Here we go again....

[Mike_Young]

And now, here we go again seems like the more apt thread title......


The difference between building architects and engineers (and in many states, landscape architects) is that these professionals must be licensed, and have degrees in their field.  Golf architecture is so small, and golf courses are not prone to falling down like buildings and bridges, so not too many state agencies have gotten around to licensing that, although a few have tried.  In fact, they have failed in part because ASGCA lobbies hard against it, which actually has helped Mike Young and others who didn't have landscape architecture or engineering training (both members and non-members) even being allowed to practice golf course architecture.


Mike fancies himself as the curmudgeon here and likes to complain only about all the times he perceives that ASGCA trying to limit competition.  He does fill that role well......and probably complains even more about many other aspects of golf, like the USGA, and green committees, etc. so I always take his posts with a grain of salt.....


When I retired from practice and took this job, I was given a copy of the handbook of professional associations to read, and we are very aware of what we can and cannot legally do in regard to some of the issues Mike mentions, as opposed to someone off the street and on the net espousing their personal views. 


We aren't perfect. (like all humans )  I looked through some ASGCA historical documents and among the first things done in 1947-8 by two founding members was to use their own money to see if ASGCA could legally copyright the name "Golf Course Architect" for exclusive use by members.  The lawyers back then responded almost comically with a strong no.  So, this is another example of things never really changing a whole lot. Another big topic discussed at length in the first ASGCA meeting?  "The ball goes too far and we need to do something about it."


Professional societies of all types exist to educate members, improve and promote the game and profession, and bond together to defend against common issues that might affect the game or profession. For example, we were in Washington the other day for National Golf Day, recommending among other things (and with other golf agencies and groups) that certain government benefits freely given to other industries, but not golf, be broadened to include golf.  (I think the jargon is that golf is on the "sinners list" when it comes to most government grants.) 


Professional societies certainly aren't the "be all, end all" of anything, and the health of the profession mainly lies in the creative/technical abilities and ethics of the practitioners.  That said, there is value in what these associations and societies do.
At least, I have always thought so, and approximately proportionally to how Mike Young thinks they are not, LOL.  But hey, we are still friends, because that is just the kind of profession golf course architecture is... or for that matter, just how golf is.

Jeff,As you say nothing personal here.  I just commented that M Nuzzo stated it better and I stand by that.  When you compare ASGCA to GCSAA or PGA or USGA etc you are comparing apples to oranges.  ( and yes, I complain legitimately about 2 of those) It's like comparing a fraternity on a campus to the college.  Have a good weekend.

[Kalen Braley]

Had a chat with my brother on this topic last night.

He spent 15 years as a Transportation/Traffic Engineer and is a certified PE in 10 states. Was recently promoted to a VP for one of the largest infrastructure building companies in the world. Anyways, he estimates he's evaluated north of 1,000 RFPs and never seen something like this.  As a board member of a regional professional trade group he says if he saw his org listed like this his he would insist on reaching out to the entity to have it removed.  Other than being an obvious red flag and unethical, he would also be wary of working with them on any future projects as mentioned in prior posts.

[Mark_Fine]

My experience as an ASGCA member has only been positive.  My only complaint is that it’s a shame the bar/criteria to get in is so high as being part of this organization in some way 15 or 20 years ago would have made my own journey much easier.  There is so much camaraderie and support as well as educational interaction and assistance,…etc.  They now have something called the Tartan program and are also starting to recognize restoration/renovation/remodeling work on existing courses which is a positive as for many of the past years that is where the bulk of GCAs were working and providing their guidance and expertise.  I did just see that architects who I have worked with/competed with for 20+ years are finally applying for membership like my good friend Ron Forse. Happy to see him finally become a member. Every organization has pluses and minuses. The ASGCA is well into the positive territory. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


The biggest difference between ASGCA and those other groups is size and resources.  We have <200 members, while AIA probably has close to 100,000 members.  The missions are the same,  and nowhere in their charters does it mention "frat boys."  But, you've given me an idea.....maybe at our next meeting, we should have the first ever ASGCA Toga Party.


Kalen, I obviously don't know exactly what field your brother is in, but again, for both contracting and design RFQ, I have seen govt agencies work harder to pre-qualify bidding on their RFQ.  Yes, traditionally, cities were forced to take anyone's bid, but then too many got saddled with unqualified firms, which was a poor use of taxpayer funds, just in the name of "fairness" to someone.  For that matter, until a decade ago, there wouldn't have been any acceptance of design-build bids from nearly all cities, as they stressed competitive bidding, and now some or many now put out and accept that kind of proposal. Up until recently, many would call that unethical in muni circles.


