[Forrest Richardson]

Mike — Please do not depart this world as a bitter old man. I could never forgive myself if you did.

The State of Nevada is a decent start. I think they adopted some weird language requiring a RLA and/or and ASGCA member. I cannot recall. In several (10 maybe?) RFQs I have seen, ASGCA was mentioned. It may have been that points were given if a respondent was an ASGCA member. The last one seemed to be in the Southern U.S., but I cannot recall. I do not chase many of these.

I am struck that ASGCA "bashing" (for lack of a better term) is like the Groucho comment: "I would never be a member of a club that would have me as a member." Sort of. I mean, if a course/municipality is "so out of line as to desire an ASGCA member" (putting words into the basher's mouth), then why would it ever bother this mindset in the first place?

[Jerry Kluger]

As previously noted, expert witnesses are there to assist the fact finders, usually a jury, but can be a judge if the parties agree.  The judge determines if the person qualifies as an expert and this allows that person to give an opinion relative to the facts at issue.  

I would imagine that in the golf course architecture field that the  expert would be giving an opinion as to whether the circumstance that caused the litigation was forseeable. It could be someone being injured by a golf ball or a golf cart tipping over causing an injury, etc., or it could be something such as a significant drainage issue which is going to cost a lot of money to correct.  The expert would have to say why the facts in the case should have been forseen and dealt with during construction, and perhaps give an example of his own experience in dealing with similar facts.

Most individuals in a field who can qualify as an expert are often reluctant to testify unless the facts are egregious or they are offered so much money that they can't say no. I will say this about gca - it is somewhat unique because unlike someone like a doctor, they have a limited number of projects that they are working on at one time, which gives them the time and opportunity as well as a team that they are working with, to avoid most significant issues.

It has also been my impression that in gca, it is often the case that there is not only one acceptable method to do whatever one is engaged to build.  Some architects work with full drawings and plans while others might sketch something out and work with his crew on site to complete the project - either method seems to be acceptable.  So it would be very difficult for someone to testify as an expert and say the reason for the condition is the method used to design the project, etc.  

[Mike_Young]

Forrest,
I am not a bitter old man at all....I am a professional instigator.....

I have seen the ASGCA requirement but have always been able to get it removed after one letter....
Also, I don't think that some of the RFP's really know what they want and when the purchasing dept writes a request they have usually seen the ASGCA site or info and just put it in the spec...

Take care,
Mike

[Forrest Richardson]

"Not knowing what they want" — that is a common problem.

Long ago, in my life as a creative director, Ralph Caplan, a writer gave a great speech in which is told the story of a client who told him, "Ralph, we know what we want to say, we just don't know how to say it." At which, Caplan responded, "Well then, it's an easy assignment, just give me the text in whatever language it is in now and I'll have it translated..."

Of course, Caplan was pointing out that, in fact, people do NOT know what they want (to say), that is exactly why they have hired a professional (writer or whatever).

[wsmorrison]

At the risk of stepping on a hornet's nest, I think the ASGCA is perceived incorrectly as Brad, Mike and others have maintained for a long time.  Whether this is by design or not, it appears that the association does nothing to clarify what differentiates its members from non-members.  I think there is solid ground to believe that a misunderstanding is willfully perpetuated to the advantage of members and they act in the self-interest of members and against the interests of other professionals.  

Thus, I think the association can be fairly criticized.  The ASGCA should may be viewed for what I believe it is; a professional association with a common purpose to be perceived as industry leaders and direct business towards members and away from non-members.  It does not have all the hallmarks of a  professional society with consistent entry and exclusion requirements.  Inclusion in the ASGCA should not be perceived as having a stamp of approval for expertise and ability and non-members should not necessarily be perceived as lacking these qualities.

[Kalen Braley]

Wayne,

Well put, thats the perception I've had as well, but you expressed it a lot more clear and concise that I could have.

I equate it to looking up a plumber in the phone book.  If one is a member of some association, and another is not, its easy to think one must be "certified or qualified" more so than the other.  Especially in todays world where we have official associations for just about everything, it seems the ASGCA trys to position themselves as the "De Facto" standard.

[Forrest Richardson]

Wayne — "It does not have all the hallmarks of a professional society with consistent entry and exclusion requirements."

On what do you base this statement? Is this your perception? Or, do you have some great knowledge tucked away that you are not willing to share? Posts such as your's are priceless for they represent the notion, "Well, it must be so...I saw it on line."

