How honest can we be?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Wait a minute. You said in a post above that you've been pointing out to your club that there's no 'mandate' from the membership--ie, the membership does not support an architectural directive 'unanimously'.

That's one helluva lot to expect from a club--unanimous support! I doubt I've ever heard of a club's membership "unanimously" supporting anything! Where do you get that kind of requirement from the club? Is there something you can point to in the club's by-laws that requires "unanimous" support or is that just your own personal feeling about what's required?

The only organization I've ever heard of that requires unanimous support for decisions is  a Quaker Meeting.

[mike_malone]

I would never tell chairman not to use his real name.I would never tell chairman to do anything because i do not like to waste my breath.Life is too short.
  I do howerver always tell him what i would do to change our course.That is an effort worth the energy.

[mike_malone]

TEPaul
  I hesitate to disagree with a Doyen.But you made a statement i believe is wrong.I am not  only  a Quaker,but also the clerk of my meeting.There is no voting in Quaker meetings.The use of the word"unanimous" implies 100% of the votes.Quakers attempt to achieve consensus.The clerk's role is to determine if consensus exists.This comes from listening to what is said on an issue.The clerk states that they believe consensus has been achieved,then someone or another may say that they do not and can not agree.This person may decide to stand aside so that the sense of the meeting may proceed.In this example consensus is achieved,but it is not unanimous
     This does not mean that everything you have ever said is wrong,but i now have serious doubts.

[A_Clay_Man]

Since were off on a tangent... I thought i would relate what the Navajo nations rules of order are.

If any one person objects to any detail to any plan the whole project cannot procced. If that ain't unanimous nutt'in is.

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

That's very interesting about the Quaker process! I'm not a practicing Quaker but my family was Quakers and my sister is one of the ones that runs the Willistown Meeting. She might be considered sort of the Head Doyen of Willistown's meeting, I guess.

Over the last few years she comes and tells me about the decision making process and some of the issues the Meeting deals with and how they do it.

Call it "consensus" if you will--that sounds like a very accurate description but the way she descibed some of the issues is that if any member decides to oppose some decision that decision then cannot be decided on by the Meeting, thereby opposing that single dissent.

I said that seems to me like a real cumbersome way to conduct decision making and business but she just says that's the way it is and always has been with the Quaker process.

That's probably why I used the word "unanimous" because it looked to me like those choosing to vote had to be unanimous for a particular decision for anything to get done.

I can pretty much tell you that if any golf club had to work that way not a single thing would ever get done--at least not without threatening some dissenter that if he didn't change his vote you'd just have to beat him to a pulp until he did. That would be the final part of the process the way I think it should be done and is probably the primary reason why my sister is a real Quaker and I'm not!

[TEPaul]

A clay man:

That might be the Navajo's technical "rules of order" but that ain't exactly the way things work.

Look at it this way. The Navajos still have their bows and arrow and their rifles and they ain't out hunting buffalo any more so what do you think they're using those bows and arrows and rifles for these days?

Strictly on their "dissenters" as a last resort!

[TEPaul]

All this that I've said is consistent with the process me and my friends always used when we were in college!

It was a very simple and effective process completely encapsulated in this dictate:

"If your buddy should happen to disagree with you about anything just deck him!"

[mike_malone]

TEPaul
  What your sister says and what i said are consistent.She gave you examples of when the friend would not stand aside.This does gum up the works.
   In any event i will give you a onetime special dispensation for your incorrectness.Do not test my patience.

[TEPaul]

Then I won't test your patience as long as you understand that gumming the works is something up which with I will not put!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe that you misread and misinterpreted my post, which is par for the course for you  

Please reread, reevaluate and repost,

[TEPaul]

Pat:

One of the easiest things anyone on Golfclubatlas can do is misinterpret one of your posts!

The paragraph that begins; "The mandate.....", is anything but clear no matter how often I reread it.

So maybe you'd explain what it is that you mean by a "mandate" and/or just answer my question anyway!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you'll read a little below "The Mandate" you will see that I said that I used the term in the context of the directive, given by the club, to the architect.

