Willl,
I will say upfront that I am more than a little teed off at your statement that I make misleading statements. Of course, anyone reading can choose to believe that a non member spouting off on an unregulated website, perhaps with a glass or two of wine in hand would know more about ASGCA than a 28 year member who has served in nearly every position there was to serve in and attended 24 of the 28 meetings he could have. Yeah, I think you got a better chance of nailing it!
That said, I would say all professional societies value their fraternal ties. One of the big benefits of sitting in a room with your peers is that you can informally learn something by just asking a simple question. As an example, I still recall Rees Jones joining me at the table when I was a new member, and upon hearing my complaint about having limited corridor widths, telling me that his corridor widths were also governed by the traditional double row system and that he was starting to push for triple row systems. That seems small, but it had a big influence on me, both in pushing for more sprinklers, but more importantly being treated like a peer by one of the biggest in the business and giving me advice.
We have increased our professionalism continually in all 28 years I have been a member, in terms of projects and both internal and industry education. I was proud of initiatives when I was on the EC, but when I read about what the younger guys are doing now, they are blowing way past anything I ever envisioned we could be as a group. So, tell me how that is a bad thing?
As to licensing, as I explained earlier, gca is such a small profession that few states try to licence it. So, ASGCA with its 160+/- members is inherently a lot different than AIA with (I think) 70,000 membesr. ASGCA itself has no moral authority to create a licensing program for the profession and its own members (although some have suggested it). Nor do I believe gca should be a licencsed profession. After all, golf courses don't fall down so there is no compelling health, safety and welfare issue that would suggest it should be government controlled. And in a profession dominated by the likes of Jack Nicklaus and Pete Dye, neither who has a degree in LA, its silly to base membership on either a preferred college degree when so many have come from many differen fields. When Florida wanted to licence gca under landscape architects our successful argument was "would millions of visitors come to golf in Florida if the courses were designed by Joe's Landscape Company instead of Pete Dye?
Our membership process is in essence a peer review in lieu of licensing, which does connote some kind of qualifications, and yes, we intend it that way. I believe the membership process is very objective and has been strengthened and made more objective through about twenty years of dedicated membership chairs and executive committees. Of course, I was in on that process and its improvement, so I am biased. But, a lot of thought went in to how to be fair to applicants and get qualified members (you would have to know all who applied to get a sense of what we deal with)
I hear stories of the old days when guys got in because they could tell a joke or tend bar! That is not so today. Every applicant goes through a controlled and identical process and we spread the review around as much as possible to ensure that one or a few individual members who might have a conflict of interest with a particular applicant cannot unduly influence the application.
And your "black ball" statement is QUITE misleading. There are over 100 voting members that vote on applicants. Acceptance is technically voted on by a dozen or so board of governors by a separate vote. In NEITHER voting process can one member vote no and cancel an application. Majority rules.
Ben,
I would love to hear your take on why there is a glaring conflict of interest. And why it is so unfortunate that it aspires to get the best in the business to join, rather than accept all comers just to collect their dues, as AIA and ASLA do.
If you think the membership process is unfair, I will say that I do believe that in a few cases, an applicant has been denied because of another members fear of competition in his own area, but that is greatly reduced by the process. At the same time, I agree with Niall that we all want the best possible members, which for most of us, is the driving force behind voting yea or nay, not some petty differences. Its a pretty strong group and if you believe every single member, or even a large majority of them feel so threatened by competition that they vote no on qualified applicants, then I believe you are sadly mistaken. Just MHO, but I know these guys pretty well, while I presume you are mostly guessing.
The simple facts are that non-members continue to get projects and some of those apply for membership when they get their five courses. It has been this way for 63 years, and the group continues to grow, usually from 5-10 new members a year, some from firms with existing ASGCA members and some from "outside the fold" so there is NO solid evidence to suggest that the existing membership tries intentionally to keep people out.
I also agree with Tom Doak that I have never felt any percieved advantage in securing jobs as an ASGCA member. I recently relayed the story of an interview in Florida, and what a big zero all of us mentioning our ASGCA membership was, but I could tell others. I do know some non members feel it the other way, because yes, we bill ourselves as the society of the leading gca's, and publicize that membership means you have passed rigorous peer review (in lieu of non existent licensing), and the world generally knows you need to have completed five courses so if you are in ASGCA, you aren't a complete novice.
It sounds to me like you have had your ear bent by a non-member. I can understand (and in a few cases) sympathize with that position. I have given the whole membership scenario a lot of thought and input. So have others of intelligence and knowledgable about the profession. While not perfect, its pretty damn good. You on the other han,d have decided to start a thread after perhaps a few minutes of thought.