2013 PGA Championship at Oak Hill (Photo by Paul Ericson)
This post is one in a partnership between the Rochester Beacon and veteran reporter Gary Craig, featuring articles published on his Substack site.
Two weeks ago, Oak Hill Country Club got good news: In 2035, Oak Hill will host its fifth PGA Championship.
That decision provided an answer to a question hovering around Oak Hill in recent months, namely whether the club’s bitter internecine lawsuit, pitting members against members, would mar the reputation in larger golf circles.
“It is a huge relief that, whatever toxic nonsense is going on with country club politics, it hasn’t negatively impacted Oak Hill or the prestige of the East Course in the eyes of the PGA of America,” a longtime Oak Hill member told me in a text.
Gary Craig
The lawsuit between current and former board members is nearing a year since its initial filing. During that year I’ve written a dozen times about the lawsuit, most for my former employer, the Democrat and Chronicle, and some here at Substack.
Even the news of the forthcoming PGA could not completely stymie the internal tensions generated by the lawsuit. Some of those supporting the lawsuit (more on the basis of the litigation shortly) have successfully petitioned the board for a special meeting on Oct. 15. To do so required the support of more than 10 percent of the club’s voting membership. The lawsuit will be a focus.
The lawsuit has had enough twists and turns to justify fresh stories, but many lawsuits often do—and, with many stories, I’ve often ignored those twists and turns until a resolution of some sorts. But the Oak Hill litigation has been different than with many past stories in that the interest from the public has, frankly, surprised the heck out of me.
Earlier this year, I could hardly leave the house without being asked about the litigation. Rochester’s Rotary Club asked me to speak at a luncheon, solely about the lawsuit. I also discussed the lawsuit at length during a recent interview with Evan Dawson on his WXXI Connections show.
In some past Substack posts I’ve asked readers to tell me why they think there is such keen interest. I’ll get back to that, after revisiting the lawsuit and where we are, via the most common questions.
What is the Oak Hill lawsuit?
In short, the board in 2024 ejected one of its own, retired businessman Eugene Baldino, and alleged that he had been boorishly rude and nasty to Oak Hill staff on two occasions. The vote was narrow, a margin of 8 to 7, to remove Baldino, according to court papers, and came after a lengthy internal investigation into his alleged misconduct.
Who’s suing?
Baldino sued the board and some staff and members. He was not alone; he was joined by other Oak Hill members who believed Baldino had been wronged and was trying to bring transparency to club finances.
What does Baldino allege?
The lawsuit makes numerous allegations, but its core is that the action to remove him was improper under state nonprofit guidelines for boards of directors. (Social clubs can be nonprofit, but money toward the clubs isn’t deductible.)
Baldino said he had been, as a board member, questioning the club’s finances and the actions of some senior staff, and was targeted because of his questions. One of his allegations claims that a holiday fund, raised by members and donated to staff, has been improperly directed to some higher-paid employees. His bigger claim was that the membership was not seeing benefits from increased club revenue.
The response?
The club and its board say that Baldino’s allegations are a smoke screen for his ill-tempered behavior. He was properly and rightly booted from the board, they say in court papers. (Both sides say a lot more; there are thousands of pages of court papers to date.)
Isn’t there a second lawsuit?
Yes, and this is where the palace intrigue takes an even odder turn. While there were two claims of bad Baldino behavior, one was from the past and the most recent incident, in the spring of last year, was the most consequential. The claim was that Baldino’s interaction with a club restaurant manager was so churlishly vulgar that it breached the club’s rules for civil behavior.
However—and this is a big however—the employee later provided an affidavit saying that, while Baldino had been angry about a lack of seating for some other club members, he had not behaved as badly as portrayed. He was justifiably upset and the board’s investigation, during which she was questioned, was likely a ruse to remove him, the former employee, Hanna Halpin, alleged.
She, too, is now suing the club. One of those she is suing, former Board President Robert Sansone, has succeeded in having the lawsuit against him dismissed. It could be refiled.
In court papers, lawyers for the club contend that Halpin’s story has veered from what she said during its internal investigation.
Are there settlement talks?
There have been, and both sides have said there is a willingness to settle, but the terms have not been acceptable.
What is the impact on membership?
There clearly are ill feelings about this, as evidenced by internal emails shared with me throughout the litigation. Most worrisome for some members is the fact that insurers have said they will not cover the club’s costs because the policy does not provide protections for member-vs-member lawsuits. Thus, members are, it appears, footing the bills, and the club has multiple lawyers onboard.
Should this go to trial, and there is no indication now that it won’t, the costs for each side will probably exceed a million dollars, and could well be multiple millions.
Who cares?
Speaking of millions, this seems to be the million-dollar question. The interest in this lawsuit surprised me. Without getting into specifics, my first story at the Democrat and Chronicle attracted about six times the typical online readership for my usual stories, and my typical stories usually had a solid online readership.
The interest did not wane; subsequent stories continued to elicit sizable readership.
Asking the question of others, the one answer I’ve commonly received is that, among some in the public, there is a perception that the Oak Hill membership consists of the community’s wealthiest and that the club infighting is simply entertaining for everyone else to watch. Money, some have told me, clearly does not translate into good behavior.
That said, I have friends among Oak Hill’s membership—I don’t golf and live by Groucho Marx’s rules with club membership—and they’re solid folks. There is a part of me that aches, slightly, for the divisions created within the club. But then the reporter part of me returns and I relish the story of the continuing contretemps and, perhaps perversely, hope for a trial.
Also, I’ve learned that there are quiet rivalries with the community’s country clubs. Many of those with whom I’ve spoken about the lawsuit belong to other country clubs and clearly enjoy watching, from their own distance, what is happening at Oak Hill.
This story is surely to be continued. And, sincerely, congratulations to Oak Hill for securing the PGA.
With a decade to go, the lawsuit should be resolved by then—maybe.
Gary Craig is a Rochester Beacon contributing writer. A retired Democrat and Chronicle reporter, he now writes on Substack.
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].
Related
