Is democracy the problem ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've seen so many clubs alter their golf course everytime a new President, Board or Green Chairman takes office.

Good golf holes get altered, alterations get altered, restorations get renovated, renovations get modernized, and so it goes, on and on, constantly changing the golf course.

In reading TEPaul's posts about the "maintainance meld" and the "ideal" maintainance meld, and the progress his club is making in trying to strive for the "ideal" maintainance meld.

How long before a new group decides, "out with the old, in with the new"

Is the democratic form of governance that exists at most clubs the culprit behind all of these changes ?

Do clubs that tend to be run by dictators present more stability with respect to their golf courses ?

Do dictatorships preserve the architectural integrity of golf courses while democracies bastardize them ?

[TEPaul]

"Do dictatorships preserve the architectural integrity of golf courses while democracies bastardize them?"

Obviously one cannot generalize about something like that as evidenced by dictatorships at perhaps America's two most famous courses---PVGC and ANGC.

On the one hand, the 50 year dictator of PVGC pretty much practiced a "hands off" philosophy with his course's architecture while the decades long dictator at ANGC set in motion with his course's architecture what has fairly been termed the "Michael Jackson" of GCA.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I'll take a democracy over a dictatorship, they have constitutions. A simple precept, designed to preserve and protect the integrity of a course, could be added to a club's 'constitution'. There might be some heavy lifting needed to get a majority of the members on the same page but, if successful, the long term preservation of the course would become paramount. It would also help define the 'culture' of the club as it relates to the course, something you are a proponent of.

   

[Steve Pieracci]

I agree with no dictators.  At one club that I know, one of the co-owners had a bunker reworked simply because his skills were not good enough for him to escape from the bunker.  

[PThomas]

depends who the dictator is!

[Jay Flemma]

...the problem is every committeee member watches too much freakin TV golf!!!

Then they think..."I can now exercise power" without stopping to wonder if exercising it in the first place is a good idea.

I keep coming back to those "Ricco Trees" as I call 'em.

1980...republican wins mayor of utica

weeks later...all republicans replace all democrats on "city public golf commission" which runs local muni...all the poeple are politicians WIVES...who know less about golf than cooking and less still about golf design.

Biggest mouth dominates committee, build trees to guard approaches to greens, refuses to listen to anybody when they say "Uh, those trees are gonna GROW..."

Now you gotta hit a low hook from the properside of the fairway and hit a miracle shot from anywhere else to hold the greens...especially the one that flows ANY form the player and was designed to accept a wedge, not a hook 6 iron...

eight years later, a new bunch of chumps comes in...

[Chris Kane]

Patrick, what is it about a benevolent dictatorship that you find so alluring?  Such a governance structure is extraordinarily hit-and-miss.  

It would work perfectly if you have the right man (or woman) in charge, but how do you ensure that happens?  All a club needs is one leader who gets it wrong (ie. Augusta National) and the integrity of the course is threatened.  At least in a democratic structure, the Chairman/Captain/President is able to be held accountable.

Obviously benevolent dictatorship has worked very well at PVGC, but who is to know what the next dictator will be like?  Democracy has its own set of problems, but it can't be too bad if your country (and mine) are spending billions of dollars trying to export it elsewhere.  

[Rick Shefchik]

A William Fownes-type dictator might be acceptable; in most cases, however, I'd prefer to let a little light into the boardroom.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

1. Seeking middle ground or compromise.
2. Getting the most bang for the buck.

Maybe these are symptons of democratic rule.  In any case these two items do the most harm.

[archie_struthers]

 

From my perspective, most of the great clubs are dictatorships, whether it be one guy or a small cadre of power members that run the ship.

All too often new boards want to leave a legacy!!!

Just the opposite of my political philosophy, where no one should get elected to a second term at any office. My grandfather was right. Vote them in, then get them out!!!

[Steve Lapper]

"Democracy and a great golf club are mutually exclusive!" "Agreed!"

Said verbatim at one of the NY Area's top 5 courses to the new greens committee chairman by the outgoing club President.

Good Timing....

PM me if you want hear the rest of the conversation.

[Doug Siebert]

Democracy isn't the problem, unless by democracy you mean that anytime 51% of the membership agrees on something it will get done.  There's no reason a club couldn't put in their charter/constitution something other for changes to the course.  Maybe unanimous consent of the greens committee along with 80% of the general membership?  That ought to keep things moving slowly enough while still having room to make changes almost everyone feels are necessary.

