PTR/PROFESSIONAL PICKLEBALL REGISTRY VEIL OF SECRECY

WHAT DOES THE PTR/PROFESSIONAL PICKLEBALL REGISTRY HAVE TO HIDE ?

I finally received (email) an official  written decision from PPR CEO Dan Santorum on PPA stationary.  I received the “decision” by email under the salutation “CONFIDENTIAL DO NOT FORWARD.“  The  PPR’s decision was to deny my "appeal for Certification," and an offer for me to retake the Workshop for PPR Certification, with no recognition that I have completed all the requirements for Certification but through no fault of my own“ the PPR chose to ignore my coaching and teaching pickle ball qualifications, because in their view, I could not demonstrate the skill sets of a 4.0+ player. 
The PPR Certifies Professional Pickleball Teaching Coaches on the premise of how well they can hit a ball over the net as opposed to how well they can teach new players how to learn to play pickle ball, skills, rules and scoring,  and provide experienced players coaching to help them improve their skills and game performance.   
Why would the PPR Leadership need to hide their Official Decision to my “Appeal” under the shroud of CONFIDENTIALITY DO NOT FORWARD ?  What motive is behind the PPR’s veil of secrecy ?   The PPR’s assertion for “CONFIDENTIAL DO NOT FORWARD,” was a failed attempt to keep me from exercising my right to request or petition a rehearing by a higher organizational authority, such as the USAPA or IFP.
The PPR Leadership violated their own assertion for “Confidentiality,” by forwarding a copy of the “Written Decision” to  “Mr. Justin Maloof, USAPA Executive Director.”  Why would the PPR not also forward a copy of their “written decision” to the USAPA President Jack Thomas or USAPA VP C.J. Jermstad, or USAPA Secretary Laura Patterson ?
The PPR has not denied, refuted or disclaimed any of my 12 documented observations of the flaws, problems and deceptive “performance evaluation process,” that I witnessed and experienced first hand. If these observations were not truthful and factual on their face, and did not occur, assuredly the PPR would have publicly discredited these allegations, in their written decision to deny my appeal. But the PPR’s written decision to deny my appeal has no merit, and was emailed to me under the “heading” of CONFIDENTIAL DO NOT FORWARD.“
It is my assessment that the PPR did not want me to forward a copy of “their written decision“ to prevent me from “response to my appeal” for a “appeal review by a higher authority.” This “assertion for confidentiality has no legal standing or ethical business practice support.  I have since notified the PPR Leadership of their “error” in assertion for “confidentiality,” and that I have no legal or ethical obligation to comply.   
And not attempt to conceal their wrongful actions behind a “wall of Confidential Do Not Forwad.” 
These observations and experiences could well be considered as “Age Related Discrimination,”  “Disability and Restricted Mobility Discrimination,” “Denial of Attendees Fair & Equal Access to Their Skill Performance Evaluation Records,”  “Advertising and Marketing of a Fee Based Service Under False Pretense,”  “Fraud by Deception” For Financial Gain,“ and failure to adhere to the “Basic Principles and Standards of Good Athletic Coaching.”
Why did the PPR decision to my “Appeal” avoid any reference to the legitimacy of my observations, either by refuting my claims,  or taking responsibility for their managerial ineptitude and deceptive objective of this Workshop.
The “PPR Leadership” refused to accepted any responsibility for the various problems that occurred during the July 24, 2018 Coaching Certification Workshop. Nor would the PPR Leadership acknowledge that the Workshop performance evaluation process was geared to certifying Pro Tennis Coaches to teach Pickleball, at the expense of eminently qualified and experienced pickle ball instructors and coaches, who were used as “Ginny Pigs” to  improve the Workshop for future attendees.
The PPR Leadership may not be aware of “DMA Guidelines for Ethical Business Practices.”  These “Guidelines”  defines a state of  “confidentiality,” as a pre-determined agreement of said condition by all parties concerned,  prior to and during any proceeding or transaction.
The “PPR Leadership” cannot establish an arbitrary and capricious assertion of “confidentiality” without my prior knowledge and consent.
Documented PPR Letter Head Responses to me, prior to the “PPR Decision Notification” made not request to me that this matter be transacted in a confidential manner. 
My Certified Letter of Appeal to the PPR made no request or assertion for confidentiality, not did it suggest, recommend or agree to any requirement for “confidentiality.” I have nothing to keep confidential in this matter.  My observations are truthful first hand accounts of what I experience and endured at the July 24, 2018 PPR Coaching Certification Workshop.  WHY THEN does the PPR need to conceal its decision to my “Appeal” under concealment of of “CONFIDENTIAL DO NOT FORWARD. ?”