A "seat" and a "vote"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Should consulting architects be given a seat and a vote on the green committee and/or board of the club they consult with, with the vote limited to matters pertaining to the golf course ?

Would this act as a stabilizing factor ?

[John Moore II]

NO, NO, NO, NO!!!! The architect is not the course owner, or a member or anything else most times. If the committee wants to make changes, let it happen. If its wrong, let it be wrong, it will shake out over time. If an architect wants to buy an Equity Share, then by all means, let him have a vote.

[Steve_Lovett]

It might act as a stablizing factor - sure.  But it also leaves no room to address the needs/wishes of the membership.

Let's think of it in these terms...

Should the clubhouse architect have a say if the membership decides to use the building somehow differently than the architect envisioned - or to expand - or renovate - to adapt to realities of operation?  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Interesting you ask that question.

The so-called "1921 Advisory Committee" that was charged with completing Pine Valley and putting it into final shape hired Hugh Alison and put him on the committee itself.

[David_Elvins]

Pat,

I can't see how an architect being able to vote to give himself work is a good thing for a club.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It might act as a stablizing factor - sure.  But it also leaves no room to address the needs/wishes of the membership.

How so ?

The architect only has one vote, the committee and board ..... MANY[/color]

Let's think of it in these terms...

Should the clubhouse architect have a say if the membership decides to use the building somehow differently than the architect envisioned - or to expand - or renovate - to adapt to realities of operation?  

Those are bad terms.

The members aren't going to suddenly change the use of the golf course for steeplechase, lawn bowling or tennis.

You must not be familiar with the costs to remodel or renovate a clubhouse versus altering a feature on a hole.
And, if you were familiar with the process, you've forgotten that you'd need another architect to expand, remodel or renovate the clubhouse, and not just the guidance of a dentist and his friends. [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I can't see how an architect being able to vote to give himself work is a good thing for a club.

David,

Then why did the club hire him in the first place ?

Chances are, they had an agenda, and he's the professional necessary to carry out that agenda.  Could it be that they retained him for the work they had already decided on ?

Think of this in the context that the work has been completed.

Giving him one vote, amongst a dozen or more won't carry the day, but, he could have a very stabilizing influence at the commitee/board level.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Interesting you ask that question.

The so-called "1921 Advisory Committee" that was charged with completing Pine Valley and putting it into final shape hired Hugh Alison and put him on the committee itself.

TEPaul,

To me, that makes a great deal of sense, especially at the creative end.

[Bill Brightly]

Pat,

If my memory is correct, you have always been very skeptical of Greens Committees (and I guess Boards.)

But your question here pre-supposes that the club had the good sense to hire a consulting architect. So you must also trust that the club has the good sense to follow the architect's advise, right?

The power of the architect comes from his background, his expertise,  his body of work, NOT from one vote on a committee.

If the consulting architect submits a written report or master plan, it is so much harder for the rogue committee you fear to deviate from the plan. Isn't that why the consultant was hired? This step helps prevent amateurs like you and me from re-designing the course using the dining room placemats as we have a few beers, right?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

It is interesting that Pine Valley put Alison on the committee that asked for his architectural recommendations.

However, Pine Valley may be hugely atypical from most any other club in history. It's just amazing how many architects came down there and offered all kinds of advice and I don't think any of them were paid an architectural fee with the exception of perhaps Colt and that purported fee he received that was never recorded anywhere and was only reported 40 years after the fact seems completely outrageous.

I also doubt any club in history has had as many architects as members as Pine Valley has had.

[Steve_Lovett]

Pat -

It's a stabilizing factor in that the architect's presence ensures that the original design intent has "a voice" in discussions regarding the golf course.  Whether that's a good thing or not is debateable, and ultimately that voice may be an irrelevant wisper amongst "the many" committee and board members.  True enough.

Members won't change the use of the golf course to steeplechase or whatever - but - I've seen a recent example of a less than three year old club that wanted to introduce an intermediate cut of rough inside the fairway mowing line which would put all fairway bunkers several yards further from the fairway cut so that the only way you could hit into a bunker would be on the fly.  This was counter to the intent of the designer.  One member of the club staff mentioned it to the architect at some point in passing and I understand the architect came down and presented why it would be a bad idea to bring in the mowing lines and the idea died - for the benefit of the course.

I understand construction & renovation costs quite well - for both course and building.  The cost comparison isn't the point - it's the idea of the designer (for purposes of design intent?) maintaining a role on a committee as a stabilizing factor.  

Perhaps it's healthy for the designer to have an ongoing "of counsel" consulting arrangement, but probably not best to have a vote on a committee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If my memory is correct, you have always been very skeptical of Greens Committees (and I guess Boards.)

True[/color]

But your question here pre-supposes that the club had the good sense to hire a consulting architect.

So you must also trust that the club has the good sense to follow the architect's advise, right?

