The Old Course---Darius Oliver's article

[Mac Plumart]

Jud,

I don't recall anybody arguing that TOC is just another course undergoing a renovation.  I would suggest a different syllogism and say that TOC is undergoing another renovation, since this has occurred there before, based upon information and belief, as we lawyers like to say.

I mean no disrespect to TOC, but the fanning of the verbal flames is well over the top.

Mac,

I assume you're joking about the site I mentioned. Because I certainly was. 

Terry...I thought it was funny...so I thought I'd try to enhance the humor.



I'm really disappointed in this thread.  I thought it could have been cool to go hole by hole and actually discuss the changes...but I think that chance is gone now.  

Again, as I said on another thread I have no issue with Dr. Hawtree.  I'm not familiar with his work at all, but it does look like he did a great job at Trump Scotland.


I also wonder if anyone would be on board with a sympathetic restoration on The Old Course, like was done at Pinehurst #2.  I've seen photos of the old Hell Bunker and compared to what is there now, I prefer the old look.  But, does that change how it plays?  #2 had an intrusion of Bermuda grass, I'm unsure if The Old Course has any similar change in playability issues that could be fixed and restored other than how it looks.

Anyone know?    

[Paul_Turner]

Mac

For Hell bunker it's cosmetic and functional.  Particularly after the 2000 rebuild the base of the bunker is dead flat, in the earlier photos there was more chance of getting a sloped stance.  Neil Crafter did an article on how Hell has changed.

[Paul_Turner]

Niall

It's the Home of Golf, the plan should have been transparent and out in the open.  If they had an extensive consultation for a relatively minor course like the Jubilee, then why not for TOC.? 

Hawtree Ltd has a website advertising its prospective and active projects, so why not this one?

[David Harshbarger]

Niall, re the changes and whether they will ultimately add or detract from the strategic options on the course, I do not know.  Whether the course was wanting for strategic options or not I think is clear; it was not.  I thought Darius' made some reasoned points that these changes will remove some well regarded strategic elements.

I do look forward to seeing the course myself one day, and seeing the movement you speak of.

[Niall C]

Paul

You refer to the publicising of the proposals and seem to me to suggest or indeed state that public input would be required. Is that what you are proposing and if so what would the process be and who would be making the decision ?

Niall

[Paul_Turner]

Niall

Make the proposed plans public,  let the crap hit the fan and have something, anything, emerge from that. 

[William_G]

Mac,

Thanks for the link to Darius' article and photo tour.

I don't see a need for changes on #2, nor #3, nor #4, nor #7, nor #9,, nor #11, nor #17 particularly after seeing the these photos.

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

You're defence of this decision (and the decision making process) is disingenuous.  What stinks about the decision making process is clear from many posts here and the way it was handled by the Links Trust and R&A is that they know it stinks.  When the Jubilee course was altered the Trust gave three months notice and Gordon Moir attended four public meetings to explain the changes.  When TOC, which is by far the more historically important and higher profile course, is changed three days "notice" was given, no consultation took place and no public meetings were called.  Indeed, no public explanation has been offered (except when Dawson has been questioned in press conferences on other subjects).

That conduct, on its own, is enough to raise a stink and you know it.  You're an intelligent and thoughtful bloke so what leads you to defend the indefensible way this announcement has been handled?

[Bill Brightly]

Niall

Make the proposed plans public,  let the crap hit the fan and have something, anything, emerge from that. 

I could not agree more with this. The manner in which these plans were crafted and announced can lead observers to reach one of two conclusions:

1) The powers that be were so sure that these changes were correct and fully warranted that no debate was required, or
2) The powers were not so sure of their plans, and feared that they might be halted by the outcry. So move the dirt quickly and hunker down.

If the former is true, then the plans should certainly be able to stand up to a public airing. Good plans, by definition, would earn the respect and support of many architects, golfers, owners of the links, etc.

If it is the latter, it is a sign of weakness, not strength, to have rushed ahead.

Whatever motivated the leaders to act quickly, the process did great damage to the chances of these alterations being widely accepted as positive changes.

