[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

Well, we clearly know what CBM did.

We also know that everyone back then credited Wilson.

Why would club minutes point to a member when a committee was appointed?

You figure it out.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

You are correct.  They cannot point to anything at all that the Construction Committee did during the planning, either.  

Laughably, Mike attempts another rhetorical question, asking why they would point to an individual when a committee was appointed?   Of course he neglects to mention that there is nothing at all pointing to the Construction Committee either.

The only names mentioned are CBM and HJW.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Yes, i believe the MCC Minutes precisely state that Wilson's interest in golf course architecture began on May 17th, 1912, at approximately 7:34 AM.

Prior to then he thought Willie Campbell designed awesome stuff, but only had a. Passing interest.

Mike
You are a funny. I have no idea when his interest in golf architecture began, but clearly his brother is stating his design input at Merion began after he returned from Europe, and I believe there is evidence to support that idea. Regarding his experience level Wilson tells us the when they began he and the others had played golf for many years, but their experience in construction and upkeep was only that of an average club member. I would imagine his interest in golf architecture was around the same level. Wilson also tells us the committee was appointed to construct the golf course; no mention of design. Its never made sense that Lloyd & Co would turn to a bunch of average club members to design their world class golf course, especially when they had already engaged the top men in the country.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I figured it out when I was about 8 years old and asked my dad why there are only commemorative statues of a single man on a horse leading a charge ?

Have you ever seen a statue commemorating a committee ?

Go to NGLA, go to the big room and tell me who's life size statue is standing there.
(hint: it's not a committee)

Committees inherently stifle creativity and breed mediocrity.

I can't imagine a committee of five (5) in 1910 or 2011 creating a wonderful golf course.

Evidently, you want to continue to perpetuate the myth that the entire golf course, from site selection, to routing to individual hole and feature design was done through a democratic committee process.

I don't and won't buy it until I see "prudent man" evidence specifically detailing who did what.

And, I don't think requiring that burden of proof is unreasonable, despite what the Merionettes think.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

In all seriousness, what's always troubled me is THE lack of attribution, the general references, without specifics on various phases of the project.

Don't forget that Merion was an existing club, not a new one, hence they had structure and the recording of specific events would seem to lend itself to detail, yet the record is..... vague at best, when it comes to specifics.

That seems strange to me.

Pretend for a second that I was part of the committee and came up with the idea/concept for five holes, the routing or the overcoming of a problem.  Why wouldn't they record that event/discovery, stating that I had conceived of the hole designs, routing or cross over features ?
Why wouldn't they engage in attribution ?

I know the Merionettes will claim that these were humble people, but, that's nonsense, they aren't the ones writing the minutes, and it seems more than odd that credit wouldn't be given where credit was due.  People, even humble people, appreciate recognition for a job well done, especially amongst their peers.  To give blanket credit, almost equally, seems unrealistic or perhaps communistic.
Francis downplays his role, which would mean that someone else's role had to be expanded, no ?

It seems strange, if not bizarre that a "committee" is referenced, as if they all had a simultaneous epiphany, that they all had the same idead at the same time, and, we know that doesn't happen amongst five individuals engaged in a creative process.

It seems more likely, that when other outside parties do the heavy lifting, then you credit the committee, equally, for their efforts.

So, you have to ask yourself, absent specific details, if the club wasn't just recognizing the committee for successfully accomplishing the OVERALL mission, even though each member didn't craft the routing or the specific hole designs.

As for the placement of bunkers subsequent to Wilson's trip to the UK in 1912, their location was almost pre-determined by default.

Were they going to place the bunkers 20 yards off the tee ?
40 yards from the green ?
I see the bunker placement nothing more than finishing details with the general locations predetermined by the configuration of the holes.  Holes that existed prior to the trip to the UK.

If someone, somewhere, said, Francis really routed and designed the course and the committee tagged along, I could buy that easier than I can accept that this committee of five individuals, had each individual contribute EQUALLY in the routing and hole designs such that they got equal credit and that they were in perfect harmony on the routing of the course and design of each hole.

I have a conceptual problem with the structure, format and total lack of attribution, thereby, by default, giving credit to the "committee".

I know you'll come back and state that the records show that Wilson is given the lion's share of the credit.
BUT, only in vague terms, never with specific detail, and that's what troubles me.