[TEPaul]

MikeY:

I absolutely and postively DEMAND that you give us all the exact definition of a "GOOBER"!!!

WaynO:

What the hell are you saying in post #29? Weren't you one of the guys who told me that an architect cannot be considered a real architect unless he's not a member of the ASGCA??

Furthermore, I think guys like MikeY and TomD probably know this too and should own up to it. I think they've been pulling the wool over clients eyes long enough, don't you?

[wsmorrison]

Forrest,

It doesn't take deep due diligence to figure out.  The website contains the necessary information to draw most of the conclusion I made.  Combined with other information, I made my mind up.  Does it qualify for burden of proof in a court of law?  No.  But I expressed my opinion.  I should have noted this in my post and will amend it accordingly.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Tommy,

The truth shall set us free  

[JC Jones]

try www.golfexpertwitness.com

[Jeff_Brauer]

At the risk of stepping on a hornet's nest, I think the ASGCA is perceived incorrectly as Brad, Mike and others have maintained for a long time.  Whether this is by design or not, it appears that the association does nothing to clarify what differentiates its members from non-members.  I think there is solid ground to believe that a misunderstanding is willfully perpetuated to the advantage of members and they act in the self-interest of members and against the interests of other professionals.  

Thus, I think the association can be fairly criticized.  The ASGCA should may be viewed for what I believe it is; a professional association with a common purpose to be perceived as industry leaders and direct business towards members and away from non-members.  It does not have all the hallmarks of a  professional society with consistent entry and exclusion requirements.  Inclusion in the ASGCA should not be perceived as having a stamp of approval for expertise and ability and non-members should not necessarily be perceived as lacking these qualities.

Wayne,

Couldn't disagree more! ASGCA has ALL the hallmarks of being a professional society and is modeled after the AIA and other professional societies.

Further, its not exclusionary. The reason for the peer review process is (IMHO) that when founded and now, the profession didn't have any school offering a GCA degree, nor was there any licensing for such. In engineering and architecture, a degree and license was necessary as proof of professional qualifications, but neither could be had in gca.  

Hence, the only difference is that ASGCA, by necessity, has to set its own minimum standards for entry.

The ASGCA works together on industry issues of common interest, and in so doing, has helped both members and non members alike with its publications. For example, the Environmental Brochure can be credited with at least an assist on getting many projects permitted, and is available to all.

Yes, the ASGCA "standard RFQ" document (which I wrote for them, BTW) does include a phrase about hiring ASGCA architects, but I have seen very few follow that to the letter, just as a requirement to use CAD is often overlooked, even if included in the RFP.  And, that document allows clients who might otherwise not know how to hire a gca create an intelligent process, so non members still benefit, even from that.

What I really don't understand is how a thread about what is considered a legal expert in a court arena gets turned into an ASGCA bash just because Forrest lists it as one of the lower criteria he has seen.

The kindler, gentler GCA.com that Tommy N seemed to run away from is NOT getting off great in '08!

[wsmorrison]

The kinder and gentler GCA.com does not mean we should avoid controversial topics.  Let me ask a few simple questions.

Does every member of the ASGCA meet every entrance and continuing membership requirement?

Did any applicant turned down for membership in the ASGCA meet all the entry requirements at the time of application?  

Are 100% of the members the architect of record on five courses, three of which opened within the last three years and are all of your members experienced and capable of overseeing a project from start to finish on their own?

Are there restoration specialists that meet or exceed the experience and abilities of current members?

[Jeff_Brauer]

The kinder and gentler GCA.com does not mean we should avoid controversial topics.  Let me ask a few simple questions.

Does every member of the ASGCA meet every entrance and continuing membership requirement?

Did any applicant turned down for membership in the ASGCA meet all the entry requirements at the time of application?  

Are 100% of the members the architect of record on five courses, three of which opened within the last three years and are all of your members experienced and capable of overseeing a project from start to finish on their own?

Are there restoration specialists that meet or exceed the experience and abilities of current members?

Wayne,

I agree and also agree that ASGCA is not above critique, providing its based on fact and not some of the misperceptions some here have promulagated over the years.  Some seem to want to believe someone who has never been within a 100 miles of an ASGCA meeting or member rather than someone who has been a member (or even in a leadership position!)

I will try to answer your questions, but I suspect some will come back with different value judgements on particular members, even though they passed the criteria set up by the ASGCA over the years.  I have voted no on some new members. Some of those have gone on to great careers and wonderful designs, proving me wrong.  There are still some associates who I would question if they could handle being "top dog" but they do qualify for ASGCA.

