Golf board to consider couple's discount again

By Ethan Smith / Leader Staff

Polson golf officials will wait and make a decision whether to offer a couple's discount at the city's golf course again, after the Montana Human Rights Bureau ruled the practice wasn't discriminatory.

The ruling was released by city officials last week, but does not necessarily end a legal battle with resident Murat Kalinyaprak, who filed a claim in March, 2006, saying the practice of offering a discount to couples discriminates against single golfers.

The ruling by the Bureau doesn't prevent Kalinyaprak from taking his action to court, and the Polson golf board will take a "wait and see" approach to see what Kalinyaprak does before determining whether to offer the couple's discount, golf course pro Roger Wallace said.

"We will certainly consider it. We won't make a decision until we know whether the appeals process is done," Wallace said.

A message on Kalinyaprak's answering machine says he is out of town until Dec. 1, and he did not respond to an emailed request for comment prior to the Leader's deadline.

Up until this year, the Polson golf course - like most courses around Western Montana - offered a couple's discount, charging couples $700 for in-city residents and $750 for non-residents for a season pass. The rate for single golfers was $395 and $425, respectively, for city and non-city residents.

Kalinyaprak filed his claim, saying that it was discriminatory to do so, despite qualifying for the discount by signing up in 2005 with a female friend. Montana Human Rights hearing officer Gregory Hanchett ruled that not only did the golf course not discriminate against Kalinyaprak, but that it was a good business practice to provide the discount, which encouraged more people to play and made it more affordable to more people.

"The rationale for offering a couple's pass is straightforward, legitimate and obviously not based on any desire to discriminate. The rationale for offering a couple's pass was to make it more economically attractive for families to enjoy the recreational opportunity Polson Country Club has to offer," Hanchett ruled. "In addition, as Wallace testified, and the hearing officer finds, offering a couple's pass entices two person to join, resulting in more potential income for the golf course.

"These are wholly legitimate reasons for implementing a couple's discount."

Kalinyaprak also claimed that, as a result of his complaint, city officials retaliated against him by attempting to limit is ability to speak at city council meetings, and in one case, allegedly tried to intimidate him at the Wal-Mart supercenter hearing last summer.

At that meeting, the city council established a two-minute limit for each speaker, given the crowd that attended. When Kalinyaprak neared the two-minute mark, city clerk Beth Smith held up a "stop" sign which she had used for all speakers to notify them that their time was up.

Kalinyaprak continued speaking, at which point city councilman Bruce Agrella got up and began to approach the podium where Kalinyaprak was speaking, presumably to take the microphone away from him. Kalinyaprak stopped speaking before Agrella got there, but cited that as one example of city officials' attempts to retaliate against him.

But Hanchett also ruled that city officials did not retaliate against Kalinyaprak, at the Wal-Mart meeting and others, citing the numerous times he was allowed to speak out at city council meetings, including multiple instances when he criticized Wallace's management of the golf course. Kalinyaprak has been a frequent critic of Wallace and the city golf board at numerous meetings over the past three years, citing increased fees and declining membership as evidence that the course isn't managed well.

He's also been critical of Wallace's contract to run the course, but Hanchett said there's no evidence that the city, Wallace or his staff discriminated against him.

"At no point did either Wallace or any representative of the golf course, attempt to withhold, deprive, or discourage Kalinyaprak from using the golf course," Hanchett wrote.

Early in the proceedings, Kalinyaprak was asking for more than $60,000 as a potential settlement for his complaint, had the Bureau found in his favor.

In response to Kalinyaprak's claim, the city council decided to do away with the couple's pass option for 2007. Prior to that, based in part on questions from Kalinyaprak, the city had intentionally not defined a couple as a married, heterosexual couple, fearing that it might open itself up to a lawsuit.

Thus, any people who wanted to sign up as a couple, including Kalinyaprak and his female friend, could qualify for the couple's discount prior to 2007, even if they weren't defined as a standard, married couple.

Hanchett noted in his decision that almost all of the public and private golf courses in Western Montana contacted by Wallace confirmed that they offer couple's discounts. Wallace said he's been asked about the situation everywhere he went last summer, as golf officials around the state wondered if they'd have to change their couple's discount, too.

"All summer long, I have occasion to be all over the state, playing in Pro Ams and other tournaments, and I don't think I had one event where someone didn't ask me about it," Wallace said. "Most of them were just curious about whether a decision had been made."

According to Wallace, had the Human Rights Bureau found against the city's golf course, it would have had no bearing on whether other courses around the state were able to offer what is considered a standard discount.

"Common sense and the discount's widespread use, combined with the fact that the discount does not and is not intended to discriminate against anyone but instead is designed to encourage more participation" are proof that Kalinyaprak's claim wasn't valid, Hanchett wrote.