And, it should trouble you too.

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

In reading the crazy theories of you three guys, I'm "troubled" all right but it has nothing to do with Hugh Wilson. 

[DMoriarty]

 Patrick,

Haughty indignation and sarcasm are Mike's way of admitting that Merion's Minutes do not even mention the so-called Construction Committee, so the Minutes couldn't possibly indicate that so-called Construction Committee planned the course.
_____________________________________________

Bryan,

Have you by chance considered how many of the other of CBM's Alps Holes could be really great when Merion's 10th hole was only the second CBM Alps hole?

Thanks.  

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrick,
Prudent Man evidence?   In my honest opinion, we have decades of it.   

I look to motivation - Why would Merion not want to credit CBM?  It'd be like any club built in the last 30 years saying their course was designed by their own members instead of a Doak/Dye/Nicklaus/Hanse/C&C/etc. 

Ok - Back to lurking.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,
Prudent Man evidence?   In my honest opinion, we have decades of it.    

I look to motivation - Why would Merion not want to credit CBM?  It'd be like any club built in the last 30 years saying their course was designed by their own members instead of a Doak/Dye/Nicklaus/Hanse/C&C/etc.  

Ok - Back to lurking.

Merion did credit CBM. Robert Lesley said CBM and HJW advised the committee on how to lay out the course on the ground. Hugh Wilson trips all over himself crediting CBM.  Even Merion's minutes credit CBM and repeatedly so, and they don't bother to even mention Wilson or his committee.   Just because you guys ignore and/or twist all of these doesn't mean that Merion didn't credit CBM and HJW.  

So ask yourself your same question, how come Merion's records, especially their contemporaneous minutes, don't even mention Wilson?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.]
But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."


Bryan,

Could you address the question I asked in the context of the four possibilities.

Thanks.

Mike, you're welcome to answer as well.

Jeff & Bryan,

I'd like to try to get clarification on your positions on the above quote.

To provide some context,
The Findlay quote was published in June of 1912, which means it was probably written earlier, perhaps prior to May of 1912.
Wilson didn't return from the UK until May of 1912.
CBM hadn't completed any other courses by June of 1912.

In the first sentence, can we agree that Findlay is stating that the 10th hole at Merion, the Alps, is underwhelming in its present form ?

In light of the time frame listed above is your contention:

1. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing NGLA ?
2. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other "Alps" holes at other CBM courses ?
3. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other holes at other CBM courses ?
4. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other holes at Merion ?

Would you agree, that the time line doesn't support # 2 and # 3, hence they can be eliminated.

Leaving # 1 and # 4.

Findlay clearly states in his first sentence, that he's referencing the 10th "Alps" at Merion.

Why would he suddenly switch gears and start referencing OTHER holes at NGLA ?
Everyone was already aware of the qualitiy of the holes at NGLA, that's one of the reasons the committee visited NGLA earller that year.

It makes far, far more sense that he's referencing OTHER holes at Merion, as laid out by Macdonald,

But, I would like to hear your take in light of the time line

[Jeff_Brauer]

An entry in the November 23, 1914 board minutes does mention Wilson and his contributions, upon the resignation of Hugh Wilson as Chairman of the Green Committee:

―The resignation of Mr. Hugh I. Wilson, as Chairman of the Green Committee, was
presented, whereupon, on motion of Mr. Lillie, duly seconded, the following resolution
was adopted:

RESOLVED, that in accepting Mr. Wilson‘s resignation as Chairman of the Green
Committee, this Board desires to record its appreciation of the invaluable service
rendered by him to the Club in the laying out and supervision of the construction of the
East and West Golf Courses.

You can keep saying that there is no mention in the minutes of Wilson designing the course, but there it is.   Wilson told us he went to NGLA in March 1911 (Oakley letter) and the minutes refer to that trip, again saying "the committee" which was presumably shorter than listing them all by name, so we know they reference him on that trip.

As to why there is no more mention in the contemporaneous minutes, I don't know. I can't compare Merions notes to other minutes on other subjects, nor can I compare them to minutes of other similar clubs.

Also, it appears Alan Wilson't letter is the source of the confusion on the timing of Hugh's trip.  Did he write that, and why?  Did someone get a clumisly worded letter from Alan, and edit is slightly, inserting his logic of what must have happened -i.e., it "must have been that Wilson went abroad first"? 

