitive to it.

00:14:20.808 --> 00:14:34.812
So it's just an interesting thing because it comes up in pretty much every other conversation I have with a new club is well, you know how do we deal with and I said you got to describe, I think you got to actually discriminate, to get in trouble for discriminating.

00:14:34.812 --> 00:14:40.208
So interesting sidebar to what I do.

00:14:41.200 --> 00:15:02.855
No, yeah, that that and you and I talked about this a few weeks ago and not that I, I think it just finally clicked a little bit more about kennis and member vetting and the importance and the in the need is, uh, you, you talked about it once and, uh, me and my wife were watching, uh, things like the crumbly trials.

00:15:02.855 --> 00:15:04.159
I was about a school shooter.

00:15:04.341 --> 00:15:14.370
Yeah, in, um, yeah here in michigan, yeah, here in michigan, michigan, and it was one of the first cases where they went after the parents for, I think, homicidal negligence.

00:15:14.390 --> 00:15:34.947
I forget the exact term, but in my head it was that moment, even though you've told me, and it just clicked, because it goes when it hits the fan the if, if, if, who, what, where, when, why, the media, they're all gonna dig and research and find any little thing they can to help their cause and do anything.

00:15:35.008 --> 00:15:40.049
So of course, as a club you should do as much as you can to help and save yourself.

00:15:40.049 --> 00:15:43.183
Like that, just like it, just because they just go after everybody.

00:15:43.183 --> 00:15:47.035
So if anything happens, they're gonna start digging around like well, why were they even allowed it in the first place in this?

00:15:47.035 --> 00:15:49.341
And you know the club did x, y, and start digging around like, well, why were they even allowed in the first place in this?

00:15:49.341 --> 00:15:49.697
And you know the club did X, y and Z.

00:15:49.697 --> 00:16:31.302
It's like, oh well, of course, if you use someone like Ken, at least you have some sort of like hey, we did our best, we did, we have the best package, we made sure we hire or we, you know, we allow in the best people that we can no-transcript, don't go through that stuff.

00:16:31.342 --> 00:16:33.489
but it's also not uncommon.

00:16:33.489 --> 00:16:34.692
I mean, these things happen.

00:16:34.692 --> 00:16:38.986
The club world is a microcosm of society.

00:16:38.986 --> 00:16:42.761
It doesn't mean it's immune from all the things that impact society.

00:16:42.761 --> 00:16:53.288
We hope so, but yeah, I think you're absolutely right that looking for those things that have predictive value and you can do that absolutely blindfolded.

00:16:53.408 --> 00:16:59.014
If there's somebody that it doesn't matter who they are, it doesn't matter if they fit into any protected class.

00:16:59.014 --> 00:17:15.933
If you're spreading hate speech and it seems maniacal and you're doing it through a ghost account or ghost accounts that you set up, I think that speaks a lot about your character and frankly, as a club member myself, I don't really care what the context is.

00:17:15.933 --> 00:17:20.916
If that was an attempt at humor, that's the kind of humor that's not appreciated here.

00:17:20.916 --> 00:17:23.817
I don't want to be around somebody that's doing things like that.

00:17:23.817 --> 00:17:33.673
So, no matter how you try and portray those things, those things are gender, race, disability, blind.

00:17:33.673 --> 00:17:44.711
Those are just acts of people that don't fit in the club period or have behaviors that we think are outright dangerous, and the good news is you don't have to associate with them.

00:17:45.680 --> 00:17:46.945
Hope you all enjoyed that episode.

00:17:46.945 --> 00:17:52.490
I know I always enjoy learning more about the member vetting process and what goes into it in the backgrounds.

00:17:52.490 --> 00:18:04.176
So if you're interested in learning a little bit more about the Kenneth's approach and how to maybe step up your vetting game at your club, your member process, head on over to membervettingcom.

00:18:04.176 --> 00:18:09.352
Set up a confidential call with Paul Dank, guaranteed it's going to be a great conversation.

00:18:09.352 --> 00:18:18.470
If you are enjoying the content, enjoying the episodes, a like, share, subscribe is one of the best ways you can support the channel as well as supporting all of our show partners.

00:18:18.470 --> 00:18:19.441
That's all we ask.

00:18:19.441 --> 00:18:20.786
A little bit of help and it means the world.

00:18:20.786 --> 00:18:22.332
That's this episode.

00:18:22.332 --> 00:18:24.619
Until next time, catch you on the flippity flip.