[Tim_Weiman]

A family friend has just been appointed to the Green Committee at a private club. Not too long before the Committee engaged an architect to prepare a long range plan for the golf course. The architect came back with a proposal to spend about $3 million dollars. Key aspects of the plan include lengthening the course about 300 yards and doing so by completely revising the routing and eliminating two of the most interesting shots on the course which happen to be part of a short par 4 and a short par 3.

Digging into the background of the club, you find out that less than five percent of the members currently play the back tees which set up about 6,600 yards. Apparently, the 6,300 yard “white” tees provide sufficient challenge for all but a very small group of members. You also find out that, apparently, a few of these “long hitters” encouraged the architect to come up with something that would add significant length.

Concerned that the Green Committee might be moving too fast to spend a lot of money just to satisfy a small group of members, this family friend asks you to spend a day at the club reviewing the course and the proposed plan for changes. He makes clear he really wants to hear your opinion and expresses that he is open to your recommendation on finding a second architect’s opinion.

What would you do?
What would you look for on your visit to the club?
How might you select an architect for a second opinion?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I need to know what is behind the decisione to lenghthen the course.  Are they in need of new and younger members? Or is it simply an ego thing?  I definitely would get a second opinion before spending that much cash.
It is  a shame that so many people don't appreciate a good short par four.  It can be the most exciting hole on the course.  It is also the most difficult to design,  So when you have a good one don't mess with it.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy W:

From what I understand, membership is fairly healthy right now and the club is not actively seeking to add a significant number of new members.

Also, doesn't sound like it started out as an "ego" thing. Initially, the club felt it may need a bunker restoration program. However, the current leadership decided to engage an architect to develop a long range plan.

The architect they selected then prepared what he called "Long Term Improvement Plan/Restoration", so just the plan name itself made me nervous. Then, when I dug into it, I quickly discovered he proposed to re-do much of the entire course and eliminate what I always thought were the two best shots.

Somewhere along the way a few of the longer players got involved pushing a plan to lengthen the course. FYI, the course is basically a nice country club course, nothing special architecturally, but plenty challenging for most members and it was originally designed by two of the biggest names in golf architecture.

[cary lichtenstein]

Without more information than you have already given about the motives of the individuals behind this change, let's creep into the mind of one member on the long range planning committee:

"It's a shame that our course is so boring. Short, straight forward, oval greens, oval shallow sand traps, nothing that gets your heart racing even 3 or 4 extra beats.

"I love playing Pebble Beach, with its diverse holes, special traps on 4, 7, 8, 11,17. I wish there were a way, that we could change our course, angle some greens and give to the members the challenge of some of the elements of great course design. Maybe we could even copy Augusta's 12 hole and Pebbel 17th green.

"Ooops, I'm getting carried away again. Maybe the best way to approach this is to form a long range plannng commitee, select an architect and ask him to look at our course, and make it into a real course. I will tell him that while this can never be a great course because it lacks the length, but why not give to the members, a course that has beautiful greens complexes, sand traps, elevation change within our existing corridors, etc.

"I am sure that the membership will love this new course when its done. While they are average golfers today, if we give them something very special, they will understand"

Sooooooooooo, maybe our member has very good intensions!

Maybe, the new architect has been given this type of "to do", and he is responding to it with the master $3 million dollar long range plan.

If the members of the club can afford this type of expense, this could be a very good project. The again, maybe this is all a dream.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tim- The last thing you said, is the most important. One of the two biggest archies in da biz. Assuming it's a donald ross, I would want to ask the archie, why he thinks his routing will be better? Just for 300 extra yards? A million/100 yards. In my favorite hooker line from Vegas,"how much is that a piece"? 10k a yard.

The first thing that was obvious from your post was that the project isn't necessary and will actually decrease the quality of golf. If you can confirm that the decision is a "no brainer". I would at least try to go through and see what shots the new routing will offer. Perhaps there will be more better shots available, maybe not.

Save the money for a rainy day or when the club hits leaner times and/or loss of memebership thru attrition.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

FIRST
I would go to the club and spend at least a day without reviewing the proposal.  If need be, go there again and again until you have a firm grasp on the architecture.

SECOND
I would research, as best you can, to see what changes have been made to the original course and why ?

THIRD
I would spend the day reading the recommendations and reviewing the schematics.