Here goes:

1.  Yes and Yes.  No member has ever gotten in without having designed the five equivalent courses.  Once an associate member, they must design two more and attend two of the next three meetings.  Some have been delayed in attaining regular members status due to lack of work.  A few have been dropped over the years when apparent they would never get to the next step.

2.  Yes, because ethical practice is also a consideration in addition to the five course minimum and those things don't come out until the due diligence process is completed.

3.  Yes, if you go by our standards. Many members are not the head of the firm, i.e., the architect of record in the public sense.  However, the head of the firm as acknowledged them as co-designers and primarily responsible for the work on a particular course.  There are no company memberships - i.e. Nicklaus Design or IMG, inc., just individuals.  Thus, some members are never credited with courses in the pubic sense to the degree they should be.  (Think Paul Cowley, as one example)

4. IMHO, yes there are some great restorationists. I don't know that I would say they are more experienced than all of our members, as that's too broad and many ASGCA members have done restorations.

If you are referring to the fact that restorations don't qualify as strongly as new courses for ASGCA entry, you can partially blame me for this state of affairs.  As new membership chair in 1989, I put out a survey on what the members thought should be the requirements.  Despite most of us having a third or more of our work being remodels, the overwhelming sentiment was that routing was an essential component of the gca skill package. (duh)  

As such, it was decided to limit the number of renovations accepted for membership.  That number has varied from 0-2 and I think it may go up later this year to make it easier for renovation guys to get in.  However, as in the past, qualifying renovations must be accomplished in one or two years - long term tweaks don't count for membership.   And, ASGCA has no distinction specifically for restorations - they are all considered in the renovation category, but that shouldn't affect using those as projects, as long as the applicant has some new work along the way.

As I stated before, ASGCA, not having any licensing or curriculums that match our profession exactly, as LA, Architecture and Engineering, must set some kind of minimum requirements ourselves.  

The constant has been five courses and ethical behavior and we tweak the process around those in response to the current market place to be more inclusive to mainstream professionals - ie. in the 90's we presumed you should have been able to get five courses along the line if you were a mainstream professional but now we don't.  

[Greg Clark]

I wonder whether the OP's question is being served?  I opened the thread anticipating discussion from many learned individuals on what knowledge a person would need to possess in order to have an expert grasp of golf course architecture.

Instead we have debates on the definition of an expert witness in a U.S. courtroom, and the membership makeup of the ASGCA.  How disappointing.  I was really looking forward to reading what people who have a passion for architecture believe is truly important knowledge and experience for a person to gain in their pursuit of an solid understanding of GCA.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

There are many members of the ASGCA, past and present, that did not and probably never will design (and build) five golf courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dick,

While many will never get public credit, as I mentioned earlier, they have ALL designed at least five golf courses.

We do allow collaborations with another regular member to count as its well known that associates do much of the grunt and real work.

[paul cowley]

Wayne.....trust me if you can, but Jeff and Forrest have a good handle on the ASGCA.....so much of the weird sh*t is speculation from the outside looking in.

[wsmorrison]

If the associates aren't given public credit, how are we to assume private credit is accurate?  I can't imagine this fundamental flaw is not a source of concern.

It may be well known that associates do much of the grunt work, but it is quite another thing to accept grunt work as the ability to bring a course from a blank slate to completion.  This gray area between associates and architects of record is what others rightfully question.  What do you mean by collaboration?  The ability of some shops to offer membership in ASGCA keeps talent from non-ASGCA shops and it also allows the bending and breaking of rules.  

If you are trying to say that every member can and has designed and overseen construction of 5 courses and 3 in the last 3 years, I would be surprised if that is completely true by most professional societies definitions.  The perception of misrepresentation has not been overcome in my mind.  Not that that matters a great deal.  For those in the industry, it sure seems to be problematic.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Dick,

While many will never get public credit, as I mentioned earlier, they have ALL designed at least five golf courses.

We do allow collaborations with another regular member to count as its well known that associates do much of the grunt and real work.

Jeff:
Where there is a will there is a way.

I know collaborations are allowed, but it is only a deviant allowing people to become members who otherwise would never qualify.

As we all know, the most difficult design commission to get is the first one, and without collaboration many of your members would never have qualified.

I still feel that you have members that have not designed and built a golf course on their own (after being accepted for membership.