[Sean Walsh]

"I have more sympathy of Tom D's case and the way he's gone about trying to make it however I think the weakness in his case is that while acknowledging that changes could be made if deemed appropriate and once having been agreed through due process, he has to put forward an alternative management/decision process and convince the powers that be that that is the way to go forward. Again thats just my opinion."

The EIGCA won't even criticise one of their members in public and develop a slanted poll to use as a fig leaf.  Other GCA bodies are very reticent in doing so but you believe it would be appropriate for Tom D to follow the course you outline above. The obvious way that would then be portrayed is that Tom D doesn't oppose the works he's just trying to cut Hawtree's lunch on a high profile site. 

In my reading of this it's like the complaints against scientists in the climate change or similar debates.  They will rarely if ever give absolutes because much of their work is based on theory.  They then get attacked for not giving the guarantee they can't ethically give. Much the same it would not be credible to say you could NEVER envisage a situation that even The Old Course requires work.  Absolute's are the refuge of those that know little of what they speak.     

[Niall C]

Niall,

You're defence of this decision (and the decision making process) is disingenuous.  What stinks about the decision making process is clear from many posts here and the way it was handled by the Links Trust and R&A is that they know it stinks.  When the Jubilee course was altered the Trust gave three months notice and Gordon Moir attended four public meetings to explain the changes.  When TOC, which is by far the more historically important and higher profile course, is changed three days "notice" was given, no consultation took place and no public meetings were called.  Indeed, no public explanation has been offered (except when Dawson has been questioned in press conferences on other subjects).

That conduct, on its own, is enough to raise a stink and you know it.  You're an intelligent and thoughtful bloke so what leads you to defend the indefensible way this announcement has been handled?

Mark

Are we talking about the announcement or the decision process ?

No one has yet to put forward an alternative working means of dealing with any changes to TOC other than the viewpoint put forward by Bob Crosby which is to leave it alone no matter what. Just because they took a different approach to public engagement on the Jubilee doesn't make the approach here less valid. There are no rules that suggest a prescriptive way of doing this so I don't see that I'm being disingenuous at all.

Niall

[Bill Brightly]

Mark

Are we talking about the announcement or the decision process ?

No one has yet to put forward an alternative working means of dealing with any changes to TOC other than the viewpoint put forward by Bob Crosby which is to leave it alone no matter what.

That is simply not true Niall. Many have said here that IF changes are to be considered, it should be a public process with plenty of time for people to review the plans. Presumably, proposed changes would have to pass a very difficult threshold. But so what? TOC has earned that level of respect.

Just because they took a different approach to public engagement on the Jubilee doesn't make the approach here less valid.

To the contrary, the fact that they took a completely different approach with the Jubilee, a public approach, makes this method all the more suspicious and objectionable. You can at least find historical precedent for making changes to TOC, but I don't see how ANYONE can justify this process.

Niall

[Niall C]

"I have more sympathy of Tom D's case and the way he's gone about trying to make it however I think the weakness in his case is that while acknowledging that changes could be made if deemed appropriate and once having been agreed through due process, he has to put forward an alternative management/decision process and convince the powers that be that that is the way to go forward. Again thats just my opinion."

The EIGCA won't even criticise one of their members in public and develop a slanted poll to use as a fig leaf.  Other GCA bodies are very reticent in doing so but you believe it would be appropriate for Tom D to follow the course you outline above. The obvious way that would then be portrayed is that Tom D doesn't oppose the works he's just trying to cut Hawtree's lunch on a high profile site. 

In my reading of this it's like the complaints against scientists in the climate change or similar debates.  They will rarely if ever give absolutes because much of their work is based on theory.  They then get attacked for not giving the guarantee they can't ethically give. Much the same it would not be credible to say you could NEVER envisage a situation that even The Old Course requires work.  Absolute's are the refuge of those that know little of what they speak.     

Sean

Its fairly standard in professional bodies in most professions for their to be rules about criticising other members work.  The reason being the harm it would do to the profession in question as punters view members bitching about each others work rather than trying to promote their own. That is what professional bodies are about, raising standards. That means promoting continued professional development for members and watching out for malpractice. Only a zealot would suggest this is malpractice.