FOURTH
I would spend a day or more back on the golf course in the context of further evaluating the merits or demerits of the plan.

Is part of the Architect's compensation package a percentage of construction or project cost's ?

If so, is this incentive to spend in the club's best interest ?
And, if the architect was paid a larger, flat fee, would his plan be different ?  (tough answer to get at this stage)

If a club is willing to spend $ 3,000,000 for radical surgery they should be willing to spend $ 25,000 - $ 40,000 for a second opinion.

Was the first architect unduly influenced by a special interest group, or was he left in a vacuum to come up with suggestions independent of any factions within the club ?

I think you have to go through a thorough discovery process to get a handle on how matters evolved to their present state.  Independent of that you have to do the lab and field work I described above, and you have to sense whether the club has the tolerance and finances to engage in seeking second, or third opinions.

Good luck.

P.S.  You knew the answer to this question before you asked
        it.  

[ian]

Tim,

Go review the course with your family friend and give your honest opinion. Look at the proposal and give your opinion on its merits. Your friend will propbaly use your judgement, with thier own, to make a decision on how they will proceed.

You can not engage another architect for thier opinion without telling the first architect that his/her services are no longer required. Ethics dictate that. You needed to do that during the interview process when that is known to all.

[Tim_Weiman]

Guys:

Thanks for all the feedback. This is a real situation. I'm trying to share as many details as possible, but I'm not authorized to disclose the club/course itself at this point. Let me try to respond to the points made.

Ian Andrew:

I'm not aware that the architect has been given any commitment at all. The club may or may not approve such a plan. It may or may not engage him to implement any such plan. It may or may not decide to get a second opinion, although it this point it seems likely that they are inclined to do so.

I share the sentiment of what you suggest. If a second opinion is requested, I would probably tell the first guy. That just seems like the proper thing to do.

Pat Mucci:

Point by point:

1) I've been invited to do so, but I can't exactly comply because I was first asked to read the proposal and also because I've played the course five or six times.

2) Needs to be done. However, apparently the history is one of frequently rotating Green Committees each leaving their own mark. Specifically, I'm told the history includes various changes to bunkers in a somewhat haphazard manner.

3) Will do again.

4) Ditto

Other: Again, it does sound like the club is at least inclined to get a second opinion. They get mine for free with the understanding that:

1) I approach it from a conservative perspective, i.e., I really think the entire proposal is a make work deal without merit for almost the entire membership.

2) I'm really only qualified to make some recommendations on who they might engage; I'm a student not an architect. However, it does seem as if the club is not tied into GCA nor are they even familiar will names they might be talking to.

Adam:

I won't confirm the name of the architect. The name is big, that's all I'll say. However, there is one interesting point: some members have apparently been convinced that the original architect did NOT fully utilize the natural features of the property. Having played the course, I'm not prepared to say that, but the person I spoke to did promise to explain exactly how they think natural features might be better utilized. So far all he said was that he preferred using a big ravine to create a long forced carry rather than have it deployed on the side of a couple holes.

Quasssi:

I'm not specifically aware of any dissatisfaction with the greens, although the architect's proposal would dig up and replace them all. It is not clear to me whether that is part of the orginal $3 million or part of a Phase 2. Personally, I always found the greens quite pleasant and tricky in a subtle way if not especially dramatic or memorable. In any case, to my knowledge at this point, complaints about the existing greens were not originally a driving force, but somehow the architect was moved to propose replacing them all.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

Are you sure that's the correct code of ethics?  And if it is, do you agree with it 100%?

This is one of my biggest problems with the whole renovation / restoration business.  A club interviews a handful of architects.  They may or may not know enough about the business to choose wisely.  Then the architect tells them they ought to do $3 M worth of work, and they have only two choices:  obey or fire him??

Doctors don't have a problem with getting a second opinion.  I can't understand why architects do.  (Actually, I can understand why ... it's not fair for a club to milk you for ideas for the first 10% of your fee and then go to someone else.)  On the other hand, if you've given them no hint of how much your proposal is going to cost, it seems like the client ought to get some chance to find out whether spending $3 million is really necessary.

Lots of architects recommend rebuilding all of the bunkers and all of the greens even if they're not changing anything.  Sad, but true.  At least two clubs we've consulted at were advised by the Green Section to rebuild their greens, for no earthly reason that I could understand.

