PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

To amplify on one of my previous blogs, political promises don’t mean much anymore.

Those running for office make them with (a) no intention of keeping them; or (b) no understanding of how to make good on them; or (c) just to mouth words they think appeal to the latest possible reflections of public sentiment.

One wishes for the day when promises would mean something.

In this connection, my mind goes back to a time in my political life — more than 30 years ago — when I had the privilege of serving as press secretary for Oregon Governor Vic Atiyeh, the last Republican governor in Oregon. [And, to be accurate, I was pinch-hitting for several months for Denny Miles who had left the press secretary job to run the Atiyeh election campaign…a very successful one.]

As press secretary, the Economic Development Department forwarded to me a summary of the latest job creation numbers. I hasten to add that, to those of us in that Governor’s Office, it was a summary of the jobs that state government had helped the private sector create, not a number of jobs state government had created on its own

There is a critical difference in that distinction, one that is often lost in such numbers these days.

But, more to the point for this blog, I was worried about the accuracy of the job creation numbers. Would they stand up under media scrutiny? If not, would the governor bear blame for any inaccuracy?

At the time, we checked and re-checked the numbers to make sure they would withstand questions, from the media, from legislators and from the public. Then, we issued the news release and gained credit, with our private sector partners, for the good work for the benefit of Oregon’s economy.

The Atiyeh Administration had made promises that it would help the private sector create new jobs.  Then, it — we — followed through on that promise.

Well, things are different today.

Consider the promises by Donald Trump. There is no way he can keep the promises he has made repeatedly on immigration, but he appears not to care – the promises sound good to many members of the public who don’t like immigrants.

Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal opined about the subject in a piece ran before Trump become the nearly-final Republican nominee:

“Donald Trump and Ted Cruz say they’d deport all of the 11.3 million or so undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. They don’t say how they would pull off this forced human exodus. But new research shows that executing on this promise would require at least $400 billion in new federal spending and reduce U.S. GDP by about $1 trillion.”

Few potential voters appear to care about the fact that promise cannot be fulfilled.

Add Hillary Clinton to this list of those who utter promises they have no intention of keeping.  She says a lot, but her corrupt record of dealing as this country’s Secretary of State suggests that promises to her are just words.

All of this illustrates the sorry state of politics in this country. Promises, promises, promises – no delivery.

Which is why I am looking for candidates – or at least a candidate – who stands on principle and delivers on promises, understands the reality of doing so and doesn’t revert to attractive, but hollow, sound bites.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

There already have been a lot of comments about the strange goings-on on the final day of the U.S. Open last Sunday, but let me add my two cents worth.

I do so as a regular golfer, plus a member and supporter of the United States Golf Association (USGA).

First, this summary of the situation. Early in his round, Johnson’s ball moved just a bit as he was on the fourth green. Before he had “addressed the ball” (which means before he had grounded his putter behind the ball ready to take a stroke), the ball moved fractionally. Johnson caught it and called the rules official over – the official was walking with and assigned to Johnson’s group – to note the movement and discuss his options. [Note this action. The competitor took the initiative to inquire about a possible rules infraction rather than, as in some many other sports, to hide it.]

The on-site rules official and Johnson reached an agreement he had not taken action to cause the ball to move, so no penalty was called.

Rather than that being the end of it, USGA officials intervened, telling Johnson on the 12^th tee that a review of the video of the situation might indicate that a penalty could still be called. But the decision would await the completion of his round.

Stupid, I say, on two grounds:

1. Johnson did not ground his putter behind the ball, thus there should be no penalty, especially because the greens were running very fast, about 15 on the stimp-meter.

2. The referee WITH the match had reached a decision that there would not be a penalty.

Higher-ups at the USGA intervened and took action that could have cost Johnson his first win in a golf major. It turned out that he played well through to the end, winning by an assumed four strikes. But the USGA imposed a one-stroke penalty, so the final margin was three.

That’s good news, both for Johnson and the USGA, not to mention to other golfers around the world.

Johnson won his first major and, his performance enabled the USGA to avoid a situation where it could have determined the outcome, not on the golf course, but in the video review room.

