[Brian Phillips]

RTJ2 have proclaimed even more in the latest version of Asian Business Golf.  Bruce Charlton has a whole article about it in the ezine magazine.

http://www.asiangolfbusiness.com/

[Jeff_Brauer]

GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
 
1.   A golf course architect shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit…or misrepresentation.
 
2.   A golf course architect shall not indulge in…exaggerated, misleading or false publicity.
 
Source: American Society of Golf Course Architects

Tony,

Only you would call this ad fraud or against the code of ASGCA.  Marketing is allowed.  The question is whether its effective marketing, and time will tell.  If anything, my opinion is that he has packaged some pretty standard stuff that he actually does for supposed marketing benefit.  The question isn't that he is not being as green as possible in his designs, and I am sure they are trying, and its not that he is exagerating. 

As Kevin says, its what we all should strive to do, and most of us do strive to do it.  I am sure that if it came to that, every project could have even more consultants deciding on some kind of point scale whether any of us made absolutely every decision in the name of the environment, but that would be a shame.  While some things are cut and dried, most sites do pose some questions that still require value judgements.

Some courses do need 700K of earth to be moved. 

[Brian Phillips]

Jeff,

For once,  I am going to slightly disagree with you.  The advert is very close to misleading in my opinion.  They give the impression that they do everything they can to be 'green' but do they?  Do they really do everything they can to be environmentally friendly.

I have not seen a RTJ2 course yet that can beat a 'toned' down Scandinavian 'green' design, not ever!  Just look at what was done at Bro Hof in Sweden by them.  Is that an environmentally sound design?

Sorry, I really, really do like Bruce (not that I know him that well) but this advert is on the edge of misrepresentation...and goes against anything that I would advertise.  Each to their own.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brian (and Kelly)

I would love to look at courses in Europe, but I can't afford it right now!  But, as I tried to hint in my post, there could be a lot of value judgement on what constitutes "green" in golf course design.

Most of us think using a bunch of common sense devices to protect water resources and also avoiding critical habitats counts as being green, and it is greener than it was.  And, that is most of what Jones commits to. 

Now, you, or Kelly or Greenpeace can and probably do disagree as to what the greenest a golf course could be.  And we could argue all day.  Most of environmental concerns do come in the management of the course, not design, no?  I had a project that was almost stopped because the clubhouse architect proposed a roof tile, and environmentalists wanted them to spec a Euro made tile because it had about 10% less additives and was thus more "eco-friendly?"  If a project elects not to pay 3X for a dubious environmental benefit suggested/demanded by others outside the project, are they not being as green as they can be?  Perhaps, but again, there is the cost - benefit analysis of whether using more natural tile really is required, and a $3Mil clubhouse would really dent most projects soundness.

Of specific interest to me would be the contention that moving earth is environmentally unsound.  Is it?  I pulled out of one project years ago that had the no more than 2M cut difference that Tony mentions. On that site, it couldnt' be done.

In some cases, certainly using mounds probably requires more irrigation their turfed tops (if not natives planted)  In other cases, besides creating a playable area, earthmoving is used to control drainage runoff and erosion.  While we have changed the land more than a minimalist thinks we need to, we may have actually improved the surrounding environment by containing golf course inputs and filtering them. 

In that case, is earthmoving an environmental negative or a plus? I am talking science and not some perception that minimal earthmoving is somehow not environmental and that low key=good environment.   I will grant you that I don't buy into the "disturbing the topsoil ruins it" argument that some put forth and there may be some merit to it. (but probably not enough to not move earth when required by the design)

BTW, if we move earth to cap a landfill or restore a quarry as a golf course (Chambers Bay) is that a plus or a minus?  I haven't seen all RTJ projects but I know each project is different and moving 600K of earth is sometimes required to environmentally friendly.  We all fantasize about the Sand Hills type of sites, but very few reach that quality.

So is it marketing?  Yes?  Does it exagerate a bit based on your and my perceptions of RTJ courses?  Probably, but then what is the definition of marketing other than highlighting your percieved brand strong points (or your weak ones in a more favorable light?)  As I said earlier, you and I might know that his courses are perhaps 10% less green than the greener courses, but we are not his audience.  If you do the things you say to do (and all he commits to is trying) then it helps perhaps to remind people of that rather than assuming it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,

I think the 9 year study done at your Colbert Hills GC gives a good look at some of those issues you just raised.

