Here we go again....

[Mike_Young]

And here we go again having to explain to a city that this is a bunch of frat boys ..
 A.Membership:American Society of Golf Course Architects membership is required.
B.Experience:Minimum 5 years’ experience planning/designing golf courses.Except this time it's gonna be fun just from listening to the purchasing person's reply... V.MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
A.Membership:American Society of Golf Course Architects membership is required.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

A.Membership:American Society of Golf Course Architects membership is required.
B.Experience:Minimum 5 years’ experience planning/designing golf courses.Except this time it's gonna be fun just from listening to the purchasing person's reply...

[John Kavanaugh]

Maybe they just don’t like Doak.

[Tom_Doak]

Maybe they just don’t like Doak.

The feeling would be mutual.


Mike just has to get to the understanding that anybody who wants to exclude him is not a client he would want to work with, anyway.

[Keith Williams]

Disappointing.  I doubt you care to completely out them, but care to at least say what state this is in?


As someone who has pretty vast knowledge in writing specs, RFP's etc, I'd be interested to know who with the city is responsible for this and how they would defend it.


Keith.

[Charlie Goerges]

Disappointing.  I doubt you care to completely out them, but care to at least say what state this is in?


As someone who has pretty vast knowledge in writing specs, RFP's etc, I'd be interested to know who with the city is responsible for this and how they would defend it.


Keith.

I'd be curious if any thought at all was put into the requirements and I wonder if they'd even bother defending them. I also wonder what some people think the ASGCA is, do some people think it's a sanctioning body like the bar association?

[Keith Williams]

Disappointing.  I doubt you care to completely out them, but care to at least say what state this is in?


As someone who has pretty vast knowledge in writing specs, RFP's etc, I'd be interested to know who with the city is responsible for this and how they would defend it.


Keith.

I'd be curious if any thought at all was put into the requirements and I wonder if they'd even bother defending them. I also wonder what some people think the ASGCA is, do some people think it's a sanctioning body like the bar association?

Charlie,


That is my thought/concern...either poor advice or a complete misunderstanding of what membership means (thinking it is some form of licensure), but the idea to include it had to come from somewhere.


In some states, it could actually expose the city to some liability.  One simply cannot craft specs or RFP requirements in an arbitrary manner that isn't necessary for the service requested or that would guide and orient a certain end result of the process.  This is why RFPs and RFQs typically include items like this as a component of scoring criteria, not mandates or minimum requirements.


Keith.

[Charlie Goerges]

Disappointing.  I doubt you care to completely out them, but care to at least say what state this is in?


As someone who has pretty vast knowledge in writing specs, RFP's etc, I'd be interested to know who with the city is responsible for this and how they would defend it.


Keith.

I'd be curious if any thought at all was put into the requirements and I wonder if they'd even bother defending them. I also wonder what some people think the ASGCA is, do some people think it's a sanctioning body like the bar association?

Charlie,


That is my thought/concern...either poor advice or a complete misunderstanding of what membership means (thinking it is some form of licensure), but the idea to include it had to come from somewhere.


In some states, it could actually expose the city to some liability.  One simply cannot craft specs or RFP requirements in an arbitrary manner that isn't necessary for the service requested or that would guide and orient a certain end result of the process.  This is why RFPs and RFQs typically include items like this as a component of scoring criteria, not mandates or minimum requirements.


Keith.

Thanks Keith, it's interesting to see that there could be liability on the city's part if the RFP process is too arbitrary. You're right it has to have come from somewhere, but I notice that if I search "hiring a golf architect" on Google, both the ASGCA and it's European counterpart are on the first page of results. I can totally imagine someone totally unfamiliar with how it all works seeing that and putting it in as a requirement, especially if they weren't experienced in writing RFPs.


I'm curious if, when it's already at the stage of sending it out, can someone like Mike point out some of the facts and get it changed, or is it going to be a cumbersome process to change that requirement? Additionally, given that there is some possibility of legal liability, is there any incentive for the the body who created the RFP to sweep the mistake under the rug to avoid publicizing their mistake? Or if it was a good-faith mistake, are they protected?

