What are the top ten mistakes that green committees make ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recently played an old AWT golf course and was amazed at the extent of the negative impact that changes by various green committees had on the golf course.

What are the top ten mistakes that green committees make ?

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

First and foremost, agreeing to go on the committee in the first place.

[Kyle Harris]

In no particular order:

1. Tree addition
2. Bunker additions
3. Bunker simplification (or outright removal)
4. Through neglect, allowing greens to shrink
5. Poorly chosen teeing ground locations
6. Not doing homework on agronomic issues (particularly with greenness of grass and green speeds)
7. Not preserving interesting contours in greens or fairways
8. Fairway shrinkage
9. Focusing on non-pertinent issues (like mowing patterns, etc.)
10. Allowing ego to influence decisions on the above

[HamiltonBHearst]

Not getting educated enough to even serve on the committee. This website could be a wonderful resource in this regard.

[Craig Sweet]

Taking their role to seriously.

[Robert_Ball]

Not getting full consensus of the membership

[Kyle Harris]

Robert Ball,

I don't think it's possible to always get full consensus of every group, let alone a golf club membership. I do agree that committees should be more cognizant of their membership, but often times there are very extreme ends to opinions.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Do you think the mistake of ever listening to or ever taking serously Tom MacWood or anything he says has made the top ten yet?  

[Robert_Ball]

Kyle,

By consensus I merely mean that they arrive at decisions that are acceptable by the majority of the membership.  The larger the membership is, the more attention needs to be paid to balancing the individual interests and opinions within the committee.

[Andrew Summerell]

Not employing an architect to do re-design work. This happens more than people think.

[Jim Thompson]

here goes-

1. trying to compete against other clubs rather than making the best of theirs
2. thinking speed is the answer to anything
3. not asking they guy in the dirt before making any decisions
4. trying to live by a fixed method or budget in an environment that is weather dependent -grass is a crop and a super is a farmer
5. line item managing a budget
6. not saying no to other members who want something because they lost the yada yada cup last month because they hit into a feature
7. thinking green and or lush is the answer to anything
8. ornamentals, ornamentals, ornamentals - ornaments go on christmas trees and christmas trees don't go on golf courses
9. trynig to make a craftsman be a bookkeeper or a bookkeeper a craftsman when it comes to a super - pick one - very few are both
10. not enforcing cart usage policies or not developing said policies with the super

Cheers!

JT

[cary lichtenstein]

The biggest mistake is having a greens committee in the first place

[Nate Golomb]

Let's see...

-Again thinking green and soft turf is the answer...it may look good to some but in reality quite artificial

-Responding/Changing to member or public complaints of green speed, rough length, etc....Response should = "Hit it harder if you think they're slow." or "Don't hit it in the rough, that's what the fairway's for."  

-Failing to direct cart traffic to proper areas

-Raking bunkers more than once/week or two weeks  

-This one really gets me...Mentioning to golf shop staff that you think you may run out of hole locations on greens averaging about 10,000 square feet if they are to be changed five days/week...

Oh and slightly off topic - More golfers, including myself, should walk instead of riding...

~The New Guy (Nate)

[Philip Gawith]

- removing quirkiness in order to conform to modern norms of what is the right way to do things.
- succumbing to the illusion that "difficult" is "good".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle,

By consensus I merely mean that they arrive at decisions that are acceptable by the majority of the membership.  The larger the membership is, the more attention needs to be paid to balancing the individual interests and opinions within the committee.

Robert,

Should a referendum be initiated for each and every green committee decision to get membership approval ?

[HamiltonBHearst]

Probably too much turnover on the committee's also.  How long do people generally serve?  One person with no clue over 20 years probably makes less mistakes than 10 people with no clue over 20 years.  

Pat

What structure do you think works best?  Please throw out the benevolent dictator that was green chairman from the clubs beginning.  Are you familiar with any club that with much turnover in the position finnally settled upon one person because of their superior knowledge and ability to implement positive change?

[Lester George]

The biggest problem I see is that each person on the committee tries to interpret their situation, their game, their observations into any decision without looking at the BIG PICTURE.  By the time a golf course architect is engaged, they already have a disjointed laundry list of "their" problems, which sometimes overlook the basic needs.  

Too single minded.  Not enough knowledge.  Not enough time to serve and stay on any one issue lonf enough to solve it.

Lester

[SL_Solow]

It is probably easier (at least for me) to define what a committee ought to do.  If it ventures beyond its defined role, it will likely be making a mistake.  Role of the committee;  
                 1.  Select qualified professionals including the greenkeeper and, if appropriate, a consulting architect.  2.  Set the budget.  3.  Establish expectations for course conditions in consultation with the greenkeeper.  4. Educate the membership with regard to the expectations and also with regard to their expected behaviour in helping to maintain course conditions.  5.  Act as a clearing house for member complaints/comments.  Allow the greenkeeper to do his job without having to deal with problem members whenever possible.  6.  Work with the architect to make certain that plantings as well as maintenace practices (e.g. mowing patterns) are consistent with course design.        

[Patrick_Mucci]

Probably too much turnover on the committee's also.

Pat

Pat

What exactly is a "committe's also" and how is it different from anyone else's "also"?

Redanman,

How the F__K should I know?

Ask Hamilton B Hearst, the author of the quote.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fellows,

I didn't ask what mistakes individual committee members make.