Dick

[wsmorrison]

Paul,

I know you and your abilities.  I don't for a minute think because your name isn't the name of record that you didn't earn your way into the ASGCA.  Forgive me if I am hesitant to believe it of everyone else.  I don't base that opinion in a vacuum.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne,

You aren't convinced. Dick says he "still feels" we have unqualified members. Its really problematical to you, not to those in the industry.

It's true that salesmanship is not a criteria - only design competence.  So there are members who prefer to work in bigger shops and design rather than sell.

Ian Andrew and Paul are exactly the kind of guys ASGCA tends to put in the group (over more famous, but less in the dirt types) because they love and are good at what they do.  You can accept Paul because you have met him on the internet, but not others?  While we are all different, there are many more very similar to Paul and Ian.

Hey, there was even a young Jeff Brauer full of pee and vinegar back in 1981! (still full of it according to some people!)

BTW, I looked up the membership requirements for AIA for comparison

Architect Member (AIA) - Individuals licensed to practice architecture

Associate Member (Assoc. AIA) -

   Recent graduate with a degree in architecture (special offer - Learn more!), or
   Currently enrolled in the Intern Development Program (IDP) and working towards licensure, or
   Currently work under the supervision of an architect or hold a degree in architecture, or
   Faculty member in a university program in architecture.

Again, ASGCA is a little different for reasons listed, but acceptance in both cases requires the general approval of the mentor and a minimum level of education and experience.  

Although there is probably some inconsistency in what an ASGCA principal might define as "primary architect" its such a small and devoted group, that its hard for a member to push an unqualified associate for membership, and there have been cases of rejection after the due diligence process.

If anything in this discussion perturbs me, its the presumption that somehow those principals would try to circumvent the goals of ASGCA.  The membership process included interviews with five owners (perhaps as many as three individuals in the Owners employ) and interviews of the applicant by several other members at different times and places.  If a candidate couldn't do all the work (perhaps save selling the job) someone would either spill the beans on the owners side or realize it among ASGCA.  Believe me, applicants have never complained that the current process is too easy!

So on one hand, you think that ASGCA is too exclusive, and on the other, you argue that we let in associate members who aren't really qualified?  So which is it?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

PS -
When closing out the AIA site, lower down there was this category of membership -

Allied Individual Member - Individuals who do not hold a degree in architecture but share a special interest in the built environment as a professional colleague or enthusiast.

There have been discussions in ASGCA over the years about this type of membership.  We never get very far with that, and believe me, for all the good things golfclubatlas.com does, it does not move this agenda item along at ASGCA!

[Mike_Young]

This ASGCA stuff never goes away does it?  And I try to be quiet but eventually have to spout off.....

   On an individual basis I have no problem with most of the ASGCA guys...I might even apply again this year.  But I do have concerns that mirror some of what Wayne is saying and even though I am on the outside looking in...I feel I have a better understanding of the process than some of those on the inside because I have gone thru the interview process, answered the questions, and even received the letters that mention the "concerns" of which they really can't talk with me about.

The areas I think need to be addressed further are Determination of Ethics, defining the "design" of 5 courses, and the definition of peer review.

Ethics- When I went thru the interview process the first time all seemed fine  after the final interview until I received a letter saying I could not be approved.  With "underground research" I found that a management company from one of the courses we had done had always used a particular ASGCA member...as one of the partners in the particular course we had discovered some issues with the management company, they were fired.  They knew we were trying to apply and had informed this particular ASGCA member of how "unethical "we were. And they gave this particular ASGCA member their next project.  A few years later I asked about applying again and the new membership chair was nice enough to save me the hassle and tell me that even though I met the requirements there were questions regarding our business practices.  
While all of the above could be an ethics problem...it could also be sour grapes.  Why would it be that someone could have good references from all of their owners, golf professionals etc and yet other ASGCA members bring up hearsay.  Not one of my owners was ever contacted by the interview group to ask of my ethics, performance or anything yet an organization can state "business concerns" as a way to keep one out.  Tell me....again...does the associate architect ever have to answer to such concerns?  NO. My problem here is not whether one is accepted as much as  the perception to the unknowing ASGCA member .  That is hard to shake.