No doubt its a bit frustrating, or we wouldn't be here, but to answer Patrick's question, I would be more inclined to think about your question after you explain why you cannot interpret things from the minutes like "we rearranged the course upon our return" as them preparing routings?

And, Alan Wilson tells us that Hugh Wilson's committee was responsible for the design in his 1926, so we can easily infer that Wilson was involved in the many routings and even surer, the five plans upon return.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I thought you were no longer posting for your buddies, and that you admitted it was wrong to do so? Yet here you are posting for your buddies again.  Why am I not surprised?

Anyway, you and your buddy have a funny way of reading these things.

Most importantly, we have your slight-of-hand with laid out versus designed.  You use them interchangeably, but Merion knew there was a difference between planning the layout and laying out the course.  In Lesley's April 1911 report, Merion wanted to "lay it out according to the plan [CBM and HJW] approved . . . ."   So, as I wrote in my IMO, Wilson and his Committee laid out the course according to plan. In Merion's case, planning the course and laying out the course were two separate steps.

Now that Merion has settled this sticky issue for us, why don't you turn your attention to who came up with the plan?  Because I've never disputed that it was Wilson who laid it out according to that plan.

As for the rest, your interpretations are well short of reasonable mainly because TEPaul has acknowledged that shortly before the planning, Wilson was put on a committee other than the "Construction Committee."   While I'd consider evidence to the contrary, I doubt you can establish that the construction committee was even created until - you guessed it - construction began.  If so, is unreasonable to equate Wilson's involvement with that of the construction committee.

You knock me for coming up with my own interpretations instead of blindly accepting yours, but is this really all you've got?  Surely you cannot expect me to agree when you try and play me for a fool?

When are you going to state your case as to why the Construction Committee ought to be credited with planning the course, as opposed to laying it out according to that plan.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good morning and Happy Fathers Day.  Despite you being a generally disagreeable person here, I have heard from people that know you that you are indeed a good father.

As to your contentions, given the reaches you make in your process, I don't think its a big reach to presume that the committee was formed in early 1911 as reported, and that in February, Wilson was signing for the construction committee that he headed.  And while the minutes are short on listing credit, for whatever reason, which may be why Merion kept asking for remembrances, the committee, as listed by the same names as the construction committee members, is credited for layout and design, and concieving the holes, (BTW, when they mention the National and CBM in the minutes, they don't actually say CBM designed that either, just conceived and constructed, same words they use for Wilson often).

You know your narrow definition of "laying out" is tenuous, given the many ways it was used back then. 
We have no obligation to accept that.

BTW, the more I think about it, the more I think some brain power ought to be applied to the contention of any other CBM involvement other than what is listed (where multiple sources say the committee (which committee can be in doubt, if you like) did the plans, and CBM approved.

I am going to breakfast with my kids right now, so more later. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Okay, back from breakfast...(burp)

This whole charade has been about discounting certain items in favor of others.  I find myself questioning how the 3M's who "won't exclude" the possibility of missing records showing voluminous phone calls and correspondance between CBM and Merion can somehow feel the whole record of the Construction Committee might be partial.

The board minutes record what the boards business is, which is to approve or dissaprove what other committees and sub committees recommend.  And they record that.  The committees probably kept their own records, and we know Wilson was a voluminous writer, but that the only reason we have the agronomy letters is because they saved them in DC.  I suspect that Wilson kept better records than the committee, but they seem to have been lost to history.

I have not had email or phone contact with anyone from Philly, and posted last night when I got off the plane, copying and pasting the obvious to refute a point.  That David (as he so often does)  would start with an insult, and then follow with a lie (that I am posting for the Merionettes) it says only things about his character and method.  Pehaps we should just apply the Moronic method like they do to everything Merion ever wrote - bascially saying if one thing is a lie or incorrect, then we have to throw out everything they say.  In this case, I think its apt.

Lastly, I think some brain power ought to once again be applied to David and Pat's supposition that CBM was involved a lot prior to November 1910.  Ask this:

Would Merion, in those days of proper decorum, have asked one of the most important men in golf to route them a course before they had the land or before the members had voted to even fund the project?  Wouldn't that be a collossal waste of CBM's time?

Why route before then?  Why route before the Dallas Estate was secured in October?