That said, I would agree with your brother that the fair thing would be to list a minimum number of courses, etc., and if that matched ASGCA criteria, it would work for all.


That said, I wonder if Mike goes to the cities or clubs that require a PGA Class A pro or Certified super who is a member of GCSAA t to even apply for a job?  Or, a minimum of a bachelor's degree?  What about all the bids that require GCBAA membership as a minimum standard? In many ways, this has always been a credentialed-driven world and anyone considering taking someone on usually has the right to set those minimum qualifications, subject to certain Federal laws on discrimination, etc.


And, as someone noted, there are ways that they could allow everyone in, but if they wanted a certain firm, they will find a way to hire them.  And, as TD says, and I have always found, it usually doesn't pay to pursue projects that don't really want you, for whatever reason.  And as I say, you don't get them all (or even most of them) and there really is enough work to go around for everyone at the moment.  Complaining about not getting a shot at one job does no good.  You just have to go out and work harder for the next one.  Or, as Rees Jones told me recently.....you really got to romance those potential clients.


I saw Mike's letter to the city in question. IMHO, had he stopped at his first sentence and a half, it would have been fine, but......... The city said others could submit a proposal, but retained the ASGCA clause.  Im not sure what direction that gives, but suspect that a few firms will put in written proposals only to be dismissed before the final 3-5 firms are interviewed, as is typical.  Good luck to ALL who choose to go after this one.


I can sympathize with Mike, any other gca firms, any younger practitioners trying to get established, etc.  Sales in golf design have always been difficult for those of us who were merely "middle class" gca's. For as long as I can remember, 80% of the bigger projects have typically gone to the top 8 firms at the time.  I also sympathize when one of us older guys just gets tired of the chase.  It is a part of the reason I took this job!

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


The biggest difference between ASGCA and those other groups is size and resources.  We have <200 members, while AIA probably has close to 100,000 members.  The missions are the same,  and nowhere in their charters does it mention "frat boys."  But, you've given me an idea.....maybe at our next meeting, we should have the first ever ASGCA Toga Party.


Kalen, I obviously don't know exactly what field your brother is in, but again, for both contracting and design RFQ, I have seen govt agencies work harder to pre-qualify bidding on their RFQ.  Yes, traditionally, cities were forced to take anyone's bid, but then too many got saddled with unqualified firms, which was a poor use of taxpayer funds, just in the name of "fairness" to someone.  For that matter, until a decade ago, there wouldn't have been any acceptance of design-build bids from nearly all cities, as they stressed competitive bidding, and now some or many now put out and accept that kind of proposal. Up until recently, many would call that unethical in muni circles.


That said, I would agree with your brother that the fair thing would be to list a minimum number of courses, etc., and if that matched ASGCA criteria, it would work for all.


That said, I wonder if Mike goes to the cities or clubs that require a PGA Class A pro or Certified super who is a member of GCSAA t to even apply for a job?  Or, a minimum of a bachelor's degree?  What about all the bids that require GCBAA membership as a minimum standard? In many ways, this has always been a credentialed-driven world and anyone considering taking someone on usually has the right to set those minimum qualifications, subject to certain Federal laws on discrimination, etc.


And, as someone noted, there are ways that they could allow everyone in, but if they wanted a certain firm, they will find a way to hire them.  And, as TD says, and I have always found, it usually doesn't pay to pursue projects that don't really want you, for whatever reason.  And as I say, you don't get them all (or even most of them) and there really is enough work to go around for everyone at the moment.  Complaining about not getting a shot at one job does no good.  You just have to go out and work harder for the next one.  Or, as Rees Jones told me recently.....you really got to romance those potential clients.


I saw Mike's letter to the city in question. IMHO, had he stopped at his first sentence and a half, it would have been fine, but......... The city said others could submit a proposal, but retained the ASGCA clause.  Im not sure what direction that gives, but suspect that a few firms will put in written proposals only to be dismissed before the final 3-5 firms are interviewed, as is typical.  Good luck to ALL who choose to go after this one.


I can sympathize with Mike, any other gca firms, any younger practitioners trying to get established, etc.  Sales in golf design have always been difficult for those of us who were merely "middle class" gca's. For as long as I can remember, 80% of the bigger projects have typically gone to the top 8 firms at the time.  I also sympathize when one of us older guys just gets tired of the chase.  It is a part of the reason I took this job!