So many people here trumpet the cause of renovation and restoration.  This is what you're wishing for.  Be very afraid!

[RJ_Daley]

I'm half-ass serious about this.  GCA.com ought to have a feature where all the pertinent information of the golf course in question and all of the proposed plan of remodelling in detail could be posted.  The club in need of "second opinions" should then make their course available to those GCA.comers that want to actually come and see the course and examine the proposed changes.  Then, those treehouse mavens could review the facts and render an ongoing series of diverse opinions about the merits of remodelling-restoring.  The club committee in question could then read all the responses and have a better idea of which way to procede.  For this rendering of lay-person amatuer opinions, the club could send a donation of a couple hundred dollars to Ran for the expense of running this site.  While the process could either help clarify or further confuse the club committee, compared to the kind of cash they propose to spend anyway, it would be money well spent to collect diverse ideas.

[Lou_Duran]

Dick,

Please!  Who really cares what you and I think?  Maybe you should suggest that each gca.com card-carrying member be retained and assigned several courses to "supervise" a portfolio of courses to ensure architectural purity.  The GCA Gods could make the assingments, and each of us would be "entitled" to part of the retainer in order to cover our travel expenses, green fees (no comps), and our opportunity costs.
 
All kidding aside, as an outsider to the club, assuming that I had the requisite skills to have anything to offer, I would tread very carefully.  If my friend was on the Green Committee, clearly understanding what his objective is for my involvement would be at the top of the list.  I am assuming that the engagement or request for assistance would not be in an official capacity.

Secondly, if he was just a renegade member, I may provide him with my insights if he was a very good friend, but would not want him to attribute them to me.  It is nearly impossible to understand what is really going-on from the outside.

I was under the impression that expenditures of this level are normally voted-on by the equity members.  I know that most of the big names in the industry are not in favor on this site, but could the chosen archie actually know what he is doing?  And if the members approve the changes within their by-laws, isn't that the way things are supposed to work?  I am assuming that the process allows for the dissenters to educate the unwashed masses.

If it is really important, what is to hold the member back from hiring an architect or a restoration specialist for a second opinion out of his own pocket?  There should not be an ethics problem in doing that, right?  I should think that the committee might not appreciate an end-around, but it would certainly carry more weight with the membership having somebody in the business make recommendations than a friend of a member.

And since the course was described as nothing special, is the loss of two good shots worth a big fight?  Maybe in the 300 yards added, three or four better ones are created (which might be pretty expensive on a per shot basis, but I suspect that the scope of the work is more substantial than that).    

 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I would think a second opinion is obviously in order. I think a good greens commitee would pay the architect a fee say $25,000 or so to coming up with the preliminary long range plans. Yes plural and the committee can go to the membership or amoung themselves descide which direction is best and then have the architect put forth a final version. Reversing a course is a major renovation and to me is beyond a traditional long range plan. I think long range plans are geared to letting a club implement  a series of changes or modic=fications to a course and dedicating the funding to pay for it. this allows for continuity in the changes over a 5 to 10 year period without  a major renovation that closes the course such as noted above.

[RJ_Daley]

All I'm saying is to expand the process that is already taking place, even on this unidentified golf course Tim has brought up.  Here we are, already discussing it, and we don't even know where or what this really is.  It is like expanding the discussion that insues in the bar-lounge after the formal committee meeting at the club anyway.  Just expanding the number of people in the discussion circle who are naturally passionate and somewhat knowlegeable about the issues due to their participation.  We have individuals that have actual experience in having gone throught similar processes at their own clubs.  We have participants that have varied levels of knowledge; yet probably we have more collective knowledge than their single committee.  Just more voices and opinions to consider.  That ought to be worth something...

[Tim_Weiman]

Lou Duran,

There is no question my involvement is "unofficial" as you put it. But, the Green Committee member has been a member of the club for about 25 years and this is approximately how long I have known this person.

My involvement is entirely at his initiative and he is well aware of my point of view. That is, he is well aware I strongly believe technology should be utilized to LOWER consumer costs not raise them as the golf industry seems inclined to do with its insane golf technology arms race.

