Kelly,
"I think the organization needs to serve its members needs, but more importantly it needs to serve the needs of the game, architecture and the game are intertwined, you really should not separate one from the other, and therefore in any endeavor the organization should always ask if whatever lobbying they do is it in the best interest of the game."
I think ASGCA does that, by assisting in making courses more environmentally friendly, tackling affordable golf, etc.
"This would involve actively participating in issues like technology and equipment, maintenance standards and stimp meters, etc. They may very well tackle these issues in forceful ways, but that to me are some of the items of greater priority rather than designing programs to just help their members get jobs. I think someone refered to the Remodeling U as just such a program. I don't know if that is true or not. "
ASGCA has members sitting on the USGA implements committee. Damian Pascusso as President took a forceful stand on rolling the ball back. Say what you will about remodel U, its intent is to educate greens committees (just as the USGA does with its seminars) so they make better decisions.
"Frankly, I think an organization that must be neutral on some of the issues that most concern golfers like technology and maintenance costs can not be as effective as an organization that has members who share a particular design philosophy, that to me would be a more energizing and effective organization, and typically those types of organizations are more loose and informal, but still can be more influential on important issues as compared to some large organization that must be all inclusive of many view points. "
Yes, we must be neutral on some things. For instance, I doubt that within the golf world that the "technology issue" is proven to affect the average golfer as much as some intellectuals assume. As noted, we have input to the USGA, although obviously no final say.
Our members specifically take pride in their differing design philosphies! Small groups, like the Donald Ross Society can pursue their own agendas, which are more limited by definition. We will never be a "restoration society" because its only a small part of design.
In the end, I, having been involved in ASGCA know we have done many things. Are we perfect? Of course not. Do we have some inherent limitations, including lack of funds, number of members, and differing view points? Of course, yes. But it does rankle my feathers when someone posts here about what we "ought to be doing" or what we don't do, etc. without really knowing, just spouting off.
PS - when talking about the RFP, I wrote the ASGCA 'standard" RFP, intended to give first time owners a guide (to be tailored to their needs) on how to look for the proper qualifications of a gca. I think it does that quite well in laying out a solid process.
Did I include hiring an ASGCA member in the standard text? You bet! But, as noted, I rarely see it enforced, and it certainly is not binding on the Owner who obtains it from ASGCA, as we expect them to modify it. In that way, doesn't the document enhance the game, by helping Owners make a more intelligent decision?