[John Kavanaugh]

They are protecting themselves from some alpha low handicap doing the work. It is perfectly reasonable.

[Bruce Katona]

I was hoping JK would see this thread and opine.  He is a man who is very well versed in the working and reading of an RFP.

[Mike_Young]

Maybe they just don’t like Doak.

The feeling would be mutual.


Mike just has to get to the understanding that anybody who wants to exclude him is not a client he would want to work with, anyway.

TD,
I really don't care about the project that much but I want to see where I can take this.  The purchasing lady replied that it was required and also in the bid documents you have to send them proof.  ASGCA is slick in that they send out form contracts and mention having to be a ASGCA member etc.  I'm going to play this one out for fun.  It is definitely trade restriction attempt by ASGCA...I'm just glad they didn't require me to be a member of the Donald Ross Society....I was hoping being a member of Andy's new TFE club at The Fried Egg would suffice...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hey, it's a free country. 


And more seriously, starting in the 1990's, the idea that a city had to take all comers started to go away or be modified. In some cases, selecting an architect doesn't even require a RFP, cities have changed it to where they can hire who they think is best on a professional services contract.  Nor do they have to hire consultants on low fees in many cases.  In fact, about the only thing I find constant in the world of golf architecture sales is that you can't bore, whine, or badger anyone into hiring you.


I have seen a lot of contracting RFQ's require the bidder be a member of GCBAA as well.  I mean it used to be that cities were totally open, without any qualifications and too often ended up with "Fred's Landscape" doing their project with no qualifications, and is that really the best use of taxpayer money?


All of that said, when I have seen the "ASGCA only" RFQs come out, a non-member will usually quickly and politely challenge it and it is removed, or the selection committee may not even read that requirement and select anyone they choose.  Perhaps the fairest way would be to say ASGCA OR equivalent, i.e., at least 5 major projects completed.


And as TD notes, it really doesn't matter what the RFQ says, or whatever point system they may employ.  In the end, a committee probably has a pre-RFQ favorite and will revise points until they have a justification for who they want to hire. 

I can sympathize with Mike, having competed in that public sector for decades. I was rarely the preferred guy, but I managed to get a fair share of jobs the hard way.  It would have been easier to win the Masters, LOL.


Where I can't sympathize with Mike is when he just mentions that the "ASGCA is slick in that they send out form contracts and mention having to be an ASGCA member etc."  As I have pointed out here a few times just to keep the record straight, ASGCA did put out a sample RFQ many years ago......written mostly by yours truly.....and it initially had a suggestion that only ASGCA members be considered.  Due to some protests, maybe even from Mike himself, that was removed around 2000, maybe before.  That doesn't stop Mike from putting these falsehoods out there for the last quarter century.


For that matter, he and a few others, but mostly he keeps bringing up the "sanctioning body" idea, and that has never been true.  He keeps bringing up ASGCA as restricting trade, which is also false.


We are just a group of professional architects who believe in the value of an association for education (with such diverse entry points, there is that need) and supporting golf and golf courses.  Yes, the fraternal aspects are important (We beat each other's brains out for jobs 51 weeks a year, and then get together 1 week a year to laugh about it) but Mike's characterization of ASGCA, or any other professional group as "frat boys" is really off base as well.


Again, I hate to waste bandwidth to correct the record, even if Mike says "It's just for fun" but in the age of social media, it feels like you need to defend yourself and quickly.  And, if Mike's past history here holds, he may come back and say he just posted that to get a rise out of me.....Believe me, this isn't a rise, it is just giving my opinion and correcting the non-facts on his topic as a member of this board.


Carry on......

[Mike_Young]

Hey, it's a free country. 


And more seriously, starting in the 1990's, the idea that a city had to take all comers started to go away or be modified. In some cases, selecting an architect doesn't even require a RFP, cities have changed it to where they can hire who they think is best on a professional services contract.  Nor do they have to hire consultants on low fees in many cases.  In fact, about the only thing I find constant in the world of golf architecture sales is that you can't bore, whine, or badger anyone into hiring you.