Jeff,
I certainly don't need sympathy.  And I'm not going where I should on a few post before yours but PGA, GCSAA and GCBAA have test and objective criteria.  You can meet every written criteria at ASGCA and not be "voted" in.  So don't pretend that ASGCA makes one more qualified.  There are guys in there who don't have course anywhere with their name on it.  THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS THEY CAN KEEP ANYONE OUT THEY WISH TO...Also, the city changed the bid via an addendum after I wrote them.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Technically, anyone who meets all our criteria will get in. We took steps to eliminate the old black ball even before I was a member.


Our missions are similar to those other organizations, but there are some unique things that can't be done.  Testing on someone else's vision and aesthetic?  And, as far as I can see, technical skills vary, and there is room for all types of practice. 


Again, you can't really know what ASGCA does, yet you keep laying out your opinions from the outside.  I understand it but still need to defend against the really over the top anyone posts on ASGCA.

[Ben Stephens]

Mike and Jeff,


I am a member of EIGCA (European Institute of Golf Course Architects) like ASGCA we have a week annually that we get together play golf, socialise to get to know each other and our partners (manufacturers/contractors/agronomists all involved in the trade) I can see the value of being part of a great organisation however big or small it has opened up networks with other golf course architects with possible future collaboration and manufacturers/contractors/agronomists to see what is the latest within the industry.


EIGCA organise annual meetings, online webinars and an autumn CPD get together in Europe. Like in the architecture industry EIGCA members are required to have insurance cover which gives more assurance to future clients. Also a record of CPD and allow us to go on the sustainability programme to improve our understanding of sustainability. Also EIGCA have been in attendance at BTME Harrogate every year which is very well run by BIGGA.


EIGCA are running an educational course for future golf course architects and it has been very well organised however it is very time consuming as well.


Being a member of ASGCA, EIGCA and SAGCA (Society of Australian Golf Course Architects) is not compulsory in the industry but gives you accreditation to trade as a 'Golf Course Architect' and they all have high level of requirements on becoming a member.


Not everyone agrees on how an organisation is run however we do have a voting process at the AGM and raise a number of suggestions and questions. At EIGCA Annual Meeting in Iceland 2022 we had a few ASGCA members that attended and it was good to see them face to face (Forrest - will always remember your yellow ball even though it is now red!)


I am also a Chartered Architect and am registered on the Architects Registration Board (ARB) in the UK which is an absolute requirement and a member of RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) which has around 20,000 members which is a different kettle to ASGCA/EIGCA. However we are in a smaller industry which we are very lucky to be able to work in and get to know the other members better can be helpful even though they can be working for a rival company.


Mike it is your choice however I do think you are missing out in some respects. I would also encourage others to join ASGCA, EIGCA or SAGCA if you can.

[Ben Sims]

My experience as an ASGCA member has only been positive.  My only complaint is that it’s a shame the bar/criteria to get in is so high as being part of this organization in some way 15 or 20 years ago would have made my own journey much easier.  There is so much camaraderie and support as well as educational interaction and assistance,…etc.  They now have something called the Tartan program and are also starting to recognize restoration/renovation/remodeling work on existing courses which is a positive as for many of the past years that is where the bulk of GCAs were working and providing their guidance and expertise.  I did just see that architects who I have worked with/competed with for 20+ years are finally applying for membership like my good friend Ron Forse. Happy to see him finally become a member. Every organization has pluses and minuses. The ASGCA is well into the positive territory. 

The argument isn’t whether the ASGCA is a positive organization. The argument is whether ASGCA membership is an appropriate requirement for a job and additionally whether a fraternal trade organization should be considered the arbiter of quality.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben Stepens,


Good summary. I have joked that next to one of my two wives and two of my three kids, ASGCA has been one of the most rewarding aspects of my life. 

The only reason I comment is that on the internet (and especially on echo chamber sites like this one) all opinions seem equal.  In the real world, you can take our opinion, where we have consulted with both lawyers and association industry professionals and other professionals in the golf industry, and have been deemed acceptable and respected for 77 years, or Mike's, which is basically a slightly more informed opinion than some rando internet guy, that we have all sorts of issues because we vote on new applicants and not all are accepted.


I think that is more common in similar organizations than many think, and there is nothing wrong with that premise, just as there is nothing wrong with a small business hiring people they think are best qualified, will help their cause, and play well in the sand trap with others.  All within reason, of course, but we are generally (with a few exceptions) reasonable people who try to do the right thing. To create an admittedly extreme example, assume Jeff Epstein was a golf course architect.  Would ASGCA or EIGCA have the right to not accept him as a member when they apply?  Most would think so, I assume.