With regards to what I was suggesting, it was that IMO Tom would be more successful in his aims if he were to propose a system that was better than the one they have just gone through. I don't see how that could be construed as being about cutting out Martin Hawtree, any more than what Tom's already done, which in my opinion does not come across that way at all.

With regards the drivel in your last paragraph, I was discussing due process in deciding on any changes for a golf course, not philosophy.

Niall

[Niall C]

Mark

Are we talking about the announcement or the decision process ?

No one has yet to put forward an alternative working means of dealing with any changes to TOC other than the viewpoint put forward by Bob Crosby which is to leave it alone no matter what.

That is simply not true Niall. Many have said here that IF changes are to be considered, it should be a public process with plenty of time for people to review the plans. Presumably, proposed changes would have to pass a very difficult threshold. But so what? TOC has earned that level of respect.

Just because they took a different approach to public engagement on the Jubilee doesn't make the approach here less valid.

To the contrary, the fact that they took a completely different approach with the Jubilee, a public approach, makes this method all the more suspicious and objectionable. You can at least find historical precedent for making changes to TOC, but I don't see how ANYONE can justify this process.

Niall

Bill

Apologies, I must have missed those many posts that addressed the right and proper process, that is beyond just letting the punters have there say.

With regards to my other comment, I stand by it. The way they went about making changes to the Jubilee course in no way set any legal precedent for how they should proceed with changes to TOC in the same way that the way decisions were made before the Jubilee modifications set any precedent on it. This is golf course management not a court of law and to suggest anything otherwise is ridiculous.

Niall

[Bill Brightly]

C'mon Niall, no one is challenging their LEGAL right to make changes to the golf course.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the Trust followed a path of open disclosure with Jubilee, allowing time for the plans to be publicly viewed before the work commenced, then proceded on a much different path with TOC?

The fact that you had to strain to point out that the course of action followed on the Jubilee did not set a LEGAL PRECEDENT really makes the point. Jubilee showed that the powers that be know the proper way to announce changes. They just chose not to do it this way with TOC.

Do you think it was because TOC is a lesser venue and does not deserve the same level of scrutiny?

Don't you want to know who decided to change the process, when this decision was made, and why it was done?
You don't have to be totally cynical to assume it was because they knew they were going to take heat.

[Niall C]

Bill

I didn't strain at all, I merely pointed out the bleedin obvious. As yet no one has challenged the Links Trusts legal right but plenty have challenged the process as being invalid. In response I was pointing out that there would appear to be no prescriptive way of doing this and that they way they did it with the hiring of a consultant (Hawtree) and consultation with local clubs suggesting to me that the process was valid enough.

With regards to fully publicising proposed changes through the decision process, frankly I don't blame them given some of the comment on here. Even if the only reason they didn't pin up the proposed changes on websites/notice boards ahead of the decision was to avoid the abuse they have been getting, thats still valid to me provided they went through the process of consulting with Hawtree etc.

Niall

[Bill Brightly]

Bill

I didn't strain at all, I merely pointed out the bleedin obvious. As yet no one has challenged the Links Trusts legal right but plenty have challenged the process as being invalid. In response I was pointing out that there would appear to be no prescriptive way of doing this and that they way they did it with the hiring of a consultant (Hawtree) and consultation with local clubs suggesting to me that the process was valid enough.

With regards to fully publicising proposed changes through the decision process, frankly I don't blame them given some of the comment on here. Even if the only reason they didn't pin up the proposed changes on websites/notice boards ahead of the decision was to avoid the abuse they have been getting, thats still valid to me provided they went through the process of consulting with Hawtree etc.

Niall

Of course there is a "prescriptive" way of doing this: the way it was done on the Jubilee Course. Now, many would argue that TOC deserves a much more extensive planning process and more public airing, but certianly not less!

We seem to agree that the process chosen was the most expedient way to get the work done. I hesitate to assign motives to others, so I would love to hear Mr. Dawson explain why changes to TOC received less public input than Jubilee. (If the cases were reversed, I might expect the LT to say something like: "We recognize that the Jubilee has far less architectural importance than TOC, so the process was modified and shortened.")

Obviously, they did not "avoid the abuse." Rather, they created a whole new reason for people to be critical and suspect.