I have seen a lot of contracting RFQ's require the bidder be a member of GCBAA as well.  I mean it used to be that cities were totally open, without any qualifications and too often ended up with "Fred's Landscape" doing their project with no qualifications, and is that really the best use of taxpayer money?


All of that said, when I have seen the "ASGCA only" RFQs come out, a non-member will usually quickly and politely challenge it and it is removed, or the selection committee may not even read that requirement and select anyone they choose.  Perhaps the fairest way would be to say ASGCA OR equivalent, i.e., at least 5 major projects completed.


And as TD notes, it really doesn't matter what the RFQ says, or whatever point system they may employ.  In the end, a committee probably has a pre-RFQ favorite and will revise points until they have a justification for who they want to hire. 

I can sympathize with Mike, having competed in that public sector for decades. I was rarely the preferred guy, but I managed to get a fair share of jobs the hard way.  It would have been easier to win the Masters, LOL.


Where I can't sympathize with Mike is when he just mentions that the "ASGCA is slick in that they send out form contracts and mention having to be an ASGCA member etc."  As I have pointed out here a few times just to keep the record straight, ASGCA did put out a sample RFQ many years ago......written mostly by yours truly.....and it initially had a suggestion that only ASGCA members be considered.  Due to some protests, maybe even from Mike himself, that was removed around 2000, maybe before.  That doesn't stop Mike from putting these falsehoods out there for the last quarter century.


For that matter, he and a few others, but mostly he keeps bringing up the "sanctioning body" idea, and that has never been true.  He keeps bringing up ASGCA as restricting trade, which is also false.


We are just a group of professional architects who believe in the value of an association for education (with such diverse entry points, there is that need) and supporting golf and golf courses.  Yes, the fraternal aspects are important (We beat each other's brains out for jobs 51 weeks a year, and then get together 1 week a year to laugh about it) but Mike's characterization of ASGCA, or any other professional group as "frat boys" is really off base as well.


Again, I hate to waste bandwidth to correct the record, even if Mike says "It's just for fun" but in the age of social media, it feels like you need to defend yourself and quickly.  And, if Mike's past history here holds, he may come back and say he just posted that to get a rise out of me.....Believe me, this isn't a rise, it is just giving my opinion and correcting the non-facts on his topic as a member of this board.


Carry on......

Jeff,
Good to hear from you. Sorry if I was incorrect there.  Nice of them to remove the "ASGCA only phrase" around 2000. But I will have to hold to my thought of "fraternal" more than "professional" aspect. 
A municpality either calls ASGCA and gets a contract or perhaps has an old one to use as the basis of an RFP.  They don't come up with that requirement on their own IMHO. 
Nothing personal..I understand where you are coming from.  I wasn't even going to send a bid until I saw that requirement so I'm gonna play with this one for a while. But I would never bore, badger or whine at a municipality...I will do it politely. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


25+ years is a pretty long time to hold on to something you have been told isn't true......


As far as the frat aspect, I wonder how any non-member would be in a position to know?  I agree that that our meetings are a great venue to get together and talk with others of similar mindsets (no offense to this website, but there are many discussions that are way off base from reality of what happens in the profession). 


That said, I am in my current position to improve ASGCA to make it better for members and potential members.  Hey, I even reach out to other gca's when they need help with a particular aspect of the profession, so we even help the entire profession as we can. 

[Forrest Richardson]

“Here we go again” tells you a lot about Mike’s frustration, or more. ASGCA members welcome competition from non members. Most all of us are ‘fierce competitors’ at one time or another — but we’re also the greatest of friends, or at minimum, respectful of others who design.

I’m not sure why there is such suspicion on how ASGCA vets and determines members. It may have resembled a fraternity long ago, but those days are over. It’s a thoughtful process, and respects that golf architecture is nothing at all like a landscape architect, physician or home inspector. For that reason we use a combination of guidelines that include work completed, peer review, sponsors and ethics.