Just think how the budget deficit problem in the US could be solved if we just passed an amendment saying that it requires 2/3 vote in both houses for new spending, but only 1/3 vote for spending cuts.  Just add in some type of very simple flattish tax where the rate(s) can't be controlled by politicans but get automatically adjusted each year such that it will cover our spending plus some amount towards the debt (like minimum payments on a credit card) and we'd get out from under the national debt in our lifetimes.

"Pure democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what to eat for
dinner." -- Benjamin Franklin, on why the US is a Republic and not a Democracy

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, what is it about a benevolent dictatorship that you find so alluring?  Such a governance structure is extraordinarily hit-and-miss.  

It would work perfectly if you have the right man (or woman) in charge, but how do you ensure that happens?  All a club needs is one leader who gets it wrong (ie. Augusta National) and the integrity of the course is threatened.  At least in a democratic structure, the Chairman/Captain/President is able to be held accountable.

Obviously benevolent dictatorship has worked very well at PVGC, but who is to know what the next dictator will be like?  Democracy has its own set of problems, but it can't be too bad if your country (and mine) are spending billions of dollars trying to export it elsewhere.  

Chris,

Dictators at golf clubs aren't born, they're groomed.

They come to their position with experience, having been selected and tutored by their predecessor.

I also make a distinction between owners of a club and dictators at member owned clubs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Democracy isn't the problem, unless by democracy you mean that anytime 51% of the membership agrees on something it will get done.  

There's no reason a club couldn't put in their charter/constitution something other for changes to the course.  

Even if it's in the by-laws, they get forgotten over time, and, there are ways around them.[/color]

Maybe unanimous consent of the greens committee along with 80% of the general membership?  

This statement alone disqualifies you in this area.
You can't get unanimous consent on the time of day with a green committee, let alone substantive issues, except in one instance and one instance only.   When you have a green committee of ONE.

80% of the general membership ?

That provision would NEVER pass at any club.[/color]

That ought to keep things moving slowly enough while still having room to make changes almost everyone feels are necessary.

Just think how the budget deficit problem in the US could be solved if we just passed an amendment saying that it requires 2/3 vote in both houses for new spending, but only 1/3 vote for spending cuts.  Just add in some type of very simple flattish tax where the rate(s) can't be controlled by politicans but get automatically adjusted each year such that it will cover our spending plus some amount towards the debt (like minimum payments on a credit card) and we'd get out from under the national debt in our lifetimes.

Well, there you have it, you've solved all of our financial problems.

If it was that easy it would have been done centuries ago.

How can you have politicians pass laws that they can't control ?  It's a contradiction in terms, and the democratic process doesn't allow for it.

Dictatorships at clubs work best.

Democracies disfigure golf courses.[/color]

"Pure democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what to eat for dinner." -- Benjamin Franklin, on why the US is a Republic and not a Democracy

Great quote.[/color]

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Pat-

   Good question.  
I would say, I agree with you that dictatorships work best--however, this is coming from a control freak (damn Krauts!) so I suppose we should consider the source  

  In all seriousness, I think the dictatorship is a good thing.  I agree that the architecture of a golf course can be changed for the worse with the changing moods of a green committee or Club President, offices that change hands on a regular basis.  On the other hand, if we look at a club like, say, Champions, Jackie Burke has made it quite clear it's his way or the highway.  I like this.  Yes, people pay to get in, but with the understanding that they subscribe to his rules.  If they don't like it, they can play elsewhere.  Great.  

  How is Oakmont governed?  Are there boards and committees?  I ask because I know it was founded by, more or less, a dictator--and that was 90 years ago or so.  What goes on today?  NGLA?  

  Have there been examples of democracies at golf clubs that have successfully balanced the two; that is, maintaining architectural integrity while providing the membership a say?

[David Lott]

Pat--

The problem is fools, not structure.

The golfing population--club or not--is full of successful fools who think that they know a lot more about golf than they actually do. You only have to read this web site to know that.

The best thing about the so called dictatorship is that those in charge have longer tenures, thus reducing the opportunity for greater fools to rush in.

Plus in the case of the so called democratic clubs, it's usually just a progression of serial, short term dictatorships, which is even worse than an avowed dictatorship because (1) the club is kidding itself that its democratic and (2) there are more chances for a really first class fool to get power for a while.

There should be a hippocratic oath for club presidents and greens chairs. "First, do no harm."

"First, do no harm," is a message from us fools to ourselves, and sometimes we actually heed the message.