During construction the down stream sediments at CHGC were 6x greater than the pre-construction levels, while phosphorus and nitrogen were each about 3x greater. Those may be 'good' numbers, maybe not, I'm not going to guess, but there is an an impact on the environment.

During operation the sediments remain about 15% higher than the pre-construction levels, while nitrogens and phosphorus remain 70% and 25% higher, respectively. Once again, I'm not going to guess at how good or bad those numbers are, but a nine year study illustrates that there will always be an impact on the environment.

I'm not going out any time soon to stand in front of a bulldozer in protest  ,  but if GCA's want to assume the mantle of being low-impact and environmentally sound professionals, their work should reflect that, not just their marketing plans.....and sometimes you just have to say no.    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I will have to reread that article again.  I read it and took away the during construction impacts were up slightly, but after they were actually down or level.  Maybe we are talking about different parts of the same article, but no one really argues there is some impact whenever you change the environment for any reason from "natural" to a human use.  This was converted from pasture (it had been replanted years ago from the natural Konza prairie) to golf and housing.

[Jim_Kennedy]

That's true Jeff, but on the other hand it's dishonest to leave an impression on the reader that you go to work with a teaspoon, a fork (for the really tough sites), a small squirt bottle of potable home brewed organic miracle fertilizer, and all the while you're working there are thousands of birds and assorted forest animals merrily singing a Disney-inspired tune in the background.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I re-read the green proclomation and don't see anything about tea spoons!  I don't know exactly what your impressions are of the golf development process, but nothing in his proclamation is out of whack or leaving the wrong impression according to what I know. 

I agree there are some sites that shouldn't be developed, but the amount of truly virgin land in the US is really small.  I don't happen to believe that golf should be limited strictly to descrated sites like Quarries either.  I think they can be developed on lots of great sites, and the environmental aspects mitigated to a great degree. 

[Kalen Braley]

I re-read the green proclomation and don't see anything about tea spoons!  I don't know exactly what your impressions are of the golf development process, but nothing in his proclamation is out of whack or leaving the wrong impression according to what I know. 

I agree there are some sites that shouldn't be developed, but the amount of truly virgin land in the US is really small.  I don't happen to believe that golf should be limited strictly to descrated sites like Quarries either.  I think they can be developed on lots of great sites, and the environmental aspects mitigated to a great degree. 

Jeff,

There is a ton of "virgin" land out west...its just almost all off-limits.  Tens of thousands of square miles that have never had a meaningful structure on it or otherwise.

[Brian Phillips]

Jeff,

I have nothing against moving 700 000 m3 worth of dirt, I have no problems digging out peat bogs (done it) or blasting tons of rock away to create fairways (done that as well) but I do disagree with a firm 'implying' that they are 'green' when in fact they do not seem to be or never have been just as a marketing ploy.

IMHO it is even more dangerous to claim you are 'green' when in fact you are not than just not saying anything and getting on with it.

I feel the advert is misleading and they are claiming to do something that they do not carry out.  I might be wrong though.

[Mike_Young]

I re-read the green proclomation and don't see anything about tea spoons!  I don't know exactly what your impressions are of the golf development process, but nothing in his proclamation is out of whack or leaving the wrong impression according to what I know. 

I agree there are some sites that shouldn't be developed, but the amount of truly virgin land in the US is really small.  I don't happen to believe that golf should be limited strictly to descrated sites like Quarries either.  I think they can be developed on lots of great sites, and the environmental aspects mitigated to a great degree. 

Seems to me that Jeff has read correctly......also...do you think the wildlife increases on a forested site after a golf course or decreases?  The studies say the open areas enhance the amount of wildlife present in such areas AND if you have native areas that are receiving irrigation then the bird population also has been known to increase due to the increase of seed for food......
I think all of this should be allowed as long as the grill seves pine cone smoothies and the pro shop only allows birkenstock golf shoes    now that's green....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brian,

I guess neither of us will put in the effort to get enough facts to know if RTJII is green or not. I do know that he has served on the California Coastal Commission and things like that.  I think his heart is in the right place, although I doubt that some of you will ever consider that to be true because, after all, its RTJII.

