Ethics questions for fellow golf architects and general public!

[Randy Thompson]

Ok-OK I get the general concenous, I was wrong to feel offended. I pretty much felt the general public would feel this way because all is fair in love, war and busisness but I felt the niche of the archtectual business is a little different and that such tatic could hurt the over all profession in the long run but most in the business also seem to think it is ok. In relaity, the letter has a taste of a starving artist that is desperate and will do anything at any cost to sell their paintings which have little or no market value. To each his own, I am lucky and if things were to get a lot worst, I have deversified my career throughout the years and can always consult in maintneance, be a project manager or manage a beautiful fishing lodge in the gorgeous south of Chile, which I would rather do, than lower my standards and engaging in desperate tactics that lower my perceptive market value! Anyways, thanks to all for helping me see the light and getting rid of an uncomfortable feeling inside me!

[Niall C]

Randy

I guess the real question is how do you respond to keep your client and gain new ones. I would think the best thing to do is to concentrate on the quality you bring to the job, and yes the value for money that that brings. Developing a golf course isn't exactly an industrialised standard production, or at least it shouldn't be IMHO. Is it not more about inspiration rather than just spade work ? Thats really what the clients paying for, no ?

Niall

[Scott Warren]

I agree with Jim Nugent and Mark Pearce. The guy seems to be just advertising his business by competing on price. I'm not sure of a business where that isn't a major selling point, especially in rubbish economic times.

What interests me is that many of the golf architects who have commented seem to have done so sympathetically. Has this kind of thing previously been uncommon in the industry? What makes it uncouth in golf design where many others in other industries seem unsurprised by his tactics?

[Mike_Young]

What interests me is that many of the golf architects who have commented seem to have done so sympathetically. Has this kind of thing previously been uncommon in the industry? What makes it uncouth in golf design where many others in other industries seem unsurprised by his tactics?

Scott,
I think there is a larger number of pompous asses in the GCA segment of golf than in any other segment of the industry....so I would not say it is uncommon in GCA business....however the pompous ass crowd will always do it behind your back and the rest of he golf architects that I know will try to "suggest " or comment to each other on a helpful basis.  Of course all look at each other as a competitor but that doesn't mean you can't help the legitimate guys.  The issue is we are in a shrinking golf design climate and the stop are all being pulled out...It can get nasty...

[Mike Nuzzo]

We had one guy tell a rework project in the area he was the only one that was ASGCA certified to do such work.

That is unethical - I hope Mike submitted this to the ASGCA.
Did you?

Randy
Think of the guy who posted his low design fee on Ebay a couple years ago.
Either he is so busy from that one post or out of business - as I haven't heard of that ad come up again.

Cheers

[Randy Thompson]

I agree with Jim Nugent and Mark Pearce. The guy seems to be just advertising his business by competing on price. I'm not sure of a business where that isn't a major selling point, especially in rubbish economic times.

What interests me is that many of the golf architects who have commented seem to have done so sympathetically. Has this kind of thing previously been uncommon in the industry? What makes it uncouth in golf design where many others in other industries seem unsurprised by his tactics?

Scott,
How many design firms or golf course archtiects are there world wide, less than 500, less 300, I don´t know but were not a real big group and I beleive there have been some undefined codes of ethics in the past. Recently there was a post on here about a developer or club president speaking with an architect and explaining the job was already filled and the conversation from that point on was very ugly and unprofessional words by the job seeking architect. Is this a siign of the times or just human deficits that don´t exclude the architectural business! Lowering prices and mass market mailing just don´t seem helathy to me in the long term. For example, How about if I created a set of flat land design plans for 10 thousand bucks and mass marketed them. Change the routing as you like, but here are eighteen holes complete design plans. Add a bunker..eliminate a buinkler, tweek here, tweek there and you have your own original design for ten thousand!! I coud make some money but damage the entire market. Frankly, I would rather manage the fishing lodge or better yet, GO FISHING!

[Scott Warren]

Fair enough, I suppose I just wouldn't see doing so (lowering prices in a tough market etc) as unethical. The flat land "kit course" might be pretty a savvy idea if you ask me!

[Randy Thompson]

But i accept that what was done, should not be labled unethical but I still feel it is unhealthy! More so for him than for me, so time to let it go!