The "Design" of 5 courses-  (Paul and most others disregard)Truth is it could be said that all ASGCA members have designed 5 courses according to how one defines design.  I chose to get in the business without working for another architect directly but I called on new construction and architects offices for a few years before going on my own and I "saw" a lot.  First, there is no way that an associate sitting in an office drawing plans and managing a job can relate to what an independent shop architect has to go thru to sell the job, court the client,CLOSE the deal, do the billing and be responsible for a payroll.  AND this is/should be as important in the process as any step.  If one has not experienced this then he cannot understand the entire design relationship.  I am confident that most of the ASGCA members can take the process from beginning to end....but there are a few that cannot do it and I WOULD BET MY NEXT DESIGN FEE ON THAT.....
Peer Review-  Peer Review can be good but in order for it to be good it needs to have some guidelines.  Political pressure to "let my associates in and I will let your in" is not peer review....Of course it is more difficult to enter any group from the outside and the nature of competition cultivates rumor mills.  I have interviewed people that have told me my competition told them he could get them in if they worked for him and I could not.  I have heard that things have changed but a few years back...peer review was a joke.  

Now having said all of this above about the ASGCA......THE SAME THINGS ARE GOING ON OUTSIDE THE ASGCA ALSO......AND THIS WEBSITE CULTIVATES MUCH OF IT....there are websites out there owned by   "architects" that have never designed a course....they spout off on here where they have an audience like they were sleeping with ole Donald(not saying he was gay or anything) or smoking with Tilly....they speak of being co designers or associates of architects and they have not paid their dues.....what most of them have in common is they have another source of income and can "play in the sandbox".....they have made it where the main requirement for being a golf architect is having a website with a picture of yourself sitting on a dozer like you can shape or something.....
SO AS MUCH AS I BITCH ABOUT THE ASGCA AND THE FLAWS I THINK ARE THERE......I ALLOW THEM MUCH MORE CREDIBILITY THAN SOME OF THE BULLSHIT THAT IS THROWN ON HERE.
AND HAVING SAID SUCH.....THERE IS A NEED FOR SOME CLEARINGHOUSE FOR PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY PUT THIS STUFF IN THE GROUND WHETHER ASGCA MEMBER OR NOT.....
ALL HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR AND NO MORE ASGCA THREADS (after this one)

 

[Mike_Young]

MikeY:

I absolutely and postively DEMAND that you give us all the exact definition of a "GOOBER"!!!

Bob Crosby would be a good example.....you know...yellow leisure suit...naugahyde seat covers in his car....scoreclicker on his belt and kilties on his golf shoes.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Is not the NGF a clearinghouse for all gca's and others in the industry?  They list both members and non members on their list, anyone can join and get their job tracking and publications, etc?

I feel your pain, as you have seen the worst side of the ASGCA membership process. I will say that I looked into all of the old stories about your early projects and came away convinced you were guilty of nothing more than perhaps picking the wrong clients, as so many of us struggling in a new venture are forced to do.

That said, ASGCA has taken great strides to widen out the process, making sure that just a few members, who may be all too human, may not influence the process in the wrong ways.  There are also controls in place (sponsors don't review courses now, individual evaluators do) that discourage and catch the applicants who may be pushed unfairly by their principles or friends in the biz.

Of course, that makes it a longer, more difficult process which causes other problems - it can so long that some rules change.  

As to the five courses, there are some in ASGCA who agree with you that principals should have some kind of different designation to show that they bring home the bacon.  Unfortunately, the only distinguisher we could come up with was an even uglier red coat...... so we voted that down (I was trying for something in a more slimming black.....)

The issue has been debated seriously, and we keep coming back to design and technical skill as being the basis for membership, which in theory, expands the pool of members.  We acknowledge that the system (which while we tweak, like to keep to the original founders vision of five courses) does favor associates of members, and was perhap set up that way by Ross, Jones, and others.  We have tried to reach out and its easier than ever for non members and members to mix, which shoud also ease the process.

Anyway, that the fifth of my usual two cents on ASGCA. Like you, I need a resolution not to get embroiled in this kind of thing.  GolfClubAtlas should be enjoyed, not endured!

And, its topic drift to in the worst way.  Someone wants to know what a legal standard for an expert is in court (my take anyway) and we end up here.

Suffice to say "participates on golfclubatlas.com" wouldn't be a criteria.  Most likely a good lawyer could make a substantial case of mental incompetence for anyone crazy enough to post here, myself included!

And more seriously, I believe that lawyers probably have found this site, and things I may have posted, which could be just one more strike against me should I testify again.  Who knows how a lawyer could take anything written here out of context and twist it.  I don't think its gained enough credibility to where someone might call a, say Mike Cirba or TePaul as an expert, based on post 22,459 and its contents......

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()