While I will agree that over time, there have been a few applicants rejected for personal reasons (think Dick Wilson and RTJ basically keeping him out) but have continually tried to eliminate that kind of sway any one member might have.  If an applicant is rejected, it is not just because one member wants them out, it's because a broad cross section of our membership feels they miss out on some qualification.


Ben Sims,


As the other Ben points out, Mike repeatedly tries to diss us and EIGCA as "only frat boys" but the group is far more than that.  And despite attempts to portray us as arbiters of quality, we don't.  And, if Mike is correct, his letter to that city caused them to overturn their reasoning (although I didn't read their response to his question quite that way) which does happen often, then Mike really has no reason to complain, really.  Even Mike admitted he didn't care if he got the job. 


It's one sentence in an RFQ.  When it happens, it is usually reversed.  There are a thousand other things in those RFQ's that will eliminate candidates, like having all the required insurance, a minimum project list, maybe being local, teaming with engineers, etc. that the city prefers, and on and on and on. 


As architects, we tend to focus on something that might cost us the job, but it is usually mostly through our own faults in not being persuasive enough.  It is really hard for younger or newer architects to get established, but somehow, many do and always have met the struggle.  Veteran architects often think it should get easier somehow, but I recall my father (A Campbell Soup salesman, but the point stands) saying at age 64, "When does this job get easier?"  The implied answer is never, of course.

[Mike_Young]

The only reason I comment is that on the internet (and especially on echo chamber sites like this one) all opinions seem equal.  In the real world, you can take our opinion, where we have consulted with both lawyers and association industry professionals and other professionals in the golf industry, and have been deemed acceptable and respected for 77 years, or Mike's, which is basically a slightly more informed opinion than some rando internet guy, that we have all sorts of issues because we vote on new applicants and not all are accepted.I think it is great that other industry professionals, lawyers etc deem the ASGCA acceptable.  They are acceptable to me also but I don't respect the organization itself.  As long as you have people who meet the requirements but don't get to the vote then I will consider it more of a fraternal organization than a legitimate association.  And that's ok but don't let it portray in a different light.  It's funny but I remember last time I applied and was told that I could withdraw or go to vote but board probably would not vote me in.  I told them to go ahead with the vote.  AND it came out in the newsletter that they decided they would not allow the vote because it could be bad for me or them.  Now that's funny.

I think that is more common in similar organizations than many think, and there is nothing wrong with that premise, just as there is nothing wrong with a small business hiring people they think are best qualified, will help their cause, and play well in the sand trap with others.  All within reason, of course, but we are generally (with a few exceptions) reasonable people who try to do the right thing. To create an admittedly extreme example, assume Jeff Epstein was a golf course architect.  Would ASGCA or EIGCA have the right to not accept him as a member when they apply?  Most would think so, I assume.As a fraternity of course they could vote not to  accept Epstein.  But the PGA or the GCSAA or the American Bar would take him if he passed the test...hell if the bar acted like the ASGCA I remember , then RTJ would have been the only lawyer in the USA.

While I will agree that over time, there have been a few applicants rejected for personal reasons (think Dick Wilson and RTJ basically keeping him out) but have continually tried to eliminate that kind of sway any one member might have.  If an applicant is rejected, it is not just because one member wants them out, it's because a broad cross section of our membership feels they miss out on some qualification.The first time I applied a sponsor called me back to say "I'm sorry but "member" in your area says you are not ready and I should not sponsor you.  The second time I applied the membership chair at the time told me " a couple of the members in your state don't like the way you do business".  Of course we were doing design/build which was a no no and we had gotten three jobs that year they had bid on.   In most cases when a broad section doesn't know someone they base on hearsay from one who does know the person.  If an organization sets up qualifications and a person meets those then why vote unless you are fraternal. 
As you know, my gripe is with the Society and not all of the individuals in it.  I argue with you about this because of what I went thru with them. As you mention above, that's what I call personal reasons. If they were serious about being legit then they would do something like the GCSAA...A.B,C,D members etc.    I would think more highly of them if they had not changed requirements because the market changed.  You have more and more members that would not have qualified a few years ago.  The PGA needs less members, the GCSAA needs less and architects definitely need less.  But it helps with the dues, right??





Ben Sims,


As the other Ben points out, Mike repeatedly tries to diss us and EIGCA as "only frat boys" but the group is far more than that.  And despite attempts to portray us as arbiters of quality, we don't.  And, if Mike is correct, his letter to that city caused them to overturn their reasoning (although I didn't read their response to his question quite that way) which does happen often, then Mike really has no reason to complain, really.  Even Mike admitted he didn't care if he got the job. 