It would be an interesting study to know if there are any real environmental differences directly attributable to a gca's style if more courses had a Colbert Hills type study.  I noted a few real world things in a previous post, like mounding increasing watering.  On the other hand, some of those wild CC or TDoak green contours on sand greens might need a lot of water, too. I just don't know.

As usual, Geoff S paints with such a broad brush that his column and its opinions are IMHO as laughable as the RTJ Green Manifesto!  His continued minimalist manifestos, where we are forced to assume much of his underlying argument as true without proof, is not the highest form of journalism.  I have seen this article before, albeit this time prefaced with a current world intro referincing economic conditions to justify minimalism. 

To top it off, I am not sure which of us he is talking about.  We know it ain't TD.  It can't be me, since I haven't touted minimalism in any post here recently.  The most likely candidate would be occaisonal contributor Jim Engh who posted about his minimalist course in NB recently and is well known for a highly sculpted style.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
I used CHGC as an example of environmental impact because the info was handy, but my post was not meant to be seen as knocking it. The final opinion of the study concluded that once grassed, the CHGC site could  return to it's prior conditions, but that the construction phase is critical and a considerable potential existed for negative impacts to the watercourse.

I don't think I'm saying anything much different than what's reflected in your post to Garland about why they chose the Chambers Bay photo for their ad: "Placing a golf course on a waste site is considered very environmentally friendly, compared to putting one on a pristine, treed site that allows minimalism, but takes away natural habitat."
Places like Sequoyah will never be good ambassadors for golf in the future because they will never be seen as 'minimal disturbances' and 'maximum enhancments' to the previously existing or surrounding ecosystem, no matter how fastidiously they followed the regulations.

Mike,
I don't think Birkenstocks are available, but you can buy "Crocs" with spikes. Will that suffice? 

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I used CHGC as an example of environmental impact because the info was handy, but my post was not meant to be seen as knocking it. The final opinion of the study concluded that once grassed, the CHGC site could  return to it's prior conditions, but that the construction phase is critical and a considerable potential existed for negative impacts to the watercourse.

I don't think I'm saying anything much different than what's reflected in your post to Garland about why they chose the Chambers Bay photo for their ad: "Placing a golf course on a waste site is considered very environmentally friendly, compared to putting one on a pristine, treed site that allows minimalism, but takes away natural habitat."
Places like Sequoyah will never be good ambassadors for golf in the future because they will never be seen as 'minimal disturbances' and 'maximum enhancments' to the previously existing or surrounding ecosystem, no matter how fastidiously they followed the regulations.

Mike,
I don't think Birkenstocks are available, but you can buy "Crocs" with spikes. Will that suffice? 

Jim,
No way...Crocs are petroleum based...Birks are all natural.....
Now back to the green thing....

If one was to clear an acre of the pristine woods where the RTJ golf course is located and build a Leeds Certified "Green" home.....would you consider that green?  Even though they destroyed the pristine forest?  I would....
So why not for a golf course....
The real problem is not green or ungreen.....the problem is that in order to build golf in the mountains you usually have to move much dirt......and in actuality golf was not meant for the mountains......

[Adam Russell]

If one was to clear an acre of the pristine woods where the RTJ golf course is located and build a Leeds Certified "Green" home.....would you consider that green?  Even though they destroyed the pristine forest?  I would....So why not for a golf course....The real problem is not green or ungreen.....the problem is that in order to build golf in the mountains you usually have to move much dirt......and in actuality golf was not meant for the mountains......

Well, actually Mike, the USGBC would not give the specific LEED credit for destroying the forest to build a green home. While the present version allows you to make it up and still get the certification, the newest version set to release in May will not.  But I do agree with you on golf in the mountains related to dirt moving.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
What Adam said.

......and because golf "wasn't made for the mountains", it's nearly impossible to be seen as 'green' when you must remove a couple hundred or more acres of trees and move hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of materials.