In other words, if the vote had been 250 for, 80 against, with another 40 voting for an alternative, the majority, and two thirds vote would have been for the project, and that is what would have been conveyed to the architect, not the plans rejected by the vote of the membership.

If you need further clarification, contact Rich Goodale.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Well, thanks very much for you second paragraph ("in other words...") in that last post! How in the world could I have possibly misread that in your first post?

[TEPaul]

Every golf club that's having "process" problems getting their restoration master plans passed and done should have a green committeman or chairman like Pat Mucci.

If Pat can't convince them to vote for something he certainly might be able to confuse them into thinking they never could  have voted for whatever they got!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Isn't that how we got it done at Gulph Mills ?

[TEPaul]

Ssssssh!

But touche, anyway!

[chairman]

dear tepaul
i would have replied to your reply sooner if i could have found your reply.  alas, i am a thirty handicap when it comes to navigating this website.  mayday has not helped and coleman, who is also a lawyer, also has navigational deficits.  as far as you hurting my feelings, i suggest that you worry about something else.  the opposite is the case as coleman and i fear that we will be kicked off of the website.  we are both architecturally insecure but strongly opinionated.  a bad combination.  one other thing.  i am a bad typist but a worse proofreader.  
the chairman

[TEPaul]

chairman:

You suggest I not be concerned about hurting your feelings? OK, whatever you say.

And you and Coleman are worried about being kicked off this website? Why are you worried about that?

I've tried my ass off for a few years now to merely get Pat Mucci temporarily suspended from this website and that hasn't even come remotely close to happening despite the friction he's occasionally caused on here so I really doubt you and Coleman are ever gonna get kicked off this website.

But arguing, fighting, wailing and gnashing of teeth is a way of life on here and when you say something like Merion is only difficult because of its conditioning I can pretty much gaurantee that someone on here will jump on you.

You're not going to get kicked off though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chariman,

You should know that I was the one who saved TEPaul from being expelled from this site.

In a long and difficult negotiation with the brothers Morrissett, and TEPaul, TEPaul was allowed to remain on the site, provided he reduced the size of his posts by 75 %.

When GCA first went active, the software couldn't accept the 18 page responses that TEPaul would post, and as a result, it went down numerous times until the technicians could repair it.

While TEPaul has signed an agreement limiting the length of his posts, the more difficult task remains for me to accomplish.

The lack of the use of FACTS, and "getting it right" are his two biggest shortcomings.

But, I have pledged, to the brothers Morrissett, that I will work diligently, and eternally, toward helping him achieve those goals.

If you would be kind enough to assist me, the site will be more than grateful.

P.S.  Even St Jude gave up on that one.  

[TEPaul]

chairman:

As amazing as it is to comprehend, this man, Patrick Mucci, after nigh on to 2 1/2 years on here has still not figured out that everything I say is based on actual and documentable FACT!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chairman,

When TEPaul speaks of FACT,

He is refering to an organization he has formed.

F  A   C    T
a  g   e     r
r   a   r     u
m  i    t     t
e   n   i     h
r    s   f  
s    t   i
         e
         d

[Guest]

Excuse my ignorance, but are Pat and Ted married?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

We don't mind you ignorance,

but who is TED ?

[chairman]

dear tepaul
i have just completed a ten month research project utilizing comprehensive data retrieved from the internet and have reached two conclusions.  there is a direct correlation between ability in ping pong and golf.  good ping pong players are good golfers.  second, there is a direct correlation between the ability of a person to rate a golf course and his handicap.  people with low handicaps are more reliable and accurate  in assessing golf courses.  high handicapper opinions should be totally discounted.  people with high handicaps have lower I.Q.s and have sensory deficits.  
my conclusions are unassailable as they are based on facts.  any person who disputes them is wrong.  what's your handicap?? mucci must have a high handicap.  mayday has a high handicap, but whatever it is, it is too low.  that's a fact.
the chairman

[mike_malone]

chairman
  You cannot walk two steps without stepping in it.Not only do Paul and Mucci kick your butt on this site,but they both would trash you on the golf course.
 As for my handicap,it is winterized.You will find this out as the winter goes on and you hand money over to me.