We do walk a thin line when we are hired to do more for our clients than certify courses. Two successful strategies I have employed: 1. I edited the header on every page of printed results to read "----ville 4.75K". Like Jim, we adjusted the mile pace column to the estimated actual distance run. Runners complained to the RD. He got the course certified. 2. I told a client "We enjoy timing and scoring this race every year. However, we have received complaints from runners and we have been ridiculed for reporting results for a course that we know is well short of the advertised distance. For next year and beyond, to support this event, we require that you get this course certified and that you make appropriate arrangements to ensure it is laid out according to the certification". They understood, apparently, because they got it certified shortly thereafter.
I often wonder when (if) this kind of nonsense will cease to become a common problem. A while back, I emailed some friends in Road Race Management suggesting that they or some respected body establish a certification/credentialing standard for race directors. One of my chief reasons was/is the indifference to course certification and to laying out courses accurately that is displayed by so many race directors. As it turns out, RRCA is working on just such a program. I have not heard of any such program from USATF.
Too frequently, the words of a good friend who has been in the timing and scoring business for 15 years echo in my mind: "There is an appalling lack of professionalism in the running industry".