[Tony Ristola]

GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
 
1.   A golf course architect shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit…or misrepresentation.
 
2.   A golf course architect shall not indulge in…exaggerated, misleading or false publicity.
 
Source: American Society of Golf Course Architects

Tony,

Only you would call this ad fraud or against the code of ASGCA.  Marketing is allowed.  The question is whether its effective marketing, and time will tell. 

Some courses do need 700K of earth to be moved. 

Good try Jeff, but... I am not the only one questioning the marketing piece and the practitioners that published it.

First, the question is not about "effective marketing" or whether marketing is allowed. It is about whether it is "exaggerated, misleading or false publicity." Or as your code further states: "involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit…or misrepresentation."

I didn't write your code, but reading your defense, it seems the code doesn't have much meaning. They're just words on paper. Nothing more.

Second, I said moving the dirt didn't bother me, but does it fit his Manifesto? I didn't write it... he or somebody in his office or associated with his office did and then they published it.

If you're going to make grand claims and people know through past practices it's not true, then you should not be surprised when you're called on your transgressions.

Or is there some special exemption the ASGCA members get from their own and the association's rhetoric?

As for "being alone" on this, I don't think I am. Just reading this thread reveals otherwise. Even the word "misleading" has been used by someone else.

If I am alone, that's OK too. I don't have to follow the herd to deduce what correct or misleading is.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

You have often made yourself judge and jury of ethics codes in the past, even though you are not a member of any of the major societies (or weren't, you may have joined one  recently) and often seem to believe that you are the only gca in the world practising ethically.  You seem to feel that its your job to call out others on their percieved ethical transgressions with repeated and casual allegations, which in itself is viewed by most people as unethical, or at least distasteful depending on the level of accusations.

The code has meaning, but we have higher standards of judgment than reading an internet forum and deciding on important matters.  And, its true that we really don't care to parade several members before a tribunal every year as it seems you  might think appropriate! 

The fact of the matter is that no one here has really "proved" that he doesn't do these things, they just assume he doesn't.  You mention such compelling arguments that "people know through past practices it's not true".  The "everyone knows" argument really isn't very strong.  Niether is the fact that some others here question the ad.  (hey, even I questioned it more on "taste" and "good sense") Internet forums have never been considered fair and balanced or in any way part of a due process for such allegations! They are usually just a collection of (sometimes far out) opinions, not fact. 

Short version - if this ad came before our ethics committee, no post here would be enough evidence to "convict" on such a serious charge.  I think most can understand that golf club atlas is not the judge and jury on any matter, despite the strength of conviction many here have on various issues.

And, I re-read his proclamation.  I believe he does those things, or attempts to.   We can argue on a course by course basis if he could do it more, but he does leave the "out" that he will incorporate any future green technologies as they become available. No doubt we all do more every year.  But, we could make those value judgments on nearly any design.

I am going through those kind of value questions right now (getting back to work after this post) as I do on every design - I have just tweaked my routing to avoid several specimen trees.  However, on examining the trees individually, I have noted that many are actually in poor condition and have also considered routing specifically to take those trees out!  Am I being less green than I should be?

With no legal environmental restrictions (Indian reservation) I am setting my own buffers.  Is 25' enough? Do I go 50?  If I choose 25 feet, am I being less green than I should be?

I am looking at moving less than 100K cy of earth and holding to 90 acres of turf.  If I end up at 125K or at 99 acres, am I being less green than I should be?

I am leaving the IPM plan to others who know more than me.  Am I being less green than I should be?

 
No one but me really knows what the details of the job above are.  And yet here, "everyone knows" that RTJII is being misleading based on God knows what.  Please excuse the rant, but I just hope to put some of the posts on this in some kind of perspective.

[Brian Phillips]

Jeff,

Okay, lets look at it another way.  Not one of the points could be used in a court of law to prove that they do not keep to them by the way they have been written.

None of the points really point out anything a good architect is not already thinking about.  The problem you get in my opinion is that by your blowing trumpet the way they have is dangerous especially when they will be involved in projects where they do not perform these points.

Point 7 is one of the most annoying ones when you see what was done at Bro Hof.

"7. Create courses that use less water, pesticides and fertilzes than traditional courses." 
Are you serious? Give me a break. Name me ten RTJ2 courses that use less all of the than a traditional course in Britain.