No, absolutely not.
I've seen recommendations that would totally disfigure a golf course.  And those revisions were championed by the faction that selected that particular architect for the club.

The wisdom doesn't reside within the collective ..... the club.

It usually resides within select members who love the club and the golf course.  Members who usually commit the time to devote to their club.  Members who also have the intelligence to make prudent decision, absent an agenda, for the good of the club.[/color]

The power of the architect comes from his background, his expertise,  his body of work, NOT from one vote on a committee.

The vote is mostly ceremonial.
It's his stature and influence that CAN act as the stabilizing factor.[/color]

If the consulting architect submits a written report or master plan, it is so much harder for the rogue committee you fear to deviate from the plan.

Bill, two phrases that may help you understand my position better.

# 1 Many's the slip twixt the cup and the lip.
# 2 When you take the King's Schilling, you do the King's
      bidding[/color]

Isn't that why the consultant was hired?

Not always, and, perhaps, not most of the time.
Many clubs hire an architect after they've already established their agenda.  In those situations, the architect is merely an implement to help them carry out their agenda.[/color]

This step helps prevent amateurs like you and me from re-designing the course using the dining room placemats as we have a few beers, right?

Like many things in life, including business, golf and marriage, partner selection is critical.

If you select the right partner, and he's insulated from undue influence, and there's no preconceived agenda, you MAY get what you want.

I like the idea of placing the architect on the committee/board because I believe it does act as a stabilizing influence, preventing fads from wrecking havoc upon the golf course.[/color]

[David_Elvins]

David,

Then why did the club hire him in the first place ?

I can see where you are coming from but I think the best situations are where everyone has a well defined roll and these rolls are not blurred.  There is a definite conflict of interest with a consultant architect who is paid by a club voting on some club committe decisions.  

I am thinking specifically of a recent situation where a consultant architect was a club member and on the greens committee.  There was a perception amongst some that he was trying to create work for himself and the committee became split into those that supported the architect and those who thought he was lobbying for more and more potentially unnecessary work.  Not exactly unifying.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

It's a stabilizing factor in that the architect's presence ensures that the original design intent has "a voice" in discussions regarding the golf course.  

Agreed, and I think that's a good thing.[/color]

Whether that's a good thing or not is debateable, and ultimately that voice may be an irrelevant wisper amongst "the many" committee and board members.  True enough.

If and when that happens, the club will have probably be out looking for a new architect.

A 5-10 year shelf life seems to be the max.[/color]

Members won't change the use of the golf course to steeplechase or whatever - but - I've seen a recent example of a less than three year old club that wanted to introduce an intermediate cut of rough inside the fairway mowing line which would put all fairway bunkers several yards further from the fairway cut so that the only way you could hit into a bunker would be on the fly.  This was counter to the intent of the designer.  One member of the club staff mentioned it to the architect at some point in passing and I understand the architect came down and presented why it would be a bad idea to bring in the mowing lines and the idea died - for the benefit of the course.

I think that example supports my premise.

Having the architect sit on the green committee and/or board would seem to be a prudent move.

However, I realize how impractical it would be, since most architects would prefer NOT to travel to attend these meetings.

But, from a conceptual perspective, it would seem to provide the stability that so many clubs lack.[/color]

I understand construction & renovation costs quite well - for both course and building.  The cost comparison isn't the point - it's the idea of the designer (for purposes of design intent?) maintaining a role on a committee as a stabilizing factor.  

Perhaps it's healthy for the designer to have an ongoing "of counsel" consulting arrangement, but probably not best to have a vote on a committee.

The vote is mostly ceremonial, but, it could decide ties.
The critical issue is keeping the architect current with respect to proposed changes from within the membership and to have him available to counter the fad of the week.[/color]

[Steve_Lovett]

Pat -

What happens if the architect has delivered a course which is flawed from the membership's perspective?  Perhaps it's simply too difficult for the members to enjoy, or even finish.

In this case, if the architect is defending his work might it be at the expense of what SHOULD be done to create a quality, optimal golf course for the membership?

Such a situation could place the architect in a contentious position if he is raising the voice for "his" golf course within the structure of the club/committee rather than as an advisory consulting role.  This might be destabilizing, no..?

[Bill Brightly]

"When you take the King's Schilling, you do the King's
      bidding"

Pat, I love that line. But if I am a bad Greens Chair with a "rubber stamp committee" and I hire a "rubber stamp architect" to draw up my plans, the architect will surely vote with me...

I think the key is to clearly spell out the club's objectives before the architect is hired, then clearly spell out the arcitect's charge, then when the architect's report is submitted, the entire club can see how well the two documents mesh.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

I'm glad you like that phrase, it's one of my favorites, but, don't neglect the other one.

I've seen cases where the architect was given written instructions as to the desires of the club, however, the process was detoured by a few committee members, who gave the architect different marching orders.