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:

It's not unethical to talk about your fees.  Many years ago I believe there was a push by some architects to get everyone to quote fees as a percentage of the construction job, so that no one would compete on price ... but that gives everyone the incentive to make their courses more expensive, and ignores the fact that some designers are able to charge more based on past success.

We are sympathetic to Randy's position because of all of us know that the same guy who quotes low fees is also likely to be glossing over what he will actually do for the money, with the result that it will often cost the club more in the long run to go with such a guy.  But there are lots of clients who don't understand that, particularly in a market like South America where golf design and construction are not as common ... and Randy doesn't want to get drawn into trying to explain the reality and looking like he is badmouthing the other guy.

[Randy Thompson]

Scott:

It's not unethical to talk about your fees.  Many years ago I believe there was a push by some architects to get everyone to quote fees as a percentage of the construction job, so that no one would compete on price ... but that gives everyone the incentive to make their courses more expensive, and ignores the fact that some designers are able to charge more based on past success.

We are sympathetic to Randy's position because of all of us know that the same guy who quotes low fees is also likely to be glossing over what he will actually do for the money, with the result that it will often cost the club more in the long run to go with such a guy.  But there are lots of clients who don't understand that, particularly in a market like South America where golf design and construction are not as common ... and Randy doesn't want to get drawn into trying to explain the reality and looking like he is badmouthing the other guy.

or over charging...well done Tom...thanks

[Tony Ristola]

I just recieved a copy of a bulk e-mailing letter to most clubs in Chile. The letter was from a design firm out of Mexico and a former design associate of Jack Nicklaus. They were promoting redesign packages. A complete set of redesign master plan with construction drawing for all areas and two visits during the actual redesign process for X dollars. It would be very hard for this company to take away any actual future business of mine but what is bothering me is that they have stated the price for whcih future clientele of mine could use to there advantage as a negotiating tool to lower my fees. As a result, this hits me as unethical on their part. Do I have a right to feel accordingly or is all fair in love, war and business. If you were in my position would you send the firm a letter stating my dicontent in what I consider to be an act of unprofessionalism on their part.

I don't see it as unethical in the least... it's business.
If you provide services others can't touch, then there is no worry. If not, you're simply a commodity fighting other commodities at commodity prices.

I don't understand where architects think they have some type of protection from aggressive competition, and where the architect should be protected before the client. I think our business has these matters ass backwards... and it shows by the low quality of hoards of projects.

For example, on Mike young's shaping thread, Jaeger Kovic reveals he's seen one architect at 8 projects in 4 months.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45224.msg990278.html#msg990278
That's abysmal... but it's fairly normal too... which is abysmal for the investor plunking down serious money and facing course closures to accomplish said work.

Randy,

One of the local architects here did a mass email to all the higher end private clubs in the country looking for projects. I see it as sign of the times. In theory he's not supposed to do that...

Ian,
Why isn't he supposed to do that?
Is he supposed to hide his services and live at the mercy of his (perhaps better established) competitors?
I'm truly interested to hear why.

[Cliff Hamm]

Doesn't sound much different than Walmart/Home Depot competing with the local store. 

[Tom_Doak]

Kelly:

Judging by the biting jokes made by members of the European, Australian and Japanese societies, the ASGCA is lucky it did not carve up America and Canada, otherwise those other continents would have giant "Keep Out" signs posted at the international airports.  [They still wish they could do so, and it's hard to really blame them.]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

Here are the applicable portions of the code of ethics that might apply to Ian's comments:

IX.Members shall not attempt to obtain or offer to undertake any commission that they know is already under a legitimate contract or agreement with another golf course architect.

X.Members shall not accept any commission until they have ascertained that any former legitimate contract or agreement with another golf course architect has been terminated. This shall be done by soliciting information and evidence from the client or employer and the other golf course architect.

IMHO, if the mass mailings went out as opposed to targeting a specific know upcoming project, it probably wouldn't technically violate these provisions.

As to splitting up the country, yes I understand that was proposed about 60 years ago, but never came to fruition and your statement should be clarified so people know just how out of date that is!  As with all comments here, the design professions did try (up to the first half of the past century) to unnaturally protect themselves from fee and regional competition.  No surprise that it eventually failed.  That said, the engineering community seems to protect its % of construction fee basis and very few really seem to compete on fees from my experience.