9. Maximize the effectiveness of available water through the use of drought-tolerant grass species; and specify soil amendments that lead to water conservation, and where applicable, absorb properly treated effluent."
How many RTJ2 courses use a bent fescue mix on their greens? Any?

Just their statement at the top will annoy or even make many European Architects laugh.

"GREEN PROCLAMATION -A Fresh Approach To Golf Course Design" 

What is so "fresh" about their 10 points?  It has been done in Europe for over a century now without RTJ2 'proclaiming' it is 'fresh'.

Jeff I don't understand why you are defending the advert. 

Do you think the advert is 100% correct, morally and/or truthfully? ("please, your honour, ask the witness to answer yes or no")

[Adam Russell]

I don't know if I'm thinking along with the group here, because I'm seeing a larger issue that's the problem here. The ethics of RTJII are fine, no exactly what I would do, but to each his own. He probably values each of the things he said, regardless of Sequoyah and whether he is implementing what he's saying. The bigger deal for me is the way people think about golf courses and "green", whatever that is. Whenever I hear proclamations, IPMs, specimen trees...I always end up thinking no one's getting it. GCA is naturally specific in design, but I think green implementation, especially the way I think of it, is very BROAD. The way I think about the end goal of a project is...

The golf course should become a living machine, using no assistance from humans. It should produce more physical resources than it takes in and become a factory that powers other environments. It should strive for Cypress Point's strategy while producing the benefits of an untouched ecosystem.

That's a huge, probably unreachable goal for GCA right now, but it bothers me when no one makes the critical jump to advance the field as a whole. There are definitely people smart enough.  GCA has to say that trees and LEED and bird habitats aren't good enough. The golf course should be a power plant for the rest of the area. For the discipline to take on a greater role (i.e.-everyone get paid more  , there has to be more focus on a more common sense, large-scale approach than specifics in the realm of design

There's my rant...

[Tony Ristola]

I don't know if I'm thinking along with the group here, because I'm seeing a larger issue that's the problem here. The ethics of RTJII are fine, no exactly what I would do, but to each his own. He probably values each of the things he said, regardless of Sequoyah and whether he is implementing what he's saying. The bigger deal for me is the way people think about golf courses and "green", whatever that is. Whenever I hear proclamations, IPMs, specimen trees...I always end up thinking no one's getting it. GCA is naturally specific in design, but I think green implementation, especially the way I think of it, is very BROAD. The way I think about the end goal of a project is...

The golf course should become a living machine, using no assistance from humans. It should produce more physical resources than it takes in and become a factory that powers other environments. It should strive for Cypress Point's strategy while producing the benefits of an untouched ecosystem.

That's a huge, probably unreachable goal for GCA right now, but it bothers me when no one makes the critical jump to advance the field as a whole. There are definitely people smart enough.  GCA has to say that trees and LEED and bird habitats aren't good enough. The golf course should be a power plant for the rest of the area. For the discipline to take on a greater role (i.e.-everyone get paid more  , there has to be more focus on a more common sense, large-scale approach than specifics in the realm of design

There's my rant...

A well built and designed golf course is an environmental benefit. It diversifies flora and fauna, protects soils and improves groundwater quality, it's a dust trap in urban environments and a cool zone. It provides recreation which is healthful.

I don't think cutting down trees is a biggy either, unless it is a forest of exceptional value. Trees grow and die. Square kilometers are felled by wind. Fire takes others. Building a golf course, cutting down trees and attending to the remainder could be a better management program over the long haul.


Jeff,
Member or not... who cares? Is the question valid?
It is or it isn't.

I'll reply with something I read today.

"I like clarity, and there’s a reason why," began the archbishop. "I think modern life, including life in the Church, suffers from a phony unwillingness to offend that poses as prudence and good manners, but too often turns out to be cowardice. Human beings owe each other respect and appropriate courtesy. But we also owe each other the truth -- which means candor."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

I am not sure why it bothers you when "no one makes the critical jump to advance the field as a whole".  Now it may very well be that others are leading and RTJ is catching up but at the same time, the Wright Bros. didn't start right out with the 747.  As you state, a perfectly balanced ecological golf course isn't feasible right now, but it may be in the future.  I get the sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, it will actually take a lot of technology to make them so, not less.