Why would CBM route before the land was secured from a developer, having been rejected by a developer on his own 120 acre parcel at NGLA?

Its not hard to think CBM wouldn't waste a minute of time until the parcel was secured, the members had financed the project, etc.  Even if he wanted to further golf in america by helping other clubs, he was no fool and there would be no reason for him to put in his time in a busy personal period (getting NGLA open) for a club that hadn't even formally decided itself to move forward with the project.

And, once that sets the time frame, we cannot ignore that the minutes do say that Merion prepared plans before and after the NGLA meeting, as has always been written.   While the minutes clumisly say "CBM's plans" which you can stretch and twist again by separating what they are talking about when English says they should be related (plans and data in that case, Alps holes being compared to Alps holes in Findlay's article) Hugh Wilson actually tells us again in his 1916 report that they were looking at CBM's GBI data and not his routing for Merion.  So, there you have two sources that say the bulk of the time at NGLA was spent getting ideas (not plans) from CBM.

This argument only keeps going because David and TMac simply say there is no mention of Merion routing and designing its own course, with CBM as an advisor.  Hard to argue when you point something out, and they ignore it completely to further their agenda.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

My problems with the 1914 minutes you cite are:

1.   They're  not contemporaneous with design & construction
2.    It's akin to a retirement tribute and being given a gold watch
3.    There's no specifics, only reference to "invaluable service"

You have to ask, why, for four years, from 1910 to 1914, are there no minutes detailing Wilson's specific activities.

In a project I was involved with, the monthly board minutes go into great detail regarding the project and its progress.  In addition, each month, as Chairman, I authored a letter to the membership detailing the project and progress to date.

Yet, from 1910 to 1914 the minutes are silent with respect to Wilson's involvement and there's nothing in the way of reports or status updates
from Wilson to the Board and/or the membership.

As I reflect on why there's this void, one possible explanation is that they ceded the project  task to CBM.

It would be akin to ceding the project authority to you, an outsider.
As an outsider, I wouldn't expect you, or any outside vender/contractor to prepare reports for the board/membership.
Wouldn't you agree ?

In addition, Alan Wilson's recollection and attribution occurred in 1926.
Findlay's attribution is CONTEMPORANEOUS
I wouldn't expect you to write reports/letters to the membership or board.

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

If CBM had been called in as a "friendly adviser" whenever a major course was under construction in the east and midwest by 1905, how can you possibly tell us you know how many Alps holes Findlay may have known he was responsible for by 1912?

CBM's interest in the great holes abroad goes back to the turn of the last century and many early *merican courses had holes call Alps. 

Besides, that's not what i think Findlay was referring to but the point is that you are making declarative statements with no real knowledge of what CBM had built or not at that point.

And by the way, if CBM laid out the holes on the ground at Merion, what did Pickering and Wilson's Committee do?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

It does give specifics of the valuble service - for laying out and supervising construction of both the east and west courses.  And for word parsers out there, I wonder if laying out only means laying out to others plans on the ground, would they write "constructing to a plan and supervising construction?" 

I don't doubt that some places might go into great detail and read montly reports into the record, so I understand your concerns there.  But, we certainly don't know if its a standard SOP, do we?  As I mentioned, it appears Wilson did keep a lot of records (the Oakley letters) that are now lost because we could only get them because Oakley saved them.

BTW, most of my contracts do require some kind of periodic reporting to the board or at least greens committee. I don't really know if those make it into official minutes or not.  I cannot recall them doing so, but then again, I have no occaision to read country club minutes.

As to the part about 1926 vs Findlay, I have already agreed that we know the committee recollections (or whoever edited Alan's letter, if any) were wrong on the date of the Wilson trip.  However, think of anything you may have written (including point by point posts here!).  I think most points were probably right, but a few wrong. 

In other words, I don't think it logically follows that they forget there were two committees or that the contents of that letter are not to be trusted because of one error, whose source we don't know.  It is a source, and certainly a reliable one, especially if we are to consider HJW reliable from many years later, no?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Merion was first and foremost a Cricket Club.

Perhaps if we had the Minutes of every one of Lesley's Golf Committee minutes im pretty sure they'd include much detail, but we dont.


Remember that Wilson's committee reported up to a standing golf committee.

Things rising to MCC Board of Governor's level were clearly for decision-.aking...not for detailed discussion, documentation, and transcription.