BTW, Mr. Doak has made a few snarky comments about ASGCA, including a recent statement that his ethics are better than ASGCA based on his understanding that our code only applies to competing against our own members, whereas he treats all gca's the same.  The above actual quote from our ethics page shows that this just isn't so, and I figure I may as well take this opportunity to correct it.

Tom, if Tony R is any indication, those guys probably make biting jokes about their own groups, too.  In general, my take is that in a traditionally tougher environment for gca's in other countries outside the US, that those groups tend to be far more protectionist than ASGCA ever was, even in its early years.  That is exactly the kind of behavior Tony Ristola complains about.   

And with your history, I am sure you had absolutely no input to those comments either! 

Hey, how many ASGCA members does it take to change a light bulb?  Just curious.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

Well, that may have been some individual's opinion, but I can assure you that by 1990, there was no official policy or discussion on anything like that.  We can all dream, I guess!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Your choices of ASGCA presidents in that period include Pete Dye, RTJII, Dan Maples, Tom Clark, Don Knott and my ownself.  I could see any of the others relaying stories of how the old guys thought, since they all had old time ties by family or mentor, but I have never heard anyone speak of that kind of thing in present tense. 

The exception might be RTJII (or Don Knott if he was still an RTJII employee at that time), because he reportedly had an agreement within his own family (father and Rees) to informally split the country up into regions among the Jones. And Bobby got Asia while Rees took Europe, too.

Of course, Rees has worked in the west a lot and Bobby has worked in the east, so that fell apart early, too. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

KBM,

1985, and as one of our historians, and a tell it like it is guy, I am pretty sure he was talking about the old days, too.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff,

Thanks for printing your code of ethics.  It is good to see they do not discriminate against non-member architects.  

So, if Kelly or Mike or I ever have a problem of this sort in the future, should we call Chad Ritterbusch and take it up with him?  And should we be confident he will he pursue it in order to defend the ethics of the profession?  Or might we be seen as outsiders who you can't control, so you won't help us?

Is it snarky of me to ask?  Because I am too snarky sometimes, but I surely don't intend to be on a thread about ethics.


I understand that there is a need for ethics in this business, which is the starting point for this thread.  I have recently had more troubles with the ethics of non-member architects than with any ASGCA members ... one fellow in particular who was trying to wrestle a consulting commission away from one of my former associates.  He not only lied about what my associates had done on a previous renovation, but actually quoted misleadingly from the golf professional of the other club, without that professional's even knowing what the guy had done.  And there is really no recourse for any of that, other than to correct the record and let the offender know that he will not get away with that sort of b.s.  At least, if he were a member of ASGCA, you all would presumably deal with a situation like that.

So, I agree with you that there is a need for business ethics, in a world which has less and less of them in general.  But, I would not generalize from there that the societies have a monopoly on ethics, nor that every individual in the societies has a squeaky clean conscience, just because they were admitted once and haven't been thrown out since.  By that logic everybody on Wall Street is also clean!!

In the end, the application of ethics is always down to what the individual would do when no one is looking.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

I do recall a time period in the 1990's where a few members sought to reach out to qualified non members like RVH (and his associates, many of whom have since joined).  I don't recall who called whom, though.  I don't doubt your memory, but also would consider that RVH, who specifically didn't join (as I understand it) because of Wilson's ongoing feud with RTJ (which was rife with those kinds of efforts to out compete the other) might have also mixed in some history with the current invite to join in passing his thoughts on to you.

You would know better, but I have always been told that RVH and other Dick Wilson associates harbored ASGCA grudges basically forever, perhaps understandably so given the circumstances in the 1950's.  As I have said before, there is no real way to varish over the early days of nearly all the design professions, where they actively tried to limit competition, which is the topic Randy basically started this thread for.  

And, I can sort of understand those animosities carrying over several generations in golfs version of the Hatfields and the McCoys.  That said, I for one would love to have you "see the light" and join us someday, despite your RVH heritage.  For whatever flaws you may percieve, there is lots of good to be gained in a group like that.

[George Pazin]

But i accept that what was done, should not be labled unethical but I still feel it is unhealthy! More so for him than for me, so time to let it go!