[Niall C]

Bill

I was referring to prescriptive as being the prescribed way of doing things as set out in articles of association or rule book or some such. Do you think that the Links Trust have a prescribed way of reaching decisions on proposed altterations to courses at St Andrews ? I very much doubt it but happy to be proved wrong. What they appear to have by looking at the link Peter Pallotta put up on one of the other threads is a management structure that takes into account how the courses, as opposed to the business side, are dealt with.

And BTW, I didn't say they had taken the most expedient route what I said was they hadn't publicised it and one reason might have been the inevitable backlash. I suspect the most expedient thing for the members of the Links Management Committee would have been to say stuff it, lets not bother at all.

Niall

[Sean_A]

Very strange stance to take Niall.  Folks are merely suggesting (demanding?) that the Links Trust should consider a more robust process where proposed significant alterations are concerned.  An obvious part of that process may include a consultation among the folks who as residents are part owners of TOC and the other Links courses.  You are stuck in defending what the Trust did was technically proper.  Yes (presumably), so what?  Do you think that perhaps a different approach than the one taken by the Trust is more in order?  First off, why is Dawson speaking on behalf of the Links Management Comm?  Especially since he has done such a bang up job.  As soon as trouble brewed, he should have been advised to say that perhaps a better process could have been followed.  Instead, he tells folks to get stuffed.  

I bet, that since this PR disaster (that even if a proscribed process for TOC change existed, this needn't have been the case if Dawson used some common sense), that some Trustees may want to look into including a process for altering TOC in the managing document between the Trust and the Management Comm.  If not, the Trustees are daft.  I know if I were a Trustee I would be thinking of how to cover my ass in case people started to throw around legal cases.  The best way to cover one's ass is to learn from mistakes and in the case of a Trust demonstrate care and concern for the assets and those who own the assets.  

Now you may think differently and agree its okay to make serious changes to a world famous site of historical importance behind closed doors, but I think its common good practice to be transparent in decision making and find ways to include stakeholders/public in decision-making.  Hell, I advised a Council to consult parishioners about dog bin placement!  Why?  So as not to piss people off without giving them a say.  In cases where there is no rush, its hard to argue against seeking stakeholder opinion and I see no reason why transparency isn't always of prime importance in decision-making for a public body.      

Ciao      

 

[Mac Plumart]

some Trustees may want to look into including a process for altering TOC in the managing document between the Trust and the Management Comm

BINGO!

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

As Sean says, you appear to be taking a perverse position on this thread.  It's not obvious why.  Answer this question.  Technical legalalities aside, do you believe that the lack of amy proper consultation and the announcement of the changes two days before work started was morally right, given the obligations of the Trustees (who do bear all the obligations that come with being a Trustee), or sensible from a public relations point of view?

[Niall C]

Sean and Mark

To my mind robust doesn't equate with undertaking a publicity tour. From what I understand to be the case from what I have gleaned from comment so far the Links Trust in the guise of its management and Links Management Committee have consulted with the local clubs on the changes proposed by and agreed with their consultant. If the local clubs were such a hot bed of desent do you not think we would have heard about it by now ? Bear in mind these very same people have a vested interest in the course and none of them would have taken any decision lightly and wthout proper consideration and attention.

After three long and frustrating years working in a public authority I've had a pretty good grounding on consultation, both with the public and other stakeholders as the modern jargon would have it, and have seen first hand how the process gets distorted by those that shout loudest and longest, often without any real grasp of the issues or concern for others. So am I content that the Links Management Committee quietly went about its business, undertaking soundings with locals representatives after having got professional advice, rather than opening it up to the mayhem of instant online petitions.

Niall


ps. Sean - legal case ? Really ? I don't think so, not in a million years.

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

You really believe they consulted local clubs in a meaningful way?  Even after Dawson corrected himself and talked about an "information exercise"?  If that we're really true, don't you find it odd that no details of that exercise have emerged?  With all this controversy wouldn't releasing details be the obvious thing to do?  He has already contradicted himself in this (over who suggested the changes).  I simply don't believe any meaningful exercise took place and can't imagine why anyone would think it had.  I simply no longer believe a word Dawson says without corroboration.