Still, the USGA’s action risked harm to the golf industry, just as industry leaders are trying to good on a priority on bringing more people into the game, an emphasis that is not helped by an illogical and ill-timed rules intervention.

Kudos to Dustin Johnson!

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

When I traveled recently to Europe, I flew on Delta, which allows passengers to watch movies on a screen on the seat in front of them. I chose to watch Spotlight, a movie about the Boston Globe’s investigation of misdeeds – and worse – in the Catholic Church, which were covered up by church leaders there.

The story was about priests preying on children in too-hard-to-describe sexual ways. The expose earned the Globe praise from veteran journalists who appreciated the dogged determination of reporters and editors, even against The institution of “the church” in Boston. It also opened up the reality of sexual predatory conduct as an epidemic world wide in the Catholic Church.

That was perception number one.

Number two occurred this week when I continued reading Peggy Noonan’s book, The Time of Our Lives. She devoted several chapters to her perceptions about the Catholic Church, of which she is a member. And, in a memorable reflection, commented on the appointment, now several years ago, of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio to become Pope Francis.

Noonan suggested that Pope Francis could be, excuse the word in this context, the salvation for the Catholic Church.

“This is more than strength,” she wrote about the Pope eschewing the trappings of being Pope and living a humble lifestyle. “This is not cynical humanity. This is showing that there is another way to be.

“Yes. This is a kind of public leadership we are no longer used to – unassuming, self-effacing. Leaders of the world are not garish and brazen.”

I agree.

Pope Francis’ style and ethics are to be complimented. He lives faith, doesn’t just talk about it.

More from Noonan: “He (Pope Francis) is orthodox, traditional, his understanding of the faith in line with the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He believes in, stands for, speaks for the culture of life. He loves the poor and not in an abstract way. He gave the cardinal’s palace in Buenos Aires to a missionary order with no money. He lives in an apartment, cooks his own food, rides the bus. He rejects pomposity. He does not feel superior. He is a fellow soul.

“Could the pope’s intentions be any clearer? The Catholic Church in 2013 is falling into ruin. It has been damaged by scandal and the scandals arose from arrogance, conceit, clubbiness and an assumption that the special can act in certain ways, that they may make mistakes, but it’s understandable, and, if it causes problems, the church will take care of it.

“Pope Francis already seems, in small ways rich in symbolism, to be moving the Vatican away from arrogance.”

I cannot help but cite one last thought, which tries, perhaps inadequately or even inappropriately, to relate problems in the church to problems in politics. But, still, in politics, we need leaders who will eschew arrogance, understand that real problems need real solutions, and work with humility and honesty to find the best solutions.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Now that I have been retired for a couple years from a 25-year lobbying career in Oregon, I have thought a lot about that career, often because friends and family asked me questions about what I did and why I did it.

Perhaps it’s a bit immodest to focus on this subject, but I think it’s worthwhile to correct some misinformation about lobbyists, what they do and why they do it.

Lobbying often gets a bad name because of local, regional and national publicity over practitioners who commit misdeeds or don’t practice sound ethics.

But, like all professions, lobbying is a positive endeavor if practitioners work hard and honestly to represent diverse interests before the Legislative or Executive Branches.

To clarify my own record as a lobbyist, I am borrowing a tactic from retired late-night host David Letterman and providing a “Top 10 List” – the top questions I am often asked and the answers I provide.

QUESTION #1: What is it that you did?

ANSWER: This question often came from my late mother who wasn’t sure about lobbying. My answer to her often resorted to using two analogies. One was to an attorney – I was like an attorney, I had a client and my courtroom was the Capitol. The second analogy related to a trader on a busy commodity-trading floor. Like such a trader, I would, figuratively speaking, have to yell to get the attention of buyers.

Both analogies fail to indicate the full scope of my role as a lobbyist, but they are helpful.

QUESTION#2: Did you carry money around to influence a result

ANSWER: No. Contrary to the popular stereotype, I never carried money. My focus was on maintaining relationships with members of the Legislative and Executive Branches so they would trust what I said on behalf of a client, even if they happened to disagree. Public policy results were the objective; not payment in return for such a result.

