Could it be the startling revelation that Brauer is doomed to mediocrity?
Sitting here after work, I reread the Tillie Burbeck thread. It seems to me that its one of those cases where there can be a lot of truth to both sides. I didn't have a post on the linked thread, but do recall posting on some thread about it - there must have been several.
I focused on the possibilities inherent in the unusal contract. I think those were written carefully by public agencies even in those days. I don't put as much stock in either Phillip Youngs or Ron Whittens postulating based on writings ten years earlier by Tillie (in Phillips case) or broad based histories of the commission published 25 years later in Ron's case.
I recall that the Tillie contract was funky, which if things then were as they are now, could be explained several ways. As Phillip noted in his article, the land wasn't under contract when Tillie signed on, which might explain the limited consultant role.
This is speculation to the same degree as others have done, but the Commission probably had some strict rules. Now, cities have a maximum limit they can contract for without going to the City Council for a vote. He may have wanted Tillie, but knew an open bid for services would attract lots of architects - some lower with fees and less talent. Thus, he may have signed him to numerous smaller contracts and only the one has been found.
When it originally came up, I tended to think Burbeck was a strong willed man who did want control, and may have limited Tillies involvement, and I think that may have been the case. I recall the contract stated that Burbeck or the Commission had to approve his visits. On the other hand, a lot of contracts state that (esp. those in places like Vegas, where the owner doesn't want to pay the gca vacation travel bill......)
I don't doubt that Burbeck's son was right when he said, "Dad wanted credibility" but he probably actually wanted him to route the thing, too. There are many cases where an in house planner does a preliminary routing as part of a park, just to have a concept picture for mucky mucks and others, knowing it will be fully designed later. Those routings exist for nearly every project, and mean diddly squat. That could easily be the case there, and Tillie could have easily routed the course well after the original concept plan, which set approximate course and facility locations, etc. was done.
Lastly, I am sure Tillies favored in house construction crews were disbanded by then and Burbeck did have the goal of employing locals in the depression. If the greens don't match Tillies earlier greatness, inexperienced constructors under Burbeck are, IMHO, most likely to blame, esp. since Tillie did apparently have a limited construction observation contract.
Again, whether that is because of Burbeck's strong will, legal issues with the commission, or simply money - the Commission thought they could get by on a shoestring in the architecture department (believe me, that still happens!) is not really the point. As one of the linked articles points out by Rees Jones - few gca's get to every project every day, especially in those days. If he designed it he designed it.
We will never know the true story. Burbeck should possibly get the credit similar to Jones at Augusta, Hollins at Pasa, or Wynn at Shadow Creek, at best. He probably had more input than that as a public official with a job description.
However, it could be that he influenced the course poorly rather than positively - If the greens aren't up to Tillie snuff, it could be because of reasons noted above, or his decision as Commission overseer that Tillie was making it a tad tough, and overrulling him.