This potential project interests me precisely because it is a microcosm of what I see wrong with golf in America today. While I don't approve of all the money spent to build things like that mountain (new tee) on #4 at Oakmont, at least people might argue that Oakmont involves a "championship" venue trying to maintain its heritage of being an extremely difficult test. That's not a good argument - a competition ball is a much more economical solution - but I'll leave that for another thread.

However, in this case the course has no pretense of greatness or "championship" status. It is a nice country club course plenty challenging for almost everyone accept, probably, 2-3 percent of the members. Why in the world would such a club spend $3 million or more to accommodate a small elite?

Dick Daley:

I'm trying to give enough details to rationally discuss the subject, but at this point I don't want to give away the course. Like Tom Paul, I'd like to see Golfclubatlas become more a resource for club to utilize when considering projects like this, but reasonable confidentiality concerns have to be respected. While I strongly disagree with the thrust of the proposal, I certainly have no interest in embarrassing anyone or setting an example that would only make discussions of such topics on GCA more unlikely.

Tom Doak,

I agree with you that the club should not be left with the choice between spending $3 million dollars or doing nothing at all. My perception is that the Green Committee isn't especially sophisticated and doesn't include any serious golf architecture students. As a result, I think they were a bit in awe of this architect - who happens to be nobody special at all, a name I don't believe has ever been discussed on GCA, though he is a former associate of a fairly big name.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Ah, so the club lacks a visionary, on his mounted steed, leading the way.

How can a rudderless ship find its course ?

You can help, but the problem is that most people view free advice as being worth what they pay for it.

The first step would seem to be identifying the original architect.

The second step would seem to be deciding between a restoration or modernization.

But, without knowledgeable leaders, perhaps St Jude should be consulted.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci,

The original architect is known and is a big name. As for deciding between restoration and modernization, you might say that is where they are at. They've got one proposal, one that involves spending a lot of money.

As for "helping", I'm willing to spend one full day with a friend that goes back 25 years and is actually pretty close. At that point, I'd be inclined to make a recommendation on consulting a second opinion. I can play friendly advisor, but that's it. I'm not the the doctor (architect)!

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

One more thing. Yes, you could probably say the club lacks a visionary or that it is a rudderless ship.

But, I have my doubts that is such an unusual thing. Again, that's what makes the situation interesting. This isn't a Top 100 course everyone would immediately be interested in. It's just a fairly nice place with a course that probably doesn't merit more than a 4 on the Doak scale - 5 at the very most.

So, with such sites, does spending millions of dollars to accommodate a small group of members make sense?

Why not go find some old balata balls (circa 1990) or some circa 1970 persimmon drivers to give this group the "challenge" they seek?

Alternatively, one could put the matter to vote:

Question #1:

Do you mind if a select group of members provides about $3 million dollars of their own money to "modernize" the golf course?

Question #2:

Please indicate how much money, IF ANY, you are willing to contribute to the project.

[ian]

Tom,

"Are you sure that's the correct code of ethics?"

If they have hired the architect to do a master plan, it is not right for me or another architect to go into the club to consult. The club doesn't have to except the origional master plan, they may say thanks for the plan, but we're going to ask somebody else to have a look because they're not certain that is the way they should go. The origional architect must be notified with a letter and the club moves on to the next architect. This is how I work and what I concider to be ethical.

"This is one of my biggest problems with the whole renovation / restoration business.  A club interviews a handful of architects.  They may or may not know enough about the business to choose wisely.  Then the architect tells them they ought to do $3 M worth of work, and they have only two choices:  obey or fire him??"

They have three choices:
1. go ahead
(this can be one small project to act as a trial for the club to revaluate)
2. ask the architect to concider another approach
3. tell the architect they need to move on

"Doctors don't have a problem with getting a second opinion.  I can't understand why architects do."

Tell you what, send me your latest routing of the Ireland project and I'll send back my comments
I like to ask other architects their opinion or suggestions, but I don't want another architect coming on one of my courses making suggestions of what should be done. That goes back to courtesy and ethics.

  "(Actually, I can understand why ... it's not fair for a club to milk you for ideas for the first 10% of your fee and then go to someone else.)"

They paid you for your work, that becomes their right.

  "On the other hand, if you've given them no hint of how much your proposal is going to cost, it seems like the client ought to get some chance to find out whether spending $3 million is really necessary."