It was important to trade on a “your word is your bond” ethic, not money.

QUESTION #3: Why did you become a lobbyist?

ANSWER: It seemed like a national progression from four previous positions – as a reporter for a daily newspaper in Oregon, as a press secretary for an Oregon Congressman, as a press secretary for an Oregon Governor, and as a state agency official.

In each of those positions, I dealt with high-level elected and appointed officials, so it was not hard to transfer to being a lobbyist trying to influence the decisions of those officials.

QUESTION #4: Did you have to agree with all your clients?

ANSWER: No. The issue was not my position on an issue. It didn’t matter. The issue was the client’s position and my ability to represent that position regardless of my personal views.

QUESTION #5: Did you ever represent a client about whose issues you had misgivings?

ANSWER: Yes. Once. The client wanted to install a bail bonds system in Oregon. I had misgivings, but our firm represented the client anyway.

QUESTION #6: Were there clients you chose not to represent?

ANSWER: Yes. During my 25-years in the business, our firm did not represent tobacco companies, organizations interested in promoting elective abortions, clients on the pro-gun side of the gun rights issue, and clients advocating special homosexual rights.

QUESTION #7: What are examples of your favorite clients?

ANSWER: I’ll mention two – Providence Health System, Oregon’s largest system, and the Port of Portland, an economic development engine that serves the region. Providence has operations spread throughout the state and handles health care issues with distinction and a commitment to ethical and honest behavior. It always was a privilege to be identified with Providence.

The Port is managed by executives with Oregon’s economic interests at heart in both its aviation and marine operations.

QUESTION #8: Of what achievements are you most proud?

ANSWER: I’ll just mention one. It was the work on behalf of the Port of Portland to gain state money to finance Oregon’s share of costs to deepen the Columbia River channel to allow bigger ships to make the transit east on the Columbia. It took a major, multi-session effort to gain the funds and the result stands for itself – a major contribution to the economic health of the region.

QUESTION #9: Which political party did you represent or favor?

ANSWER: Neither.

I and colleagues in my firm worked the middle ground. We worked with both Republicans and Democrats to find the smart middle, which is where pressing public policy problems are solved anyway. Our clients were open to that kind of advocacy – no yelling on the street corner to advance a cause, but doing the hard work, sometimes behind the scenes, to solve problems.

QUESTION #10: If you could have your way, what one result would you impose on the public policy development process?

ANSWER: It would be a deeper commitment to finding middle ground in the public policy process. That’s where best solutions lie. In Congress, it appears that the aim is for one party to one-up the other. And that unseemly trait seems headed to Oregon, if it is not already here.

A factor in this is that elected officials seem always to be running for re-election. And the skills to run campaigns do not necessarily translate to the skills necessary to develop public policy.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The two all-but-assured candidates for President — Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton – represent, for me, a choice between evils.

I intend to avoid each.

On one side is the bombastic Trump that one Wall Street Journal writer said the other day “is entirely without qualifications to be President.” On the other side is Clinton who has displayed an incredible lack of ethics and honesty over her career, both inside and outside government.

So, here are five reasons in each case that describe why I will not be voting for either candidate.

ON TRUMP

1. He has insulted all persons with disabilities.

2. He has treated women with disrespect, believing them to be mostly objects in the worst sense of that term.

3. He has posted a checkered business career marked by bankruptcies which, though legal, have produced profit for him and losses for those he worked with – plus, he has a record of not paying bills he owes.

4. He exhibits a disdain for public policy considerations, believing that bluster will carry him to victory.

5. And, as an impulsive buffoon, he will have his finger on the nuclear trigger.

To me, Trump, with his standard line, “Make America Great Again,” reminds of the way Hitler rallied Germans after World War I and committed, while in power, unimaginable atrocities. Who knows what Trump be capable of if he wins?