On the defense of the public entity involved, my instinct tells me that they are more protected requiring ASGCA membership than not. While there are many of immensely qualified non-members, that ‘group’ also includes run of the mill landscape architects, engineers and the occasional golf pro who thinks it’s an easy endeavor.

My encouragement would be to have the remaining holdoutps simply apply for membership. If not for this reason, then to support all the work ASGCA does working with the EPA, owners, builders and supporting education, awarding scholarships, etc. 

[Mike_Young]

“Here we go again” tells you a lot about Mike’s frustration, or more. ASGCA members welcome competition from non members. Most all of us are ‘fierce competitors’ at one time or another — but we’re also the greatest of friends, or at minimum, respectful of others who design.

I’m not sure why there is such suspicion on how ASGCA vets and determines members. It may have resembled a fraternity long ago, but those days are over. It’s a thoughtful process, and respects that golf architecture is nothing at all like a landscape architect, physician or home inspector. For that reason we use a combination of guidelines that include work completed, peer review, sponsors and ethics.

On the defense of the public entity involved, my instinct tells me that they are more protected requiring ASGCA membership than not. While there are many of immensely qualified non-members, that ‘group’ also includes run of the mill landscape architects, engineers and the occasional golf pro who thinks it’s an easy endeavor.

My encouragement would be to have the remaining holdoutps simply apply for membership. If not for this reason, then to support all the work ASGCA does working with the EPA, owners, builders and supporting education, awarding scholarships, etc.

Forrest,
To clarify, my issues are not with the individuals per se in the ASGCA.  I see it as a fading society needing dues paying members who would not have qualified 10 years ago in order to survive.  For a municipality to assume they are more protected requiring ASGCA membership than not is the core of my gripe with such a club as ASGCA.  And we really don't want to go there on suspicions of how they vet.  I'm fine to just let ASGCA be as long as they don't get in my way. 

Stop by if ever down this way...
Mike Y

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike — ASGCA has adjusted requirements ever since 1947 when assistants such as JB McGovern were among the early members/founders. The game changes — so, too, the way designers get trained and eventually get into the business. “Club” is a snarky word, but it doesn’t surprise me because you don’t know what you don’t know. I’ve always been very remorse that your interaction with ASGCA didn’t go well. I worked very hard to make change. Sorry you feel we have lowered standards. That’s not the case, but if you feel that way we have more work to do. I’d offer to write a letter to the muni who started this thread — but I’m concerned you would take that poorly. After all, it would just reinforce ASGCA as body of professionals who have a collective voice and get involved in all things golf design. Let me know though, I have a pen.

[Mike_Young]

Mike — ASGCA has adjusted requirements ever since 1947 when assistants such as JB McGovern were among the early members/founders. The game changes — so, too, the way designers get trained and eventually get into the business. “Club” is a snarky word, but it doesn’t surprise me because you don’t know what you don’t know. I’ve always been very remorse that your interaction with ASGCA didn’t go well. I worked very hard to make change. Sorry you feel we have lowered standards. That’s not the case, but if you feel that way we have more work to do. I’d offer to write a letter to the muni who started this thread — but I’m concerned you would take that poorly. After all, it would just reinforce ASGCA as body of professionals who have a collective voice and get involved in all things golf design. Let me know though, I have a pen.

Thanks for the offer Forrest but I can handle it.  As TD had said in an earlier post...I know better than to even deal with someone who would require such. Take care.

[Ben Malach]

To paraphase T.S. Eliot


"This is the way the ASGCA ends    Not with a bang but a whimper."

[Jeff_Brauer]

To paraphase T.S. Eliot


"This is the way the ASGCA ends    Not with a bang but a whimper."

ASGCA has more applications than I can recall in recent history, ranging from some older guys just wanting to join, semi old guys who had been hold outs for a while, and many younger practitioners, including some names you would know.


Your report of our death seems premature!

[Carl Rogers]

I happen to be an Architect (as in buildings).  Much of this thread reminds me of the controversies in my own field around licensing, AIA Membership & etc.


