Architects That Break The Rules Of Ethics....

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This is more or less a golf architect or designer question, but I do encourage everyone to participate and share their knowledge and experiences.

The rules maybe unwritten--that is unless you wear plaid. (well, sort of!)

How many times in the "Business" have any of you actually committed the heinous act, (or have had it happen to you) where a competing architect who was in no way, ever in line for your job, actually started talking to YOUR client with the intent of trying to influence design decisions, or designs that are already planned--for and by another Golf Architect whose firm you are no way and in anyway related to; nor ever want to be?

Now I'm not talking about where your a young and budding architect on your own, where all of a sudden the developer has an attack of Walletitus* and hires Tom Fazio, etc. I'm talking about where a architect is actually trying to influence a developer of a property, who already has his architect and is happy with him, yet still is going to see if he can manage to "steal" the job away from him. (All while not knowing the developer actually doesn't really like you anyway nor has any intentions of ever using you and never wants you on his property again.)

GCA's of GCA, I await your posts!

[A_Clay_Man]

Should they be publicly exposed?

 On a fundamental basis, I say expose away.
 If there's no downside to such behavior, what's to stop the next guy, or generation of archies, if they don't realize that their actions are in fact, unnethical and open for public scrutiny?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

I don't see it happening often, but then again, I don't do it, and if an architect is secretly going behind MY back, I wouldn't necessarily know it anyway.

I did have a project manager once who had really wanted to hire Joe Lee, but was overruled by the committee.  During the project, he would tell me that he had called Joe to ask his opinion.  I can't fault Joe for anything.  In fact, I told the Owners rep that Joe must be nicer than me, cause if he had gotten the job, and I had gotten those calls, I doubt I would give him the time of day!  

I got caught in another project once, when a big remodel was awarded to another firm, but a friend I couldn't ignore, who was an influential member, asked me to visit one night.  When I got there, he had the entire board assembled, and I tried to back out of it.  However, I toured, and confirmed a few things that their then neophyte architecture firm probably would have figured out on their next site visit.

I have been writing a remodeling column for the new Golf Course News for six months.  That has spawned almost a dozen calls to me from greens committee members asking my opinion - from up to a 1000 miles away, and without seeing the course - of how things are going at their course.  In most cases, they have a competent architect and I implore them (as I did in my column) that the master plan/renovation is actually a process, not a plan, and anyone jumping in with last minute suggestions, no matter how passionate or well reasoned, is likely to do more harm than good.

Of course, I notifiy the architect in question after fielding these calls, just so he won't think I am trying to influence the project.

[A_Clay_Man]

Dr. Bill, I respectfully disagree. This part of human nature is not continent specifc.

Peer review isn't preached, and 'rats and snitches' are villified.

IS that a French term?

[Jeff_Mingay]

I can't name names, but I heard a really good story about how a well-known golf architect moved from "design associate" to starting his own firm.

Basically, he was working for an older architect as an associate on a project. He convinced the owner/developer that he'd do a better job without his boss involved. The owner/developer agreed. Right there and then this guy went into business for himself as a golf course designer!

[Lou_Duran]

There are numerous examples of an architect doing preliminary work and even a routing, only to have the principal pull the rug from under him and bring in someone else to finish the job.  As long as it is done under the letter and spirit of the agreement, I don't see it as an ethics issue.

Jeff's fielding calls from anxious owners/members is no different than doctors rendering second and third opinions.  I am not sure how good of an idea it is for him to report the calls to the architects engaged to do the work; perhaps the ethics and professional courtesies are practiced at a higher level in gca.

As a commercial real estate broker, I get calls ocassionally from owners whose properties are listed by others.  There is nothing in the code of ethics that instructs us not to take these calls and position ourselves for future business.  It is the competitive process.  Personally, unless I know the principal, I only talk to him briefly and in general terms.  A big NO NO is bad-mouthing the competition- something that happens way too often in my industry, and also in the golf design business.

[wsmorrison]

Jeff Mingay,
This fellow must cheat in golf as well.

Redanman,
Why on earth would you single out the USA?  Move to France already!  I agree with Adam.  The basest aspects of human nature are not confined by geography.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy

You're talking about the USA USA USA.