ON CLINTON

1. She has used her public office, especially as Secretary of State, for private gain. Look no farther than the abysmal record of the Clinton Foundation, which made money for the Clintons without doing much, if anything, for anyone else, even though a foundation is supposed to benefit someone other than the fundraisers.

2. She has risked national security by using, contrary to policy and law, a private e-mail system to avoid public review.

3. She has adopted the so-called “progressive left” agenda, which calls for more government as the solution to any problem, thus continuing the entitlement spirit over the entrepreneurial spirit. [It might be accurate to note that Trump often endorses the far right movement, so we have candidates of two extremes.]

4. She has lied about and stonewalled inspections of her record over the years, apparently believing that both traits would win out over accountability.

5. She has demonstrated no inclination to put America’s interests first as the country confronts international terrorism.

In all, her record indicates that, if she wins, it would be, simply, Obama-3.

From my soapbox, I think this country needs another candidate who will assert his or her perspective, but if that cannot carry the day, will be open to compromise, not a bad word in politics.

Finding middle ground is the essence of democracy where pressing public policy problems are solved somewhere in the smart middle anyway.

Only one example is necessary to make the point: ObamaCare. What the Administration says is its top domestic achievement in office for eight years is a “new health care system” that doesn’t work any better than what came before it. One reason is that only Democrats voted for it; not one Republican was there to help develop a better middle ground solution to one of this nation’s most vexing challenges – better and more affordable health care.

What we need: Public officials committed to finding the smart middle ground, which means neither of the two current candidates. And if that means I throw away my vote, that is the only ethical choice I have.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that, once in awhile, a Sunday sermon contains a solid message for today’s political environment.

That was the case recently at our church home, Salem Alliance, where the lead pastor, Steve Fowler, used three points to drive home his message about what he said should be virtues of being a real Christian.

For me, the three points also could – even should – apply to politics today where the discourse contains mainly criticisms, insults and barbs.

Here are the three points:

1. Listen with a purpose to understand

Consider this principle in both worlds – being a Christian and being involved in politics, as I was, first, at Salem Alliance where I served for 12 years as chair of the Elder Board, and, second, in Oregon politics where I was a lobbyist for 25 years.

At the church, I tried to listen first and encourage others on the Board to do. And, as lobbyist, I often reminded myself to listen, a virtue when the temptation would be to talk first. If Mr. Fowler’s admonition, to “listen with a purpose to understand” would occur more often in politics, just think of the result. We’d have saner politics and much less talking over someone to try to gain an advantage.   Then, when campaigning was over, we also would have better government.

2. Embrace a convictional kindness

Again, sometimes in Christianity and often in politics, we emphasize our convictions over relationships. If someone doesn’t agree with us, well, then, they are wrong.

As a lobbyist, one phrase that entered my mind often was this: What you see depends on where you sit. So, though I was not always successful, I tried to see issues from perspectives other than my own.

If all of us – in Christian life or in political life – would embrace kindness, with our convictions, then we all would be better for it.

3. Ask is this wise, not just is this right or wrong

It’s easy to ask about right or wrong and come up with an answer, but the black or white doesn’t deal with shades of gray. Asking what is wise does.

I was struck last Sunday by the intersection of Christianity and politics, not because Mr. Fowler brought up that subject – he didn’t – but, rather, because that’s where my mind went.

Beyond these three principles in your Christian life, just consider the improvements they would make in our political life. A lot!

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Now that I have been retired for a couple years from a 25-year lobbying career in Oregon, I have thought a lot about that career, often because friends and family asked me questions about what I did and why I did it.

Perhaps it’s a bit immodest to focus on this subject; some readers may not care much. But, still, I think it’s worthwhile to correct some misinformation about lobbyists, what they do and why they do it.

Lobbying often gets a bad name because of local, regional and national publicity over practitioners who commit misdeeds or don’t practice sound ethics.

But, like all professions, lobbying is a positive endeavor, even though, on occasion, to use a trite phrase, “bad applies spoil the barrel.”

To clarify my own record as a lobbyist, I am borrowing a tactic from retired late-night host David Letterman and providing a “Top 10 List” – the top questions I am often asked and the answers I provide.