The scale of renovation should have been discussed upon the first meeting and again after the first walk around. The architect knows what they want to accomplish. The club also has to take responsibility to provide the architect with a little direction on this end too.

"Lots of architects recommend rebuilding all of the bunkers and all of the greens even if they're not changing anything."

Someone asked me what was the best question they could ask an architect in an interview if they wanted to get an architect who was sympathetic to their history. My response, "Ask the architect if he has ever recommended a  club to change nothing on a visit" It shows that architecture is more important than money.

I think architects have to respect one another. It doesn't mean we can't criticize each others work, but it should mean we don't try to steal existing clients. I personally think the interview process should involve brain picking to find out the architects direction, if the club does this well, they will have few suprises in the process.

[ian]

Dick,

"GCA.com ought to have a feature where all the pertinent information of the golf course in question and all of the proposed plan of remodelling in detail could be posted"

I'm pretty good at accounting, and like to play the market too. I think that you should send me all your household statements and investments so that I can have a look. I'll give you my recommendations on how you should allocate your home finance; and should be able to put you onto some good stocks too.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian,

Those were well thought out responses, and I understand your side of a lot of them.  But I think the premise is still wrong.

I've never liked when someone interviewing for a new course asks the candidates to draw up routing plans.  I haven't met a client yet who could really evaluate the merits of the various plans generated.  More likely they're going to judge who wants the work the most, or who's too busy to mess with it (which may be a plus in the selection process), or who has the prettiest graphics.

At the same time, some architects use this "ethics" thing to stop others from interviewing.  I've had people declare that they "have the job," when in fact they are not under contract at all ... they've just done a little free work to stick their foot in the door and keep others at bay.  So I'll ask the client directly whether they have a guy under contract.  If they do, I won't pursue it.

Renovation work is a bit different, to my thinking.  Now we're not solely talking about creative work ... it's much more akin to surgery, and there is certainly such a thing as unnecessary surgery.  The problem is, in architecture, it's a bit more subjective than in medicine.

I don't think any architect should be "under contract" to a club for renovation work, to the point the club can't ask for a second opinion.  The club has paid their $25K for the master plan, and it's done; I think if they have doubts about the recommendations, they should be able to talk with someone else.  The original architect should certainly be notified first, as you suggest, so perhaps we're not far off on that point.  

Perhaps it would be a good idea to ask a second opinion from someone who DIDN'T want the work, who would restrict comment to whether the proposal was reasonable and necessary, instead of offering their own ideas in an attempt to get the job.  If all architects really kept a code of courtesy and ethics, though, you wouldn't have to worry about whether this would happen.

A lot of your response is based on the assumption that the club knows what it is doing ... that they ran a good interview process, were careful to check up on the architect they chose, and made adequate inquiries about potential costs.  Either that, or "caveat emptor."  

I don't know about you, but my experience is that a lot of clubs are totally clueless about the process, but once they have found out more they feel like they can't go back and reassess.  On a lot of the consulting work we've done, we're going in to undo something fairly recent, and the people often tell us they knew they were on the wrong track when the work was being done ... they just didn't know how to say "stop"!

I'm not suggesting that architects should be going around stealing other's clients, to borrow (or steal!) your phrase.  And there's a fine line, as we know better than most people ... there's always some member who disagrees with what's being done, and he may informally ask an architect a second opinion, which can lead to all kinds of trouble.  (That's one of the reasons I seldom go out to see anyone else's renovation work ... if I don't think it's perfect, I can't say so without starting an ethics investigation.)

But if a club does ask for a second opinion, I think there ought to be a way to get one.

As to people from GCA giving a second opinion, a lot of them seem to be hanging out a shingle ... fortunately, Tim is the one who was asked, and I know he understands the politics well enough to appreciate what's at stake.

[Tim_Weiman]

Ian,

Honestly, it sounds like your code of ethics has the interests of the architect in mind, but not the people paying the bills. My sense of the situation thus far is what I’ve already stated: a small group of members apparently want a longer course and the Green Committee appears to have very little background to evaluate the first (expensive) proposal they have received.

Given that a significant member assessment would be required to finance such a proposal, it seems only prudent to secure a second (or third) opinion. Any code of ethics has to have the interests of all parties involved – not just the architect.