Why not just admit that all design fields are anything goes wild wild west free for all?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Carl,


You mentioned being an architect reminds me of a discussion on site where someone introduced the building architect as a "regular" architect, so I introduced myself as the "irregular" architect.


I agree that all design (and other fields) are certainly subject to free market competition, and anyone entering these fields who is afraid of competition should just pack it up before even starting.  Although, I like to say the only reason I got in was I started young enough not to know the reality of it, and my operating phrase was always, "What could possibly go wrong with this plan?"


It also seems to me that most architects I know (ASGCA or not, and myself sometimes included) tend to blame others when they lose a project that "should have been mine." I usually just figure I got outsold and needed to do better the next time.  Losing is always a disappointment.  Not being seriously considered and putting in RFQ's under a strong suspicion you are just adding to their numbers as also-ran.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I happen to be an Architect (as in buildings).  Much of this thread reminds me of the controversies in my own field around licensing, AIA Membership & etc.


Why not just admit that all design fields are anything goes wild wild west free for all?

Hi Carl
If a public/gov't entity wants a building designed what licensing or memberships are required of an architect to be hired?
How do those requirements differ from being a member of the ASGCA?


This has always been my understanding of Mike Young's principle argument and seemingly not how Jeff described how the ASGCA requirement was added to the boilerplate publicly funded rfq.

[Mike_Young]

I happen to be an Architect (as in buildings).  Much of this thread reminds me of the controversies in my own field around licensing, AIA Membership & etc.


Why not just admit that all design fields are anything goes wild wild west free for all?

Hi Carl
If a public/gov't entity wants a building designed what licensing or memberships are required of an architect to be hired?
How do those requirements differ from being a member of the ASGCA?


This has always been my understanding of Mike Young's principle argument and seemingly not how Jeff described how the ASGCA requirement was added to the boilerplate publicly funded rfq.

Mike,You described it much better than myself.

[Jeff_Brauer]

And now, here we go again seems like the more apt thread title......


The difference between building architects and engineers (and in many states, landscape architects) is that these professionals must be licensed, and have degrees in their field.  Golf architecture is so small, and golf courses are not prone to falling down like buildings and bridges, so not too many state agencies have gotten around to licensing that, although a few have tried.  In fact, they have failed in part because ASGCA lobbies hard against it, which actually has helped Mike Young and others who didn't have landscape architecture or engineering training (both members and non-members) even being allowed to practice golf course architecture.


Mike fancies himself as the curmudgeon here and likes to complain only about all the times he perceives that ASGCA trying to limit competition.  He does fill that role well......and probably complains even more about many other aspects of golf, like the USGA, and green committees, etc. so I always take his posts with a grain of salt.....


When I retired from practice and took this job, I was given a copy of the handbook of professional associations to read, and we are very aware of what we can and cannot legally do in regard to some of the issues Mike mentions, as opposed to someone off the street and on the net espousing their personal views. 


We aren't perfect. (like all humans )  I looked through some ASGCA historical documents and among the first things done in 1947-8 by two founding members was to use their own money to see if ASGCA could legally copyright the name "Golf Course Architect" for exclusive use by members.  The lawyers back then responded almost comically with a strong no.  So, this is another example of things never really changing a whole lot. Another big topic discussed at length in the first ASGCA meeting?  "The ball goes too far and we need to do something about it."


Professional societies of all types exist to educate members, improve and promote the game and profession, and bond together to defend against common issues that might affect the game or profession. For example, we were in Washington the other day for National Golf Day, recommending among other things (and with other golf agencies and groups) that certain government benefits freely given to other industries, but not golf, be broadened to include golf.  (I think the jargon is that golf is on the "sinners list" when it comes to most government grants.) 


Professional societies certainly aren't the "be all, end all" of anything, and the health of the profession mainly lies in the creative/technical abilities and ethics of the practitioners.  That said, there is value in what these associations and societies do.
At least, I have always thought so, and approximately proportionally to how Mike Young thinks they are not, LOL.  But hey, we are still friends, because that is just the kind of profession golf course architecture is... or for that matter, just how golf is.