[Joe Bausch]

Happy Fathers Day to the 4Ms.


 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe, thanks.

And to all of you Mother's out there, Happy Father's Day 

Mike Cirba,

You might want to read what Merion's (Cricket & Golf) websites have to say about their history.

At most clubs, the governing body is the board, usually comprised of 12 members plus the President (to break ties)
Other clubs may have different configurations in terms of numbers.
Usually, in order to be a committee chair, you must be a board member.
There are exceptions.
Committee Chairs are responsible for their department.
Part of each Board meeting is the Committee Chair's report to the Board members.
They usually report on activities in their department, their department's committee meeting and/or anything scheduled for reporting.
At some Board meetings there's nothing to report.

Some committees have more activities than others.
The House committee is almost perpetually active as is the Green committee.

The notion that a Green or Construction Committee wouldn't report in the beginning, midst or end of a major project in progress is so alien to the conduct of club business, so alien to the process that it seems beyond belief.

Yet, you seem content that a four year void is SOP, when nothing could be further from the truth.

As an active Committee Chair in the midst of a major project you'd have an obligation to give progress reports to the Board and Membership.  Yet none seem to exist.

And, that doesn't strike you as unusual ?
It doesn't raise any red flags ?

If you were doing all the work, why wouldn't you report to the board ?
Why wouldn't you give updated status reports, including the financials associated with the project ?

And that doesn't trouble you because you blindly follow the myth, not wanting to question anything that seems odd.

OK, I can understand blind allegiance as an emotional response, but, not as an intellectual response.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Good evening and I hope you enjoyed your Fathers Day.

But, one question...why the use of phrases like "you should be very troubled" and "That should raise red flags?"

Sounds ominous.  What exactly are you saying?  Are you saying Merion did something unseemly in their business 100 years ago?  Sure sounds like it.  Could be they just lost some records.  Or, they just don't report up to what you think are proper standards.  I really don't know which, but do understand how your experience on club boards brings you to your questions.

As a corrollary, why does it not bother you to think there may be missing club records out there that point to CBM as designer, but sound so ominous when there may be records out there to back up the known records that generally point to HW, with CBM as advisor?

It seems you are more easily convinced by a total lack of evidence than some sketchy evidence and records.  Sorry to say, that just doesn't seem all that logical to me, but again, I also wish the Merion records were more complete. I just don't see where the lack of completeness signals anything other than what is typical when looking through old stuff - we always wish there were more.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Good evening and I hope you enjoyed your Fathers Day.

But, one question...why the use of phrases like "you should be very troubled" and "That should raise red flags?"

Because the absence of progress reports is troubling.

Sounds ominous. 
What exactly are you saying? 
Are you saying Merion did something unseemly in their business 100 years ago? 
Not at all.
What makes you think that ?

What I'm saying is quite simple.
A club undertakes a major project.
Yet, for that major undertaking there are no detailed committee reports for four years, no progress reports, no financial reports, nothing.

In one's capacity as a committee chair, the reporting function is SOP.

If Wilson was the committee chair for a project to site, route, design and construct a new golf course why didn't he report the details of project's status on an ongoing basis ?

A reason that some may offer is that he either wasn't the committee chair in charge of site selection, routing and design, or he ceded those responsibilities to others, or a combination of the two.[/siize]

Sure sounds like it. 

Only if you're predisposed to think that way.

Could be they just lost some records. 

That's very true and a distinct possibility.
But, others have suggested that Merion's archives are intact.

Or, they just don't report up to what you think are proper standards. 

For four years ?

I doubt it.
I would think that a club populated with very successful business people would keep meticulous records, if not at the committee level, certainly at the Board level.  That's almost inherent in club culture.

I really don't know which, but do understand how your experience on club boards brings you to your questions.

I think one of the by-laws that I most favor is the access to board minutes by any member.
Now, I've seen board minutes "sanitized" but, generally, each committee chair's report is recorded for a number of valid reasons.
So, I'm puzzled by their absence in this instance, especially with such a significant project.

It's not like they're periodically repainting the pool or resurfacing the tennis courts or performing routine maintainance.
This was a major undertaking and for the alleged chairman in charge of the entire project, soup to nuts, to not have submitted any detailed reports to the board strikes me as very unusual.  It could lead one to believe that perhaps the critical areas of the project had been delegated to others, such as CBM, Pickering and other experts.