QUESTION: What is it that you did?

ANSWER: This question often came from my late mother who wasn’t sure about lobbying. My answer to her resorted to using two analogies. One was to an attorney – I was like an attorney, I had a client and my courtroom was the Capitol. The second analogy related to a trader on a busy commodity-trading floor. Like such a trader, I would, figuratively speaking, have to yell to get the attention of buyers.

Both analogies fail to indicate the full scope of my role as a lobbyist, but they are helpful.

QUESTION: Did you carry money around to influence a result?

ANSWER: No. Contrary to the popular stereotype, I never carried money. My focus was on maintaining relationships with members of the Legislative and Executive Branches so they would trust what I said on behalf of a client, even if they happened to disagree. Public policy results were the objective; not payment in return for such a result.

I would say, perhaps a bit immodestly, that a “word is your bond” ethic pervaded all I did.

QUESTION: Why did you become a lobbyist?

ANSWER: It seemed like a natural progression from four previous positions – as a reporter for a daily newspaper in Oregon, as a press secretary for an Oregon Congressman, as a press secretary for an Oregon Governor and as a state agency official.

In each of those positions, I dealt with high-level elected and appointed officials, so it was not hard to transfer to being a lobbyist trying to influence the decisions of those officials.

QUESTION: Did you have to agree with all your clients?

ANSWER: No. The issue was not my position on an issue. It didn’t matter. The issue was the client’s position and my ability to represent that position regardless of my personal views.

QUESTION: Did you ever represent a client about whose issues you had misgivings?

ANSWER: Yes. Once, but only once. The client wanted to install a bail bonds system in Oregon. I had misgivings, but our firm represented the client anyway.

QUESTION: Were there clients you chose not to represent?

ANSWER: Yes. During my 25-years in the business, our firm did not represent tobacco companies, organizations interested in promoting elective abortions, clients on the pro-gun side of the gun rights issue, and clients advocating special homosexual rights.

QUESTION: What are examples of your favorite clients?

ANSWER: I’ll mention two – Providence Health System, Oregon’s largest system, and the Port of Portland, an economic development engine that serves the region. Providence has operations spread throughout the state and handles health care issues with distinction and a commitment to ethical and honest behavior. It always was a privilege to be identified with Providence.

The Port is managed by executives with Oregon’s economic interests at heart in both its aviation and marine operations.

QUESTION: Of what achievements are you most proud?

ANSWER: I’ll just mention one. It was the work on behalf of the Port of Portland to gain state money to finance Oregon’s share of costs to deepen the Columbia River channel to allow bigger ships to make the transit each on the Columbia. It took a major, multi-session effort to gain the funds and the result stands for itself – a major contribution to the economic health of the region.

QUESTION: If you were king for a day, what one result would you impose on the public policy development process?

ANSWER: It would be a deeper commitment to finding middle ground in the public policy process. That’s where best solutions lie anyway. In Congress, it appears that the aim is for one party to one-up the other. And that unseemly trait seems headed to Oregon, if it is not already here.

A factor in this is that elected officials seem always to be running for re-election. And the skills to run campaigns do not necessarily translate to the skills necessary to develop public policy.

AND THE NEXT INSTALLMENT: A few interesting anecdotes over a 25-year lobbying career.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

For me, IT was an experience of a lifetime.

The “it” was having the privilege to volunteer at the NCAA Division 1 Women’s and Men’s Golf Finals held at Eugene Country Club and sponsored by the Club and the University of Oregon.

More than 150 women and 150 men from 30 schools around the country descended on Eugene Country Club for two weeks of golf magic at a 90-year-old facility that won acclaim from everyone who played it.

One coach even said to me: “I hope we can come back here again within five years.”

Given that the course was closed to members for about three weeks, including practice and the two weeks of tournament play, not sure if members would sign up for another stint. But one thing is clear: The reputation of the U of O and Eugene Country Club got a huge boost, both with local crowds covering the course and live coverage by the Golf Channel.

