Can a Living Architect run a Dead Architect Society?

[Ian Andrew]

From today's press release:

Re: New Society President and Executive Director

CHANGING OF STANLEY’S GUARD

The Board of Directors of The Stanley Thompson Society has elected David L. Moote, Golf Course Architect, as its new President. Moote will be replacing William Newton, the Society’s first elected President and one of its founders, who is stepping down after six years.

Newton will become the Executive Director which is a new Society position.

Moote said, “I am honoured to take on this role and continue the important work of the Society, much of which has been initiated by Bill. The decision by the Board to appoint an Executive Director was made in order to advance the Society’s objectives and provide dedicated management for Society affairs.”

I ask you can a living architect who does work on Thompson courses act as the head of the Stanley Thompson Society?

I declined to an opportunity to serve on the board of the Travis Society many years ago because I felt that architects have too much to gain through direct involvement in a society. Was I wrong on this matter?

I would particularly like one of the other architects on the board to provide theeir opinion on this issue.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Apparantly they can...

And no you weren't wrong.

However, I would have trusted you on the Travis Society board - and the society more so if you were.

Cheers

[Ian Andrew]

Can't say one architect is capable and the next isn't - this issue must be black or white.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,


In general, I would have stayed away, just as you did, no matter how much respect I had for Thompson, as Bob does, just to avoid ANY appearance of conflict of interest.  You are right - either you have one interest, or more.  One is better.

I believe Bob is a tremendously ethical guy, but if you are asking in black and white, I tend to believe we are blurring separations (ie can't serve two masters) far too much in this day and age, mostly because of money issues.

It might be all right if Bob is retired as an active gca.  Is he still active?  Even then, I guess there is nothing preventing anyone from coming out of retirement.

[Phil_the_Author]

Ian,

I see no problem or conflict of interest in an architect heading up a dead Guy association.

I think that you are really asking the wrong question. I believe what you should have asked is, When approached by a golf club or individual for a recommendation for an architect to restore, renovate or expand an existing Stanley Thompson design, how does the Stanley Thompson Society answer?

The answer to this question should be a difficult one for any Dead Guy society to deal with. This is where conflicts of interest come in.

In order to answer the question, the Society must consider answers to a number of the following questions, and still the answer is a difficult one.

Does it make a specific recommendation? Does it only recommended individual architects who are members of the Society? Does it make a blanket recommendation providing a list of all architects who are members of the Society? Are there any guidelines set up by the Society to handle this question? What specifics should be involved in creating both guidelines and answer? What services,aid, help, research does the Society provide for architects, golf clubs, members and/or general public?

[George Pazin]

Ethics may be the most beaten down subject in today's relativistic world. Time ought to reprise that old famous cover that asks if God is dead with "Is ethics dead?".

I think you did the right thing, Ian.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phillip may be right.  From the website:

The aims of the Stanley Thompson Society are as follows:

To research, record and report facts about his life and the courses he designed, remodelled, or constructed, in whole or in part.
To be a reliable source of information on his life and works.
To collect and archive his working drawings, papers, and correspondence.
To encourage clubs with Stanley Thompson courses to preserve them as he designed them.
To publish a quarterly newsletter called Dormie.
To hold an annual Stanley Thompson Society golf tournament on a Stanley Thompson golf course.

The only conflict of interest a gca would have in being president would occur in the caveat to "encourage clubs with Stanley Thompson courses to preserve them as he designed them."  I suppose that if he offered his general expertise as a member gratis, there would be no conflict, but there would be if he used the position to get jobs, but even then the potential exists.

What if he runs across a situation where a major highway (like at SFCC) encroaches unsafely for both.  Does he encourage nothing and potential safety problems as a STHC guy, or does he recommend moving a few holes, as a professional gca?

[Ian Andrew]

Jeff,

It is David, the son and active golf architect - not Bob who is retired.

Phil,

I appreciate your answer - whether I agree or not - I still appreciate reading an alternative opinion.

Do you think you could choose to have an impact in who a club chooses to work with if you wanted to? If the answer is yes, would not an architect be potentially able to do the same?

[paul cowley]

Ian.....I would lean more towards picking the right man with the right ethics and I think the conflicts would resolve themselves.

I guess a practicing architect serving as President could recuse himself from working on any Thompson courses....but then the courses might be denying themselves a valuable resource and talent.

