One can see there is a certain general "dynamic"
between some architects and regional USGA agronomists. This is definitely not a new thing---it has been going on for as long as I can remember.
Technically regional USGA agronomists are not exactly supposed to make site visits and preach architectural philosophy (most USGA agronominsts visits many of the clubs in their regions to offer clubs agronomic advice). But where is the line drawn?
My region's USGA agronomist is Stan Zontek, the senior USGA agronomist in the USGA and apparently the person who has worked for the USGA longer than anyone at all in that organization. For years there was joke that Stan liked to hand out architectural advice too but frankly I never saw that. If you happened to ask Stan something about architecture he would answer you but that was about the size of it.
Stan got into trees, fairway lines, bunker surrounds as well as the general health of all the grass.
The other day Gil Hanse, George Bahto, me and the Met Section's USGA agronomist Dave Otis spent the whole day at The Creek Club with the golf and green chairmen and the superintendent. It was an excellent all around get together and all kinds of things were discussed, including some chipping areas but the golf chairman did remind us through the day that we were there to discuss things to do with maintenance and not architecture. That lasted until the golf chairman began to discuss something to do with architecture and I had to remind him that we were apparently there to discuss maintenance issues only.
Frankly, I'd probably rather speak with the likes of Stan Zontek and Dave Otis about things to do with architecture as much as I would some architects---not all architects but some.
Fox Chapel is a good example of a club that has served its course and its membership well by seeking advice on their course from many sources, including a few architects, a number of independent people and probably their USGA agronomist too.
I understand the old saws and adages by the likes of MacKenzie of the need to seek advice from a competent architect but to me the feeling that I see on this site sometimes that those who run golf clubs should never try to think for themselves by seeking numerous opinions and then filitering through them is dumb, short-sighted and unrealistic, in my opinion.
If there are some architects out there who actually feel that they or only someone who calls himself an "architect" is the only one who possesses a competent opinion on golf course architecture they are being needlessly defensive, in my opinion, particularly seeing as architects have probably made more bad decisions on golf course architecture with old clubs than any other group of people.
On the other hand, you can't beat the opinions of a really competent architect for your particular project in my book. Unfortunately that does not seem to include the opinions of all golf course architects.