Nothing at all wrong with questioning the person's business practices or tactics, it's just not at all the same as questioning someone's ethics.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I agree that ethics are what you do when no one is looking.  I also agree professional societies don't have the monopoly on them either.  I would guess that if every practitioner could be trusted to look out for others as much as he looked out for himself, that there would have been no need for ASGCA and other societies in the first place.  I have never said that all ASGCA members are all GCA saints, but we do try.

Chad has actually made some efforts to be more sensitive to the impressions and needs of non members and at this point, would probably do more investigation on a non member complaint.  Traditionally, we would take up ethics hearings for any reported transgressions of members only, not really having any way of bringing a non member in.  

While no one has ever been booted from ASGCA for an ethics violation (which are usually not too much different than your example.  Typical complaints are -

- A former associate inflates his record to secure projects,
- A member who has done some prelim work doesn't get the final commission and wonders just what the successful gca did to secure it
- There are rumors (hard to substantiate) that one gca has made false and damaging statements about another in going after a commission.  I find this one hard to believe, in that I have never figured that kind of sales works.

BTW, the hearings have resulted in some modified behavior.  In many other cases, the complainer has ended up coming to the same conclusion as Randy - the suspect behavior may skirt the edges of traditional professionalism, but its a dog eat dog world out there.  I may have more faith in human nature than you.  When I hear those old stories of RTJ and Wilson, etc., I tend to think its a lot more civil today than it was back then.

We also tend to think of the Golden Age as a very civil period in our profession but this has me wondering if they were because they could with all the work around.  Did the depression change that course of professional civility as much as it changed the course of architecture itself?

And no, its not snarky to ask.  I would rather have open discussion rather than avoid it and talk behind someone's back.,,,,

[Jason McNamara]

But i accept that what was done, should not be labled unethical but I still feel it is unhealthy! More so for him than for me, so time to let it go!

Nothing at all wrong with questioning the person's business practices or tactics, it's just not at all the same as questioning someone's ethics.

George draws a great distinction here. 

Randy, while it is possible you may lose a job, the likelihood it's the job from hell.  The one where the client doesn't actually care so much about golf, and wants rock-bottom prices for cookie-cutter quality.  Your "competition" promises two whole visits during a re-design?  Wow.  That business plan will work fine until they hit the first site that turns out to be trickier than expected, and all of a sudden it's surcharge city - or the cookie-cutter guys lose their shirts on the project.  You're already succeeding in this business (OK, grinding it out these days, but everyone is) by having a quality shop.  Stick with it. 

I had a business which sold specialized PCs nationwide to a Fortune 100 company.  The dep't manager beat us up all the time on our prices - why couldn't he just go to Best Buy?  Then lightning hit a server of theirs in a satellite office where they had no sysadmins, a city more than 1000 miles from us and their central office.  (Yes, they'd ignored our recommendation for back-up sw & hw.)  They were going to lose tens of thousands a day due to having a call center closed. 

We delivered a fully-configured replacement server to them EIGHT HOURS after we got off the emergency conference call.  You're in a niche market and provide great customer service - hang in there.

Oh, and that manager?  He was a bit slow to acknowledge our role, so we wrote him to thank him for the job his sysadmins did getting us the necessary config files.  Then he was stuck.  :-)

[Mike_Young]

Tom, KBM, Jeff,
Man I can't believe I missed this much of another ASGCA thread....
There are good guys and bad guys both outside and inside the ASGCA.  So in reality the ASGCA has no stronghold on ethics in this business.  Their basic set-up is geared toward restricting trade...always has been and always will be....now there are some..more now than in the past such as Jeff and many others that may make great efforts to change such.  But one still has to understand that the key to ASGCA membership is obtaining 9 of 13 votes from the executive committee....
What is never mentioned but what many of us know is that exclusion from ASGCA is often used as a selling tool against one by other members....and it is usually the question of ethics they try to use by saying something like  "don't say I said this but"   

The following might be of interest for information on how things work there....note the last sentence where it mentions the reputations of  both....hmmmmm....  I know if XXXXX  happened to be me I would love to put it on the floor with a couple of the executive committee members making that call.....I wonder if this is called an ethical decision?