As a corrollary, why does it not bother you to think there may be missing club records out there that point to CBM as designer, but sound so ominous when there may be records out there to back up the known records that generally point to HW, with CBM as advisor?

That's pretty much your agenda driven conclusion.

It bothers me that there may be significant missing records, irrespective of who they point to, regarding the designer of Merion.

I've rarely sat in on a board meeting where a significant project was in the undertaking, and the entire Board agreed on every facet of the project, especially the financial aspects..
Yet, that seems to be what's being represented here.
Surely there were those with differing opinions, yet, there's no record of dissention or unanymity.
And that strikes me as highly unusual.

Jeff, think about it.  Four years and nary a report from the alleged chairman of the entire project, soup to nuts.

What Board would tolerate that ?
What membership would tolerate that ?

I'll bet you that when Hanse and Fazio were being considered and retained by Merion, that the Board minutes are pretty detailed and indicative of what occured, soup to nuts.

I don't think that Merion just began recording board minutes when they got their new Ipads.

It seems you are more easily convinced by a total lack of evidence than some sketchy evidence and records. 

Again, that's your agenda driven conclusion.
I'm convinced that Findlay knew what he was talking about in his contemporaneous writings.
Writings that would have been immediately refuted if they were in error.
The lack of committee reports, and accompanying board minutes is troubling when you consider that committee reports and board minutes are routinely recorded.  You know that, yet act as if their absence is nothing out of the ordinary, OR, could possibly be explained by someone else being delegated the responsibility of routing and design.

Sorry to say, that just doesn't seem all that logical to me,

That's because you're predisposed and don't want to take a step back and view the absence of committee reporting and recording of Board minutes on a major project from your own practical experience.  You're looking at this emotionally, not intellectually.

but again, I also wish the Merion records were more complete.

I agree, and perhaps one day the missing holes will be filled in.

But, you also have to consider that maybe the minutes aren't mssing because Wilson's responsibility was in the construction end, not the site location, routing and design of the golf course, and as such,, that would explain why he didn't file reports and why the Board minutes don't reflect his activities in that area.

I just don't see where the lack of completeness signals anything other than what is typical when looking through old stuff - we always wish there were more.

Jeff, it's such a huge departure from SOP.
You don't embark on a major project, name a chairman to steer that project and then not have him report on an ongoing basis regarding the status of that project.  You don't embark on a major project, make the financial committment and then go silent at the Board level.

You and I may differ on why, for four (4) years, there's no formal record in either committee reports or Board minutes,
But, I think a prudent person has to question their absence in the context of the Chairman's responsibilities.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Near the end, you make my point.  There is a lack of record from Wilson, for reasons unknown.  However, there is a lack of records whether he was in charge of only construction, or was also heavily involved in the design, no? 

And, after all, there is a report saying the committee did many plans, and rearranged them to five plans.  The lack of documentation seems to start later, and the only things we have are Oakley's copies of Hugh's letters.

Even if the only record points, in your mind, to some other committee being involved in the design and routing of the golf course while at NGLA (which I doubt, but whatever) I ask how that would affect the conclusion that Hugh Wilson was "in the main" responsible for both golf courses?  Whatever committee it was, the minutes that are there say they drew many plans, and they revised the plans.  And we know Wilson was at that NGLA meeting, no matter what committee he was participating on, because he told Oakely so in a letter four days later.

The only reasonable area of debate is what really happened at NGLA and what "approved" means.  Some on the "Merion side" parse the words to say they ONLY looked at NGLA's holes.  Others say they HAD to have talked about Merion's routing, and/or CBM had to prepare it.  I am sort of in the middle.

I don't think your characteriszation of me having an agenda is fair, but if you want to see an agenda driven person, hold up a mirror!  Again, while MCC should ideally have records of each comittee in detail, I would suspect that they would also have records of EVERY contact with CBM (and actually, I think they do).  Not sure we can draw a conclusion based on what records seem to have survived, just because we don't know why we don't have them. 

(You may be right that some say the record is in tact, but I don't recall it that way - I thought I had read somewhere there was some damage while in an old attic, but I just don't recall clearly)

Sleep well.

[Peter Pallotta]

.  

Peter

[Mike Cirba]

Peter,

Generally, i agree, but could you elaborate? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()