Tom Doak described my sense of where the club is. There is a train going down the track. A select group of members was dazzled by the proposal, but it least one Green Committee member – and some of his closest friends (who are also long term members) – want to step back a bit, in part because he candidly admits he doesn’t know how to evaluate such a proposal.

Getting involved is certainly not something I pursued. The personal relationship is close and if it turns out to be a big political football, I doubt I’d even want to recommend a name for them to speak to. But, if they are serious about re-thinking the overall direction, then I wouldn’t mind facilitating contacts.

One other thing: this club recently spent a fair amount of money on an irrigation system. While the proposal would utilize much of the existing routing, even the irrigation project would have to be re-done, to some extent.

Slowing down a bit and getting a professional second opinion seems like the prudent thing to do – especially for a group that didn’t even seem to realize they could do so. If my coaching just accomplishes that, I won’t feel bad at all.

[corey miller]

It seems to me that the architect has already been well compensated for his time.  I do not see what could possibly be ethically wrong with an other architect looking at the course and making recommendations as to what they would do.  They do not have to see the first plan.

Are the ethics of the first architect beyond reproach?  Who and how does one determine if he followed the club's mandate?  

I know of one master plan where the hired architect, knowing the club is sensitive to the length issue, (6500 yards) stated that the course now plays 650 yards shorter than intended, and also that he had measured it himself and it was even shorter then the stated yardage.  Result 15 new tees for 240 added yards.

[ian]

Tom,

We as a policy do not offer routing plans without being paid for it.

"So I'll ask the client directly whether they have a guy under contract.  If they do, I won't pursue it."

I call that ethical.

"The problem is, in architecture, it's a bit more subjective than in medicine."

Well put!

"Perhaps it would be a good idea to ask a second opinion from someone who DIDN'T want the work, who would restrict comment to whether the proposal was reasonable and necessary, instead of offering their own ideas in an attempt to get the job.  If all architects really kept a code of courtesy and ethics, though, you wouldn't have to worry about whether this would happen."

Tom, this is an interesting idea, but is scary too. It would be very tough to be the architect to be put under this scrutiny, especially if the reviewing architect was not like minded.
It still is worth looking at though.

"A lot of your response is based on the assumption that the club knows what it is doing"

It might be because my approach is generally fairly light, so I might have some trouble relating to this. I have a tendency to try work at courses I already like.

"On a lot of the consulting work we've done, we're going in to undo something fairly recent"

I think part of that is that until recent times modernization still dominated the renovation side of the business. But I can relate to that comment.

"That's one of the reasons I seldom go out to see anyone else's renovation work ... if I don't think it's perfect, I can't say so without starting an ethics investigation.)
But if a club does ask for a second opinion, I think there ought to be a way to get one."

I like seeing other restorations becuse I find it encouraging.

Nothing ethical about criticism, and this is where I strongly disagree with the ASGCA policy of limiting criticism between architects. Criticism (from peers) is a healthy way to learn, it may be a tough pill to swallow at the time; but it certainly is hard to ignore the message.

I'm enjoying your respones, it is an interesting area that rarely gets talked about.

[ian]

Tim,

I only said that the architect be notified that a second opinion is being sought, that is called courtesy. I have not questioned the idea of a second opinion, or a second architect.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm pretty good at accounting, and like to play the market too. I think that you should send me all your household statements and investments so that I can have a look. I'll give you my recommendations on how you should allocate your home finance; and should be able to put you onto some good stocks too.

Ian, that sounds fantastic and I will be all ears as to any recommendations you might have.  In fact, if any other folks on this site are as passionate about the world of investment management, and love to discuss and exchange investment ideas, I would love to hear them, exactly in the same manner as if we met in a tavern and kicked some ideas around.  I will then have just that many more ideas to EVALUATE.  And, I have no prerequisite that you or any others have a CFA, CFP, either.  I know of a lot of CFAs, FCs, CFPs etc., that have those degrees that haven't made any better calls than private investors that are just diligent and passionate about the subject.  ALL of this can be applied to the sentiments I'm trying to express about clubs seeking out a variety of other viewpoints, from not necessarily a credentialed and degreed group, but a sincerely interested and in some cases similarly experienced group.  I'd rather shop around in the market place of ideas, than strictly in the streets and establishments where the shingles are hung...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()