Busine$$ ethic$ is an oxymoron.

Redanman,

Don't be such a cynic! While there are the Enron's of the world, I think they are few and far between. Of course, I still believe in the tooth fairy.

Lou,

You have to remember that architects came from a tradition, for reasons lost to time, that forbade advertising, self promotion, fee cutting, etc.  In some ways, the current debate about protecting "intellectual information" in the software world may have been predated by architects of all kinds realizing that their ideas were what they were really sellling.

[JakaB]

I got a phone call so I modified my response...anybody else want to call and fill me in on facts that I may not be aware...please call 618-943-4716...Thanks....and sorry Tommy.

[Lou_Duran]

Bill,

We live in the most philanthropic country anywhere.  The amount of $$$ and goods that we contribute to the less fortunate worldwide is without peer.  Even the most private and, some would say, priviliged of organizations such as Pine Valley hold beneficial events for which they seek little recognition or praise.  And in as far as exporting freedom and liberty, we should perhaps do so with more righteous zeal and little if any regret.  Those who don't want it, don't have to accept it.  Some can even choose to become French!  

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

There are countless examples of people doing good for one another.  What does your Paddington Bear example prove?  It is merely one nice example but no big friggin deal.  Happily caring for our fellow man is widespread though not universal.  There is bad in most population subsets, nothing earth shattering there.  It is not as you see it, mostly an American phenomenon.  Americans do more charitable work and investment per capita than any other nation by a substantial margin.  American soldiers have been paying the ultimate sacrifice around the world for decades.  Are we perfect?  Of course not but we do shoulder a fair amount of the load as we should.  

"You of all people, in the TV business, can you imagine a hollywood type doing that, relinquishing ownership of such a product allowing someone else to profit as a result?"

Who are you talking to?  I'm not in the TV business nor have I ever been.  In fact, as of now I'm not in any business.  I was however on the Gene London show as a kid and stood next to the pot bellied stove.  Does that count?  

"Agreed, ethics are not what they used to be anywhere but this is one of the reasons americans and their ideas about exporting freedoms are not "universally loved" shall we say."

It is interesting that you did not capitalize the word "Americans."

At least you have the right to vote for those whose policies, including exporting freedom (agreed that it is sometimes heavy handed and not completely practical) you disagree with.  I know we joke about your politics and regard for America.  If you're just inciting as some do on this site, that is one thing.  If you really believe it, you are an odd fellow.  France awaits, the country that tried to save Ira Einhorn's arse.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Redanman is just doing what the Presidential Candidates will do tomorrow night - pull out the example of little ole Ida Mae Shanksalot, and hoping we buy into that as typical, to demonstrate a huge problem, and then to then go on and justify some massive new goverment program.

I know this is not a political site, but I couldn't resist being topical......

[A_Clay_Man]

Philanthropy and business ethics are mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, one is often used to disguise the other. Or lack thereof.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm only vaguely familiar with the ASGCAs, and don't know the exact wording of their "ethics code".  But, I know they have one.  Are the two archies in question members of the ASGCA?  Is there an in-house mechanism for a complaint to be filed and an ethics committee of the ASGCA.  If so, then they should deal with the issue.  

If not, then one would think that the scenario described would result in the engaged archie and owner-developer (who reportedly is put off by the crassness of the approach) making the issue and offending archie known in private circles.

But, making a public stink in a forum may not serve the engaged archie well.  Sometimes, a low profile response among the players in the professional network is the best remedy.  I would think that if a stinker does it once, they'll do it again, and their reputation will soon get around to those who need to know.

[rgkeller]

>>Agreed, ethics are not what they used to be anywhere but this is one of the reasons americans and their ideas about exporting freedoms are not "universally loved" shall we say.<<

Anyone who has done business internationally knows that US business ethics are the highest in the world.

[SL_Solow]

While I agree that philanthropy does not equate with business ethics, the proposition advanced by Adam and Bill seems extreme.  If one follows your suggestion to its logical conclusion, those who do not contribute to worthy causes are necessarily more admirable from an ethical standpoint than those who contribute.  Therefore, if we lived in a more ethical society, no one would contribute to charity?  What then of the poor?  As one who has spent a fair amount of time working for a variety of charities I can assure you that there are many people who contribute time and money because they believe it is the right thing to do, not to assuage a sense of guilt (although there are certainly some of those as well).  I always wonder about those who don't help; even those who don't have the ability to help in a material way have time to contribute.