Tony,

If your question is from your earlier post:

"First, the question is not about "effective marketing" or whether marketing is allowed. It is about whether it is "exaggerated, misleading or false publicity." Or as your code further states: "involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit…or misrepresentation." "

Then I guess my answer is 'No" especially to the second part of the question.  On the first point, I disagree again because of the value judgements.  One thing we have all faced from environmentalists is the unanswerable question of "could you do more?" and "are you doing enough?"  From a person who hates all development, or golf courses, the answer will always obviously be no.  For most, doing all we reasonably can with current knowledge should be enough.

I agree that there is no reason for this board not to question any gca, RTJ included about environmental or other issues with candor and frankness.  I am sure not trying to stop that.  Its just that I don't think implying that RTJ has breached his ASGCA ethics with this is a correct position.

Brian,

It may be "dangerous" to RTJ to spout off if not true, because the truth will come out eventually.  Its still a value judgement - I think that GBI just naturally has a combo of conditions that allow less fertilzers, etc. to be used as compared to say, Palm Springs or the US transition zone.  And, a lot of it is related to wealth and cultural attitude.

Even then, I think a lot of American gca's could be annoyed with the ad, just because we might have to say "me, too."  As a matter of fact, the casino job I just got had interviews a few days after this proclamation came out and I viewed RTJ as our main competition.  I was worried about how to counter that proclamation in the interview and ended up just telling them specifically what I was going to do on their site to be "green" and honestly telling them that being as green as they said they wanted to be would be a bankroll test in some cases, and I got the job.  Being specific outdid a general proclamation, as it would for almost any potential client, IMHO.

Framing your question in terms of "100%" sure makes it tough to answer yes, counselor, but in the real world, there are shades of grey and this ad, IMHO, goes nowhere near black.

I agree that the ad isn't particulary fresh and I don't get the impression that RTJ is going to be a world beater and lead the charge to pesticide free golf courses from this ad any more than you do. That said, I do know he is involved with environmental issues in CA and probably feels that if his designs meet his home state standards, they probably are cutting edge in a lot of ways. 

As usual, I doubt we are all that far apart in opinion.  I am not really defending the ad - it is what it is - an ad.  I am defending against the notion that it is some sort of ethical breach, even if it may be questioned by some.

[Tony Ristola]

Tony,

If your question is from your earlier post:

"First, the question is not about "effective marketing" or whether marketing is allowed. It is about whether it is "exaggerated, misleading or false publicity." Or as your code further states: "involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit…or misrepresentation." "

Then I guess my answer is 'No" especially to the second part of the question.  On the first point, I disagree again because of the value judgements.  One thing we have all faced from environmentalists is the unanswerable question of "could you do more?" and "are you doing enough?"  From a person who hates all development, or golf courses, the answer will always obviously be no.  For most, doing all we reasonably can with current knowledge should be enough.

I agree that there is no reason for this board not to question any gca, RTJ included about environmental or other issues with candor and frankness.  I am sure not trying to stop that.  Its just that I don't think implying that RTJ has breached his ASGCA ethics with this is a correct position.

Jeff,

I posted the excerpt of the code of which he is a member.
I didn't comment one way or the other.
Below I've posted my full remarks as posted earlier.

Do I think he's blowing smoke?
Yes.

GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
 
1.   A golf course architect shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit…or misrepresentation.
 
2.   A golf course architect shall not indulge in…exaggerated, misleading or false publicity.
 
Source: American Society of Golf Course Architects

[Brian Phillips]

Jeff,

As usual you have been very fair and I still continue to learn from you.  Have u seen our new website? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

I know its quite possible for you to have one opinion and me another since I haven't seen any of his work in Europe.  I do think his reclamation at Chambers Bay and his Coastal work at Spanish Bay, just to name two, have good environmental qualities and are worth touting for different reasons.  I think he has other works - like an older Squaw Valley that had some environmental cutting edge issues a while back.

Perhaps the queasiness of a "proclamation" is that implies 100% effort towards the highest standards, which BTW, he is only promising to do from now on.   It isn't a great message for him (or us) to say we were at 80% before! But look at us now!

Brian,

I looked a few months ago. Is there a new link?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()