ASGCA notes from the CIA
"XXXXX XXXXXXXX brought up the topic of XXXX XXXXX’s membership application. He reported that the Executive Committee had consulted with the Membership Committee and two of XXXXX’s sponsors  who were in Seattle for the Annual Meeting. There was a strong feeling on the Executive Committee that XXXXX’s application be denied prior to the membership vote because the Membership Committee was not supporting the application—and the reality that XXXXX would simply not receive the two-thirds vote necessary for acceptance. A unanimous decision by the Executive Committee was that both ASGCA’s and XXXXX’s reputations would benefit by keeping an advisory vote off the floor of the ASGCA business meetings. "

Now please note as individuals the majority of ASGCA guys I have met are straight up...including the guys I have met on here....but the above I found interesting.....

[Tony Ristola]

Tom, if Tony R is any indication, those guys probably make biting jokes about their own groups, too.  In general, my take is that in a traditionally tougher environment for gca's in other countries outside the US, that those groups tend to be far more protectionist than ASGCA ever was, even in its early years.  That is exactly the kind of behavior Tony Ristola complains about.  

Jeff,

You're wildly misrepresenting what I have written and the stance I had taken. I'll chalk it up to poor memory.

My complaint has been from the outset that the ASGCA and EIGCA  (BIGCA & EIGA) codes restricted free speech and movement (EICGA only). Elements that hurt up-and-comers... those individuals that put pressure on the old guard to perform to even higher standards; elevating the profession and providing more for the client.

These up-and-comers are put in a bad spot. They have to keep their heads well below the line if they want to become members, for fear of pissing off those that give the thumbs up or down for membership admission. That is a great negative for the profession and individuals trying to make a living designing and building golf courses. It's a great negative for those investing millions in these projects, or renovating one for a tidy sum.

Here is my original post from November 5, 2002:

Tom:  The ASGCA, EIGCA, former ESGA and BIGCA have code-of-ethics.  I've studied them fairly carefully and they have clauses which made me shake my head.

1. What the ASGCA and EIGCA call code-of-ethics are often freedom-robbing rules.  For example, both state there "should be no self-lauditory advertising/publicity." (paraphrasing closely)

2. Architect Associations claim honest representation of work on projects should made.  This is a joke.  

Of these two claims, the first is a great way to suppress opinion or make someone conform...I know this first hand...having been on the receiving end from members of both associations...for being honest in opinion and basing opinion in fact.  For offering services and comparing them to the industry norm!!!

The first rule is a professional challenge for those breaking into the industry and have something to say.  You risk pissing off those controlling your future vote (if you want to join an association...and I had one member spell it out to me so clearly), or you end up censoring what you have to say, perhaps killing your unique position in the market in the process.  This could lead to lost projects, and at worst loss of financial independence. It is certainly a loss or curbing someone's most basic human rights.  This is CODE!  In any way you look at it,  it is bad for those seeking membership, but great for the existing members.

The second claim is so abused it is actually funny to read.  How many members of architects associations have sold their souls to Golf Pro's (see Mark Fine's post on Do I Really Need a Golf Pro), and let the guys really doing the work hang-out to dry? 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% of the membership?  The signature professional debacle would NEVER have happened had the ASGCA honored their Code of Ethics...Never would have happened.

The BIGCA (don't know if the EIGCA adopted this beauty) prohibited architects from visiting other architects courses and making an opinion unless they called the architect who designed the project first!  More restrictions on speech and movement.

Yes there are Rules of Behaviour, Codes of Ethics, but they are often undemocratic protective measures...the bureacracy defending itself, and they are used.

Jeff,
I'm not  a member of a group.

I don't comment much on other people's projects, but I do comment on working methods that are likely to produce excellence and economy, and working methods that won't.

I have had members from both groups complain about my advertising (check my website... it's still the same as when it emerged in 1997) or speech (on GCA). Why in the world would they do that I asked myself.  It is what spawned my interest in the subject. How could someone threaten me for honestly stating to a client what I do and how I intend to protect his investment? I found parts of the code fully absurd and in contradiction with other parts, namely where "human rights" were quoted.

These rules came from the ASGCA and the Euro groups. You took offense and here we sit 8-years later. Some progress has been made by the ASGCA on paper. Congratulations!

[George Pazin]

...Their basic set-up is geared toward restricting trade...always has been and always will be....now there are some..more now than in the past such as Jeff and many others that may make great efforts to change such...

I have no experience with the ASGCA, but anyone who's had any experience with virtually ALL trade organizations, societies, etc., will know, whether they admit it or not, that restriction of trade is a big part of what they do; the cynic would say it's the biggest, and he might be right....