[Mark_Fine]

For what it is worth, I think the Tillinghast association is great.  They don't "endorse" any architects (at least as far as I know), but they sure will help you out in any way they can if you are working on a Tillinghast golf course.  We have a couple Tillie designed courses in various stages of planning/construction and I get postcards sent to me with old photos, emails with historic information, and offers to do what they can to help.  And the nice part is that no one is looking for credit or a commission check.  They are just doing it for the good of the game.  I have much less interaction with some of the other societies but I would think (and hope) they work in the same manner.  

[Mike_Young]

Tom/David,
Yep been out of touch.  My biggest question would be why would a practicing architect want to be president of a Dead guy society.
I don't have that many problems with some of these socieites ...mainly just one.....
For 99.9 percent of all architects the goal would be to do your own work and kissing ass of a society would be in order to get some redo work....and for the one particular Dead Guy society that I have an issue with....one has to be in a position to allow the head guy of the society to be the expert anyway......
So I say nope....architect can't do a dead guy group justice......nor himself.....but that doesn't mean I have tyo have a problem with the gy that is doing it.....JMO

[Robert Thompson]

Gentlemen: What if the architect in question who ends up as the head of Dead Architect Society has also been responsible for ruining a fair number of the designer's work that he is said to be representing? What if the architect had the hands of stone when it came to restoration work and instead turned much of the dead architect's work into his own? Would it make sense then that he is the head of the society?

Of course I'm not saying that's what has happened here....

[Dan Moore]

On the one hand wouldn't a qualified sympathetic architect be one of the best qualified people to run such a Society.  On the other hand a person in this position could take advantage of it for personal gain.  

With ceratin limtations, I wouldn't see any problem with an architect in that position, in fact it probably would be beneficial to the goal of the society.  I feel the conflict problem could be addressed if the architect's role was limited to consultating on behalf of the Society as a volunteer or paid employee of the Society and he/she did not independently pursue architectural work on those courses while in that position.  The Society could maintain a formal policy to this effect.  (I don't see a problem with the architect benefitting from the position on their resume after they left the paid or volunteer position with the society.)  

By the way, I intially thought Mike's tongue in cheek poking fun at some of the hero worship of the Golden Age Masters (the old Dead Guys) had a purpose and was kinda funny, but lately I feel it has become so prevalent that it is begining to border on disrespect.  Just my opinion.  

[Ian Andrew]

Since I started this thread - I thought I would add that I have asked quite a few others outside the forum for their opinion. In general, there were a couple who had an issue with it but most felt that he would do a great job. The majority did not see the conflict, including a non-golfer who felt the problem was optics not ethics.

Conclusion of the majority - not an issue.

[henrye]

Black or White.

Majority 1        Ethics 0

Ian, you did the right thing.  The Board which made this decision did not.

[Phil_the_Author]

So Henry... by your statement of "Black or White... Majority 1 Ethics 0"... you are saying that everyone who has disagreed with your opinion lack ethics?  

A tad bit judgmental I think...

[Mike_Young]

On the one hand wouldn't a qualified sympathetic architect be one of the best qualified people to run such a Society.  On the other hand a person in this position could take advantage of it for personal gain.  

With ceratin limtations, I wouldn't see any problem with an architect in that position, in fact it probably would be beneficial to the goal of the society.  I feel the conflict problem could be addressed if the architect's role was limited to consultating on behalf of the Society as a volunteer or paid employee of the Society and he/she did not independently pursue architectural work on those courses while in that position.  The Society could maintain a formal policy to this effect.  (I don't see a problem with the architect benefitting from the position on their resume after they left the paid or volunteer position with the society.)  

By the way, I intially thought Mike's tongue in cheek poking fun at some of the hero worship of the Golden Age Masters (the old Dead Guys) had a purpose and was kinda funny, but lately I feel it has become so prevalent that it is begining to border on disrespect.  Just my opinion.  

dan,
I think you could say I have a disrespect for unfounded hero worship of the ODG's and a complete disrespect for BS that is interpreted and written in books on the subject today where it will become fact in a few years.....but mainly I am poking fun.....
Mike

[Ian Andrew]

HenryE,

If I'm the only one who sees an issue - then perhaps my perception of the situation is wrong.

This doesn't mean that I will now offer my services to a Society of Dead Architects - but it does mean I see things differently than David. As my wife likes to point out when we disagree - "different is not wrong" - she'll also add "but were still doing it my way regardless" .