Personally I think you would be excellent serving in both capacities at the same time....because you are the right man with the right ethics....A little hardheaded, but that just goes with the territory of being stubborn and honest....and a Scot.

[wsmorrison]

Ian,

The potential for conflict is great and in my way of thinking is not a good idea if other qualified candidates exist.  I just don't see why they would elect someone with the potential for conflict.  Does David Moote do restoration work?  Has he worked on Thompson courses before?  Is he likely to in the future?  If so, the conflict real or perceived is enough of an issue to warrant going in a different direction unless he is bound by certain constraints.  Perhaps if he disqualifies himself from restoration work on ST courses while he is President the conflicts of interest would be sufficiently nullified.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

My bad. Maybe it should be Bob, for reasons stated, even if I think David is also a highly ethical person.  

Any active gca in that position should probably take himself out of the running for any renovation work for that particular gca, if the society gets involved in actual course recommendations.  In 99% of the cases, I am sure it would work out fine.

George,

I hear ya.  The Time Magazine headline that made me cringe was something like "Should Shame Make a Comeback?"  The gist was that after years of making every kid feel good about themselves no matter what they did, maybe the idea of shaming them for bad behavior wasn't "all bad."

To quote my teenagers, "Well, duh"

[Kyle Harris]

Ego is ego is ego. I don't see any conflict at all. ANYONE who is so inclined to allow ego to get in the way of restoration and given the oppurtunity will take it, regardless of career be they architect or banker. This isn't a question of a conflict of interest, it's a question of the personality of the person in charge of the society and how that person handles any potential oppurtunities he/she is given. How/why would a golf architect be any more subject to that than anyone else?

What's to stop the president of a Dead Architect Society from doing a restoration? Why wouldn't that person be qualified?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle, Kyle, Kyle,

Oh to be young and innocent again!

You are right that anyone might have the ego to undertake a project, regardless of profession.  However, like any newbie, how would a banker necessarily be qualified to actually build something, even if he had a passion for it?

Wouldn't the prez of such a group be obligated to recommend the most experienced restorer out there, regardless of whether he was a member of the society?  A gca could easily represent himself as the most qualified, whereas others would have a harder time.

Wouldn't ANY question of whether a person would benefit financially (even if indirectly from a resulting private commission) from the position where he represents others dues and interests be a conflict of interest?

As George says, its all a matter of relativity.  But, the old saying, you can't serve two masters is, I think, still as true as ever.

[George Pazin]

There's a reason that conflict of interest guidelines were formulated, evolved and continue to exist - at least continue to exist in a precious few instances.

P.S. I would never say it's all a matter of relativity.

[Mark_Fine]

Ian,
I think you did the right thing (as I expect you would).  I'm not sure how you can run a society like that and at the same time consult/practice in the field on those courses.  Belonging to the society is one thing, but leading it is another.  

[Evan_Smith]

Guys-There's a reason there's a Board of Directors on these Societies and that it's not run by a single Dictator.  If Dave Moote "ONLY" recommends himself to do any restoration on a Thompson course then there's a problem.  I would hope any club looking to hire an architect would do research on the topic and "ONE" of the things they would do would be to consult with the ODG Society.  I would hope that the architect's past work would be studied to see if that's the direction the course wanted to go in.

[George Pazin]

And your use of the word HOPE is precisely why conflict of interest guidelines arose and continue to exist.

The best way to avoid a conflict is to not put oneself in such a position. Ian did that, the other gentleman did not.

[paul cowley]

I think its the Society's loss that Ian took himself out of the running.....the very fact that he did suggests the caliber of person that they will not get to know in a capacity as President.

But that's just my gut feeling.....which I am going with, regardless of whatever logic y'all might throw out there to the contrary.

Ethics trumps the two masters thing.

[Evan_Smith]

And your use of the word HOPE is precisely why conflict of interest guidelines arose and continue to exist.

The best way to avoid a conflict is to not put oneself in such a position. Ian did that, the other gentleman did not.

George-I would think that any GM or Board of Directors of a private club wouldn't take the word of one person when making a huge financial decision.  And if they did, I wouldn't want to be a member of that club.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think its always the outside perception that is the issue, not the actual work that Moote or any other gca in that position might do.  Its quite possible that Moote could do nine great Thompson renovations/restorations, and then have a sour tenth one for reasons beyond his control.  