That wasn’t all. The U of O men’s team won several match play challenges in great form to do what no team had done for 15 years, which is to win the national title on its home course. What’s more, the top U of O player, Aaron Wise, won medalist honors in his last college tournament, given that he is turning pro immediately and setting out to make a name for himself on the Canadian Tour.

Further, beyond expectations, the women’s team also made the final eight-team match play field while one of its top players, Caroline Inglis, set a course record 65 in one of her tournament rounds.

As a lucky volunteer at this event, one of more than 400, I have a few other impressions:

• It takes guts to bid to host this national tournament, given all the logistics involved in getting 30 teams around the course with Golf Channel coverage – and settling for the fact that members would be barred from playing on “their” course for three weeks.

• Golf Channel investment in going live is nothing if not incredible. Fully 10 semi-truck loads of equipment were on site and the Golf Channel staff numbered more than 100. Plus, a recognizable stable on of on-air talent made their way around the course for both the women’s and men’s events.

One of my roles as a volunteer was to get outfitted with head-gear and follow matches, relaying information to a traffic manager on the status of play, In turn, he advised the director who positioned cameras and talent to get the best action. Fun to be just a bit on the inside.

On a few holes the other day, PGA tour player John Cook was on the same hole with me and I almost offered to help him call the action. Discretion got the better part of valor, so I stayed silent!

• Another of my roles was to be a “walking scorer,” which means that, after every hole, I would relay the result, via my cell phone (which was on silent, I add), to the central scoring facility, which then sent scores on-line so those interested in the action – parents, grand-parents, friends – could follow hole-by-hole even if they were not able to be on-site

For a golf addict like me, this was a great experience, made even greater by the top performance of the U of O teams.

So, GO DUCKS!

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

For me, IT was an experience of a lifetime.

The “it” was having the privilege to volunteer at the NCAA Division 1 Women’s and Men’s Golf Finals held at Eugene Country Club and sponsored by the Club and the University of Oregon.

More than 150 women and 150 men from 30 schools around the country descended on Eugene Country Club for two weeks of golf magic at a 90-year-old facility that won acclaim from everyone who played it.

One coach even said: “I hope we can come back here again within five years.”

Given that the course was closed to members for about three weeks, including practice and the two weeks of tournament play, not sure if members would sign up for another stint. But one thing is clear: The reputation of the U of O and Eugene Country Club got a huge boost, both with local crowds covering the course and live coverage by the Golf Channel.

That wasn’t all. The U of O men’s team won several match play challenges in great form to do what no team had done for 15 years, which is to win the national title on its home course. What’s more, the top U of O player, Aaron Wise, won medalist honors in his last college tournament, given that he is turning pro immediately and setting out to make a name for himself on the Canadian Tour.

Further, beyond expectations, the women’s team also made the final eight-team match play field while one of its top players, Caroline Inglis, set a course record 65 in one of her tournament rounds.

As a lucky volunteer at this event, one of more than 400, I have a few other impressions:

• It takes guts to bid to host this national tournament, given all the logistics involved in getting 30 teams around the course with Golf Channel coverage – and settling for the fact that members would be barred from playing on “their” course for three weeks.

• Golf Channel investment in going live is nothing if not incredible. Fully 10 semi-truck loads of equipment were on site and the Golf Channel staff numbered more than 100. Plus, a recognizable stable on of on-air talent made their way around the course for both the women’s and men’s events.

One of my roles as a volunteer was to get outfitted with head-gear and follow matches, relaying information to a traffic manager on the status of play, In turn, he advised the director who positioned cameras and talent to get the best action. Fun to be just a bit on the inside.

On a few holes the other day, PGA tour player John Cook was on the same hole as I was and I almost offered to help him call the action. Discretion got the better part of valor, so I stayed silent!

• Another of my roles was to be a “walking scorer,” which means that, after every hole, I would relay the result, via my cell phone (which was on silent, I add), to the central scoring facility, which then sent scores on-line so those interested in the action – parents, grand-parents, friends – could follow hole-by-hole even if they were not able to be on-site

For a golf addict like me, this was a great experience, made even greater by the top performance of the U of O teams.

So, GO DUCKS!