Lou,
Hope you are well.
Your logic is understandable at first glance and therein lies the problem for me. As I have stated over and over and really did not mean to comment again.....I have no problem with individual ASGCA members. It is not my place to judge their abilities as golf architects....the ASGCA has written requirements that they supposedly have submitted and met the minimum number of courses. No problem there with me....but make it the same for any architect that has shown such. To keep it simple..you have to have a vote of 9 peole on the board...that's it.
If the public perceives the ASGCA as some type of organization that you could use to aid in selecting an architect, yet the membership is determined by a vote of a board of governors after meeting the objective requirements of the organization......then IMHO it is flawed.... And it is because of your chain of logic above that I always argue this point....
Come to GA sometime soon.
Mike
Mike,
First of all, I am generally aware of your troubles with the Society. Though not entirely analogous, I know an individual who was black-balled at a Top Five golf club by a member who was a business competitor and apparently did it (opposed my acquaintance's nomination) to protect his financial interests. The spurned candidate was asked some years later to resubmit his application, but his pride or sense of having been slighted wouldn't allow it. I think it is his loss, and hope that you will not make the same mistake (he would say that it is not).
Second, I think you and all other architects have every right to question the Society and its policies. To the extent their requirements are arbitrary and capriciously or politically applied, the Society would be "acting stupidly" if it refused to change. Being that it is an organization made of imperfect humans, mistakes will be made. I don't sense that the problems are institutional or systemic, but I can see how personality and other non-performance/qualification issues might crop up from time to time.
Any organization that precludes qualified members from joining for competitive reasons risks losing its stature and encourages those unfairly rejected qualified candidates to form their own competitive professional organization. However, an organization that has very minimal standards and offers membership to anyone willing to write a check probably is of very little benefit to its members.
Lastly, my "chain of logic" is really not how I think about architects and other professionals, but how the world generally works. The interests of those buying architectural services are often not the same as of those wanting to do the work. A developer may wish name recognition to sell memberships and/or lots. A city manager may want a "credentialed" individual he can sell to his political superiors with minimal opposition. A consultant advising a lender and a developer has little to gain going with a lesser known architect, particularly when the professional design fees are not a major component of the overall project costs. To the extent that the list contains qulified providers, the main concern- the success of the project- is satisfied. That some deserving candidates failed to make the list is at most an opportunity cost to the client.
I suspect that a primary objective of those seeking membership is that it helps them to differentiate themselves from the competition. It is an additional credential, maybe a tie-breaker in a few rare instances. Perhaps being a member leads to referrals. Maybe some business is simply generated by a potential client perusing the ASGCA website and finding a local member which he then proceeds to contact and develop personal rapport.
There are excellent architects who are not Society members. Wyatt mentioned three that I know. Some people are simply not joiners. Others like you have had an unfortunate experience. A number have not had the opportunity to develop their resume. There is also reason to believe that like with every other profession, some do not have the "necessities" to qualify. Though the market for the foreseeable future appears unfavorable, the one upside is that the ASGCA stamp of approval is not a requirement to be hired. Hopefully the barriers to entry will be kept to a minimum, though I have to believe that the current yearning for government regulation in most aspects of our lives may seep into this as well. Hopefully the Society will not lobby for licensing under its auspices as a condition of employment. If it does, get the pitchforks out.
See you at the Dixie Cup?
P.S.- why doesn't your partner do Jim Thorpe impressions on the Golf Channel? You'd think he'd throw you a bone once in awhile. BTW, I think you're much funnier.
P.S.2- did I tell you that my member friend at Reynolds brought his large group out to LS and they were all blown away? I think he said that with a maintenance budget approaching one of theirs, LS would be far better than anything at the Plantation. And that ain't benign, feigned praise!