It's one sentence in an RFQ.  When it happens, it is usually reversed.  There are a thousand other things in those RFQ's that will eliminate candidates, like having all the required insurance, a minimum project list, maybe being local, teaming with engineers, etc. that the city prefers, and on and on and on. 


As architects, we tend to focus on something that might cost us the job, but it is usually mostly through our own faults in not being persuasive enough.  It is really hard for younger or newer architects to get established, but somehow, many do and always have met the struggle.  Veteran architects often think it should get easier somehow, but I recall my father (A Campbell Soup salesman, but the point stands) saying at age 64, "When does this job get easier?"  The implied answer is never, of course.
Jeff,I like it not being easy.All I basically did was write purchasing and tell them the requirement was basically BS..in so many words.  My question is always how it gets in there to begin with.

[David_Tepper]

Mike Y. -

If I read your last post correctly, it appears you twice made an attempt to join the ASGCA. Out of curiosity, how long ago did these attempts happen?

DT 

[Forrest Richardson]

I once summed up the “why” of becoming involved with ASGCA to one of the few who have “avoided” applying, saying…”It’s not what you will get from being a member, but what advice and wisdom you will be able to share and pass down”


Each of us goes about GCA differently — that’s the core take away. What ASGCA does is to bring us together, to become better, wiser and friends. What I’ve learned from Bill Coore if far different from that of David Gill — and there are 180 degrees between RTJ and Gil. Same with Jim Engh and Mark Fine. This is the core difference in GCA — it’s fully incomparable to most any profession you could think of. 

[Ira Fishman]

Deleted.

[Mike_Young]

I once summed up the “why” of becoming involved with ASGCA to one of the few who have “avoided” applying, saying…”It’s not what you will get from being a member, but what advice and wisdom you will be able to share and pass down”


Each of us goes about GCA differently — that’s the core take away. What ASGCA does is to bring us together, to become better, wiser and friends. What I’ve learned from Bill Coore if far different from that of David Gill — and there are 180 degrees between RTJ and Gil. Same with Jim Engh and Mark Fine. This is the core difference in GCA — it’s fully incomparable to most any profession you could think of.

Forrest,
I'm glad that your experience with ASGCA has been good and you have friends there.  I also have friends there.  And I want to emphasize my argument is always with the agency and not most of the members.  I hope you understand I would not be able to view it that way.   Also I think there are more than a few who have avoided applying or who have resigned after being members.  I actually think there might be more new courses being built by guys outside of ASGCA than inside.   I have no reason to join anymore. The only way many of us would consider now is if it were needed for accreditation in order to work. 

With respect to the individual members I am still going to call it nothing more than a social club.  The one thing I am sure of with social clubs, be they golf clubs, fraternal clubs, tennis clubs or architecture clubs is that they should be there for the member.  So many clubs begin that way and then things evolve or change and suddenly the member is there for the club.  The exclusive golf club must weaken membership requirements so that more will join to help with cost when perhaps just a year earlier they would have never accepted that member. Then when things come back the same club wonders what they did.  Diluting membership requirements of any such club says it all.  I see diluted membership requirements.

Now, if an association was an actual licensing association qualified people would have to join in order to work and the licensing agency would not be asking vendors to be sponsors.  It would be different.  (Hell, I'm always having to tell vendors who sponsor ASGCA to rebate my client some portion of his cost since a portion of his product cost goes to support ASGCA.)  Side note:  At a dinner one night a sponsor vendor said he "welcomed all "designers and architects"  .  Afterwards I asked him what he meant.  He said well we had members of ASGCA and non-members here and only ASGCA members are called "golf architect".  I have not purchased irrigation or equipment from that company since.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


We're friends and I understand your position, but you can call us frat boys from now until eternity, echoing what you have been saying for 25 years, and it still doesn't make your POV true.  I trust most will be able to discern that you are simply relishing your role as muckraker, and that while you speak some truths, most of your points are just a bit biased in your own favor.


As usual, you outlasted me, however, and this is my last post on the subject until......we go around again, LOL.


Have a nice evening.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


We're friends and I understand your position, but you can call us frat boys from now until eternity, echoing what you have been saying for 25 years, and it still doesn't make your POV true.  I trust most will be able to discern that you are simply relishing your role as muckraker, and that while you speak some truths, most of your points are just a bit biased in your own favor.


As usual, you outlasted me, however, and this is my last post on the subject until......we go around again, LOL.


Have a nice evening.

I'm calling time out also.
See ya..