[George Pazin]

Good people and bad people the world over. And over.

Good people and bad people in business the world over. And over.

Good people and bad people in golf the world over. And over.

Somebody delete this thread....

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

We do have an ethics committee, and every so often, they recieve a complaint and have a hearing to settle differences between members.

[Lou_Duran]

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Philanthropy and business ethics are mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, one is often used to disguise the other. Or lack thereof".  So opines Adam Clayman.

Please Adam, tell me you don't really believe this.  Who have you been hanging around with?   The Enrons of the world are a relatively small minority.  There are many, many ethical business people.  I know any number of them.  I am also intimately acquainted with people of various means who through donating their resourses- $$$, time, expertise, effort-make this world a much better place.  That they may derive considerable satisfaction from being "good people" hardly detracts from their actions.

George Pazin,

Why do you want to be such a censor?  If every comment that is off-topic is deleted, this site would be a skeleton of itself.  And believe it or not, much of what we discuss in relation to politics, economics, and the nature of man is reflected in golf, the industry, and its architecture.

[Tim_Weiman]

rgkeller:

One of my very closest friends is the most international business person I've ever met. He has lived in about 20 countries and done business in more than fifty.

About ten years ago he interviewed for a job with a French firm. Based on his subject matter expertise, he was superbly qualitifed for the job.

However, he had one big strike against him: though European, he spent two years living and working in the United States.

Why concern did that raise? That he might have a problem with either bribery or providing customers with prostitutes.

"I can do brown paper bags", he assured them, "and the women are no problem either".

My friend did get the job......he convinced them he hadn't been completely infected by working in the US.

[George Pazin]

Hi Lou -

I'm not looking to censor anyone, and Lord knows I've participated in many off topic discussions, particularly of the political variety. I just don't see much point in tossing around meaningless generalities.

If someone wishes to argue the specifics of Enron, some specific architect, or whatever, I'm game, but the posters in this thread that are throwing around such weak generalizations reminds me of that joke (recently recounted on this site) where the prisoners sit around and tell jokes by yelling out numbers.

[A_Clay_Man]

Please re-read;

I did not say or intimate that the majority of philanthropy is disguised.

I know the majority of folks are decent, and that a few bad apples can make the rest of us synics.

THAT'S WHY THE POWER OF OPEN DISCOURSE IS SO ...POWERFUL.

[Lou_Duran]

Adam,

As commonly used, "mutually exclusive" means that the presence of one necessarily prescribes the absence of the other.  I know many, many ethical, philanthropic people.

Traditions, ethical doctrines, professional codes of conduct, and formal or informal policies and procedures are at times used to protect the incumbents from competition.  Said barriers to entry make it comfortable for those who have theirs, and are major obstacles to those who aspire for a better lifestyle.

In my opinion, an architect chiming in on an existing project is not a matter of ethics.  It may actually be a bad business practice if the facts as noted by the Emperor are accurate.  From the standpoint of the principal, he is getting some information for nothing.  If the architect of record is secure in his ability to make his part of the project successful, he has little to fear.  And who knows, he too might learn something.  Ultimately, the principal/client dictates what is acceptable.  If he doesn't find the intruding architect's information useful or tasteful, he won't tolerate him.

Don't you wish somebody would have advised the City of Farmington that the nickel-and-dime irrigation and drainage systems being installed during construction at Pinion would not suffice?  Maybe it would have given Mr. Dye more ammunition to gain additional funding to do it right.

Of course, very few of us appreciate constructive criticisms, not to say anything about second-guessing or pot shots.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Lou,
Exactly!

To put it in a more simpler verse...... It's just tastelss and classless act from someone who I thought would have better sense. He has put me in the middle of a precarious position, but why am I not surprised?

I'm waiting to see if he is going to answer this, maybe make some sort of apology to the people he has disrespected.

Thats the least he can do.