He would still have a real PR problem and a percieved ethics problem by SOME.  If it were me, I couldn't make enough money on those to make that perception worth my while.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think that outside perception of "conflict of interest" has much of anything to do with it.  After all, as Kyle points out, several people on this web site who were not practicing architects have started consulting at clubs via these Dead Guy Societies.

Though I don't know how these societies really work, I tend to doubt that the President would be in position to steer himself some work.  In reality, the more common concern is whether architects are kissing up to (or paying off) the Executive Director or Board of Governors to refer work to them.

However ... the other issue is that at some point the architect/president is going to be "past President" of the society, and that will look mighty good on his resume when going after consulting work at Thompson courses.  If the Society thought of that and allowed it anyway, then they aren't masters of business ethics.  So, Ian, I think you did the right thing to decline a similar invitation.

Mike Young must be in Costa Rica to not have responded by now!

[Phil_the_Author]

Ian,

You asked me, "Do you think you could choose to have an impact in who a club chooses to work with if you wanted to? If the answer is yes, would not an architect be potentially able to do the same?"

The answer is yes to both questions.

The key to the question though is your phrase, "if you wanted to..." This is where the importance of personal ethics come in. I have a firm belief that the only people who need a "code of ethics" are those who have none. Simplistic, I know, but I firmly believe it.

You are well aware of a certain Tillinghast golf club that sought bids for work from several architectural firms. All but one of them contacted me directly for help and advice. In each case I freely gave it and told them that they would get the same information from me as everyone else did who inquired. I even informed the club that I had been approached (without mentioning any names) and that I wanted them aware that whatever help I could provide I would to whomever they chose and/or directly to the club itself.

I had been approached simply because of my role with the Tillinghast Association and writings about him, and not from the idea that I should be a paid consultant.

While I certainly believe that the "worker is worthy of his wages," my personal ethics told/tell me that this would fall under the umbrella of my work for, and on behalf of, the Tillinghast Association and, as such, was not something that should be paid for.

Unlike some of the other architectural associations, and this is by no means judgmental in any way, there are no paid positions within it. Nether do we charge any fees or monies for help with research questions of any type.

[David_Elvins]

Mike Young must be in Costa Rica to not have responded by now!

I don't think Mike Young will have a problem with it.  If the main purpose of these societies is refer work to favoured architects at the expense of others, it makes sense to have one of these architects running the show.  

[paul cowley]

I know I can be naive.....but do these Societies oversee that much renovation?

Besides re working the courses of the prolific Mr Ross [we have only restored one pro bono course to date], is there really that much to be made in this type of business?

...is there really that much course work going on?

If the answer is Yes.....well then I am going to nominate myself to be the President of my soon to be formed 'Tom Doak Society'.........I want to make sure I'm going to be first in line for some of those plums when they come along.

Just for a little retirement income...can't hurt

[Kyle Harris]

I'm not sure if Ian had intended this thread to go in this direction, but all the participants seem to be dancing around a central issue without coming out and saying it. That it is unclear as to whether or not architectural societies can or do exist to endorse the restoration work of one architect over the next.

As a member of the Tillinghast Association, I feel the groups sole purpose is to amass and report upon the ideas, theories and architecture of A.W. Tillinghast.

The website seems to corroborate my ideas with this mission statement:

To share with fellow golfers A.W. Tillinghast's historical perspective and vision on Golf, the greatest game.

The Tillinghast Association was founded in 1998. Its primary goals are to share the accumulated research and knowledge on A.W. Tillinghast -- his fascinating life, his remarkable golf courses, his charismatic and humourous writings, and his foundation principles to Modern Golf Course design and construction.

Now, as Tom correctly pointed out with my first post on this thread, anyone could use their position within an architectural society to curry favor for restoration work if they so desired and I can probably think of a few people who have, myself included.

I just don't see how that is necessarily a conflict of interest. None of these societies exist to EXCLUDE information from interested parties. The Donald Ross Society has posted restoration guidelines on both their homepage and Golf Club Atlas and they are freely accessed by anybody who wants them.

I've used information from the Tillinghast and Ross Societies websites to help with my master plan from the Penn State White Course done by Willie Park, Jr. I've cited my membership in the Tillinghast Association as a resume point to Penn State and prospective employers to show my dedication to certain traditions within the game. All told, this is being used to indicate my personality and passion, and not to leverage my own knowledge over someone elses. My own work and knowledge will speak for itself and if a prospective client or employer interperets that differently, they aren't doing their homework.

In the end, this still boils down to the ego and ethics of the individual.