The result, a master plan that was discarded almost as soon as it was submitted.  A plan that cost the club a signficant sum, which delayed creating a credible master plan for another five years.

Don't forget that "Eternal vigilance is the price of greatness"

[SL_Solow]

Assuming that the golf course is well respected by the membership, I think your idea is a good one and constitutes one of several ways to try to head off run away committees.  At our club we have our consulting architect on retainer; he makes 2 visits per year and the committee must consult with him before making any changes.

The problems of the committee structure have been discussed regularly.  Unfortunately, many clubs allow committees to make changes, so long as they don't involve major expenditures, without much oversight.  Accordingly, a chairman with an agenda can do major damage over a period of only a few years.  Moreover, members of the committee can push for change for a variety of reasons.  By way of illustration, I have a friend who is a bright fellow and a good player who joined our committee.  This fall he asked whythere were no changes planned to our Colt & Allison course which has undergone a successful sympathetic renovation 6 years ago with some minor tweaks thereafter.  He opined that the course should be "improved" architecturally every year unless it was "perfect".   I asked him whether he felt the same way about Pine Valley or Cypress Point and he didn't say much, although he did mention Augusta.

Having a respected architect on board with integrity can help a club resist those who are chasing the latest architectural fad, indulging their own preferences building monuments or just keeping up with the Jones'.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

The most important thing you've said on this thread is this:

"A 5-10 year shelf life seems to be the max."

I have managed to defy that rule a few times, but even at clubs where our work has been golden, there always seems to be a new faction every few years who question what is being done and want to come up with a NEW master plan in which they have some influence.  Everyone here has acknowledged that an architect who's on board might make recommendations in order to give himself some work -- and I believe I've seen that happen -- but it's JUST AS LIKELY that a new architect is angling to get himself involved to create more work for HIMself.  (And generally, the new architect is going to create MORE work because he's got to "fix" whatever the last guy was doing.)

How are clubs ever going to achieve any long-term consistency if that is the reality of human nature?  It doesn't matter whether I'm an honorary member or on the green committee or even if my long-term plan is written into the bylaws, when the time comes that new members make a coup on the green committee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

It's true, when new regimes come in, turnover occurs at almost every level, but, buying 5-10 year's time isn't a bad thing when it comes to preserving a golf course.

[Chris Kane]

It's a ridiculous idea.  

Not every consulting architect does a good job.  I can think of three prominent architects at three top-15 Australian clubs who have been hired and fired within the last five years.  Had those architects sat on the greens committee, there would be a blatant conflict of interest.  In all cases, they were let go because their work was detrimental to the golf course.

I also think its naive to believe that a consulting architect always has the best interests of the club and course at heart.

[Dave_Miller]

Should consulting architects be given a seat and a vote on the green committee and/or board of the club they consult with, with the vote limited to matters pertaining to the golf course ?

Would this act as a stabilizing factor ?

Patrick:
This is a very interesting question.  Admirals Cove in Florida just completed a renovation of the East Course.  Robert Von Hagge, the original designer, was hired to do the renovation.  As part of the contract Von Hagge serves on the Green Committee for three years.
 
However this can create conflicts with the membership and certain playability issues.  In fact we are already experiencing this on certain items.

Not sure if this is a good idea or not but I will see how it plays out as we go forward.

Hope all is well.

Dave

[Tom_Doak]

Dave:

Whose idea was it for Bob von Hagge to sit on the committee for three years -- his or the club's?

Having to defend what you've done for three years could be unconstitutional.

[Dave_Miller]

Dave:

Whose idea was it for Bob von Hagge to sit on the committee for three years -- his or the club's?

Having to defend what you've done for three years could be unconstitutional.

Tom:

Von Hagge made it a condition of the contract that he sit on the Green Committee for three years. It was his idea.

As a member of the committee I had no objection to it.  The only problem I see to date is that they don't make all the meetings and really aren't around enough to deal with (nor should they have to) some of mundane issues we deal with in the complaints from the membership.

We will have to see how this plays out.

We have no problem and in fact the renovation and re-design work has been very well received.

Best
Dave

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Miller,

As I indicated, from a practical perspective, making monthly meetings is more than a chore, but, I like the concept.

If an architect produced a good to great product, why wouldn't you want him on the green committee.

I wonder where Von Hagge got that idea ?

Tom Doak,

I think the architect's presence on the green committee eliminates a good deal of the nonsensical complaints regarding the golf course.

I can't see an architect wanting to attend green committee meetings when architectural issues aren't on the table.
But, having the right to attend when architectural issues are up for discussion seems like a good investment on the clubs and the architects part.

Chris Kane,

When did these clubs first discover that they were getting inferior products ?  On opening day ?

Didn't they review the architectural plan/design BEFORE approving it ?