I have one option with The Stanley Thompson Society - which I continue to excercise - I don't belong on principle that architects should not be on the board. They are doing very well without me, and will continue to flourish without my presence.

[Dan Moore]

Mike,

My comments really weren't aimed at your use of the term which has had its purpose.  

My concern is the extent to which the ODG has been picked up by so many others that it has almost become the accepted way to refer to them (and not just the societies) that I am starting to feel a little uneasy about.

[henrye]

So Henry... by your statement of "Black or White... Majority 1 Ethics 0"... you are saying that everyone who has disagreed with your opinion lack ethics?  

close enough  

A tad bit judgmental I think...

OK.

In all seriousness, when Ian mentioned that the majority of the people he poled didn't seem to feel there was an issue of conflict, I would just like to point out that the majority is not always correct.  Sadly (or thankfully, depending on where you sit) the adoption of strong ethics has little to do with the # of supporters one has.

[George Pazin]

So Henry... by your statement of "Black or White... Majority 1 Ethics 0"... you are saying that everyone who has disagreed with your opinion lack ethics?  

A tad bit judgmental I think...

I think what Henry is trying to say is that the whole point of conflict of interest ethics guidelines is you don't put yourself in a position where anyone can even question it. You don't allow anyone the opportunity to infer what you're thinking.

Philip and Kyle, 2 posters whose personal integrity I value quite highly, seem to say that it all comes down to the individuals ethics anyway, so it seems that conflict of interest doesn't even exist for them.

I think that misses the point of the whole notion of conflict of interest. Anyone CAN act ethically in any individual situation, but the point of the guidelines is you simply don't put yourself in position where anyone can question you.

Like it or not, there is absolutely a conflict of interest for the gentleman in question, unless the society in question simply refuses to comment on anything when approached by outsiders, something I would find hard to believe, as it would seem to bring their entire reason for being into question.

This is NOT saying the gentleman is unethical in his own personal decisions or behavior, but that he has perhaps not chosen wisely in putting himself in a position to be charged with conflict of interest, and the board has not acted responsibly in allowing such a perceived conflict to exist.

But, as Ian indicates, so many people have been convinced (by whom, I will allow the reader to speculate) that things like judgement, morals, and ethics are completely elastic that it's more than likely most will never see the conflict, and few apparent problems will arise.

[Phil_the_Author]

George,

I fully understood what Henry meant, that was why i put the "smileys."

Thank you for the compliment where you stated that, "Philip and Kyle, 2 posters whose personal integrity I value quite highly, seem to say that it all comes down to the individuals ethics anyway, so it seems that conflict of interest doesn't even exist for them..."

To the contrary though, conflict of interest does exist in my universe. I, though, can't find one case where a "conflict-of-interest" situation that did not involve someone whose position didn't have a "conflict-of-interest" clause in either their contract, job description or work requirements.

Yet everyone ignored them. That is why I said that for me a code of ethics doesn't matter, because all of those in that sitaution above made choices to ignore them.

A red traffic light only works because someone stops when they see it.

Obviously, every organization should have a conflict-of-interest clause in their by-laws, the same as they should have a morals clause.

The purpose of these clauses is not to educate but rather to serve as a protection for the organization, and that is also as it should be.

The problem areas are always in, as you so very well put it, areas of "perceived conflict." Very well-meaning people put themselves in these all the time, usually as a result of simply not thinking things through.

I believe that in cases such as these, too many are in a rush to condemn rather than of a mind to understand, and it is usually these who need changing rather than castigating the perceived wrongdoer.

Especially because golf is a game of honor, and those who break this code of honor are most vilified, the game has had very, very few scandals of that sort.

I believe Ian did the right thing. His personal honor saw a potential conflict-of-interest situation that might hurt the society he chooses to support and help. How can one fault that?

I also believe that for it to be a rule where architects should not be allowed to lead an architectural association is a mistake. For me it flies in the face of the honor of the game.

[Kyle Harris]

George,

I, too, must thank you. To me, the conflict of interest would be in the architect using that position to gain work for himself. If the architect was the best qualified for the position of administering the society, and disqualified himself from working on any restoration project in the vein of the society's interest - I'd say that eliminates any question, no?

Even there, it could very well be that the architect is both qualified to administer the society in question, and oversee the restoration. Idealistic, yes, but also win-win.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()