I asked what mistakes the committee tends to make.

[Phil_the_Author]

I can't believe that I am about to disagree with everyone and everything written so far, but I am. I don't believe a green committee makes a mistake in doing, not ever. Their mistakes are always based upon WHY they feel something should be done.

For example, on the surface, the suggestions that a common mistake is in "Allowing greens to shrink" is a good one, but what if the reason for doing so makes this decision correct?

During the late years of the Depression and through WW II, one of the great clubs of the world, Winged Foot, was faced with a decision - either shrink the greens and save a lot of maintenance money, or ALLOW THE EAST COURSE TO GO FALLOW! Fortunately, the green committee, and the club, chose to "shrink the greens" otherwise the fabulous Green Course might not be here today!

It isn't the action but the decision-making process behind it that makes it a good or bad, wrong or correct one.

That is why I think the question is wrong on its face. Sorry Pat.

[Brad Klein]

Pat, green committees are absolutely crucial, as are good chairpersons. I think a club w/o them loses a vital means of communication and in the pocess, the superintendent loses a vital means of enablement and support.

Green committees need to develop continuity. The chair must come from within and rise up through an internal process of socialization rather than being imposed from without annually by a new president. There should be partial turnover on the committeee each year, and terms of 2-3 years so that some learning can take place.

Green committees need to be advocates of the golf course. They need to set aside their egos, their games. They need to attend GCAA meetings, read, spend time in the maintenance shop, and become advocates of the golf course, of equipment, of capital improvement. They are not design committees. Other than any isolated issues relevant to conditioning, they should not be involved in bunker relocation, cart paths, tree plantings, etc. That all ought to be part of longterm Master Planning.

Green committee ought to representa cross-section of membership - all classes and types of players.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Pat's question is a good one.  Sorry Phil, there is a correct answer.  I think many on this site would rather figure out a way to get an invite to Old Sandwich than discuss such things.

[Kyle Harris]

I can't believe that I am about to disagree with everyone and everything written so far, but I am. I don't believe a green committee makes a mistake in doing, not ever. Their mistakes are always based upon WHY they feel something should be done.

For example, on the surface, the suggestions that a common mistake is in "Allowing greens to shrink" is a good one, but what if the reason for doing so makes this decision correct?

During the late years of the Depression and through WW II, one of the great clubs of the world, Winged Foot, was faced with a decision - either shrink the greens and save a lot of maintenance money, or ALLOW THE EAST COURSE TO GO FALLOW! Fortunately, the green committee, and the club, chose to "shrink the greens" otherwise the fabulous Green Course might not be here today!

It isn't the action but the decision-making process behind it that makes it a good or bad, wrong or correct one.

Phil,

I think the nature of the question is based in "when Green Committees don't do right, what goes wrong?" I am sure there are instances, like at Bethpage, where necessary cut backs were implemented.

What about instances where the resources are available and things go bad because of neglect or laziness?

I believe that to be more in the nature of the post.

The whole point of the committee, at least in ideal circumstances, is to take the bad reasoning (the why) and make sure it doesn't become the action (the doing). Therefor, I feel it reasonable to criticize the action for wrong reasons, just as much as the reasoning.

Acting on bad reasoning is a fault of the committee, no?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

What structure do you think works best?  Please throw out the benevolent dictator that was green chairman from the clubs beginning.  

There may be multiple structures that work best, and each may be specific to the circumstances at each individual club.

On one hand, a small committee may be the most efficient.
On another hand, a larger committee comprised of many board members might be the most likely to accomplish their goals, irrespective of their merit.

I used to believe that a committee and especially its Chairman needed to be seated for five to six years.

Then another thought came to me.
Perhaps, committees with short longevities did the least amount of damage to the golf course.  And, that their rapid revolving door nature forced them to focus on conditioning and not hairbrained alterations to the golf course just to suit their perception of the architecture's interaction with their golf game.

One also has to consider the willingness of members to commit the time and effort necessary to be good, contributing committee members.  Many offer lip service, few are willing to serve, and even fewer are willing to serve with no pre-ordained or acquired agenda.

Another problem for a green committee is the club's governing nature.  Do they turn over the Presidency and Board every two years or is there greater stability and continuity, and how does that impact the green committee.  Remember, most Presidents like to appoint the committee Chairs and have their people in power, hence conflicts or political struggles can help or harm the golf course.

In order to properly serve on a green committee, or any committee or a Board several things have to exist.

# 1  A love for the entity
# 2  The willingness to put in the necessary time and effort
# 3  The subjugation of your self interests for the best
       interests of the club-golf course

If I were Chairman, in a perfect world:

I would seek those individuals who I believe have the time, knowledge, interest and love of the golf course and appoint them as the overseers of the golf course, hoping that future and/or maturing members would join their ranks as they became eligible-qualified.

I think this may be easier to achieve at a GOLF club as opposed to a COUNTRY CLUB.[/color]

Are you familiar with any club that with much turnover in the position finnally settled upon one person because of their superior knowledge and ability to implement positive change?

I do know of one club that did this, however, I think it was more by default in that he was a superior player and the only one with a smattering of knowledge about the game, agronomy and architecture.  I don't know that I would view the changes he implemented as positive, but, the members seemed happy at the time.[/color]