[T.J. Sturges]

I thought it was interesting that someone on the worst invention thread suggested that The Green Committee was one of golf's worst ideas.  I must agree with that.  The golf landscape is littered with bad Green Committee decisions.

My home club (Broadmoor, Indianapolis) is fortunate to be working on a master renovation plan developed for us by Renaissance Golf.  It is my view that once a club has adopted a master plan of this type, the club Green Committee does not really need to meet on a regular basis.  We simply "implement the plan".  It seems to me that once a club is to that point in the process, there is absolutely no need to discuss adding ponds, moving bunkers, adding cart paths, etc.  The plan is our working document.  The Green Committee Chairman could then meet with the Supt. to assess progress.  The club could also leave the ominous duties of deciding on yardage markers, selecting tee markers, adopting a club policy for identifying hole locations etc., to the Green Committee Chairman as well.

Does this seem reasonable?  Do any clubs actually do this? (other than benevolent dictator clubs?).  What are other's views on the proper role of The Green Committee?

TS

[SL_Solow]

We have discussed this issue periodically.  I have served as Committee Chair and Club President for more than 10 years.  During that time we did an extensive renovation and instituted a master plan.  For the most part I agree with your assessment of a committee's role with respect to course design.  Asking questions, following up on implementation, interfacing with members are all appropriate roles.  But the main job of the committee deals with maintenance issues.  Setting goals for course conditioning is important; e.g. trying to create firm and fast conditions when possible.  Budgeting is crucial.  Keeping the membership away from the Greenkeeper so that he may do his job.  These are the mundane but crucial jobs.  It is when the committee ventures into course design (tree planting, bunker removal and the like) or insists on imposing playing characteristics that are unreasonable (wall to wall "green", excessive green speeds on highly contoured greens or during extreme heat  etc) that the club gets into trouble.

[Bill_McBride]

When I served on Pensacola CC's green committee for several years, we didn't have a renovation / remodel project underway, but we did meet on a monthly basis with the superintendent.  At this meeting we reviewed the budget vs actual costs of maintenance, discussed ongoing projects, generally gave him a pat on the back if deserved, or action plan if there was a problem in our joint view, had an adult beverage and hit the road.

Technical matters were left to the judgement of the super.  Our biggest discussion over those years (2001-2004) was the decision to first consider and then implement a program where we stopped overseeding the Tifdwarf greens.  This involved consultation through our super with the turf guru at Mississipppi State, who strongly supported the plan to first experiment with and then implement the program.

I thought having a committee looking at the overall picture was helpful, but don't feel we ever got into unilateralism that might have been unproductive.

Until the late '90s we did have a "benevolent dictator" more or less.   I suspect it worked better then, less meetings.  

[Mike Benham]

Ted -

Great topic although I recommend that you do a Google Search of the GolfClubAtlas website with the additional keywords of "Patrick Mucci" and "Green Committees" and you will see many posts where Patrick leads a discussion on this very topic.

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

I think the role of the green committee is to ask good questions and to listen carefully to the answers.

[Mike_Young]

I think their main role is to hire the proper supt and to be there to help him as he proceeds....if they can't do that it is bad for both sides....
I wish more green committees would use independent consultants instead of the USGA consultants.  
It seems that green committees will usually spend more money on a specific project than a private owner.  They should figure how to stop this.

[Bob_Huntley]

The Greens Committee should adopt something like the Hippocratic Oath required of all medicos, " Do no harm."

Bob

[Steve Lapper]

I think the role of the green committee is to ask good questions and to listen carefully to the answers.

The Greens Committee should adopt something like the Hippocratic Oath required of all medicos, " Do no harm."


Follow these two credos and your Greens Committee, Club and course will thrive . We've all seen what's happened when they aren't.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Hi, I'm Tommy Naccarato....

I think the proper role of a Green Committee is to remain silent and speak only when they are spoken to. If anyone speaks when they aren't spoken to, then they should be properly shackeled and beaten.

They should also leave the health of golf course to the consulting architect and superintendent and his able crew.

That's what I think.

What a great thread!

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak said:

"I think the role of the green committee is to ask good questions and to listen carefully to the answers."

This kind of topic and subject is beginning to drive me nuts, for the simple reason it keeps coming up again, and again, and again.

Tom Doak says the role of the green committee is to ask good questions and to listien carefully to the answers.

But the question remains, and continues to remain, and will always remain (unless someone comes up with a great comprehensive answer) listen to the answers from WHOM?

The problem, guys, is WHO makes THE decisions? Who is responsible to ANSWER the questions even a competent green committee ASKS??

Is it the superintendent?

Is is an architect?

Is it a Golf Committee?

Is it a Green Committee?

Is it a Board of Directors?

Is it a President or czar?

Guys, someone has to make DECISIONS!

Who will it be??

If a competent Green Committee even ASKS good questions, then who do you think they should be asking those questions of----and why?

[mike_beene]

By having a long term relationship with an architect we have avoided doing harm for over 10 years.Perhaps because stupid things were done over the years there is less temptation.It is understood that all changes go through the firm.Still,any club is one committee away from stupidity.People have short memories.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ted Sturges,

Every club has its own dynamic, and its own unique set of circumstances and history.

In general, I think most Green Committees would serve a better function if they confined their influence to conditions of play and left the design of the golf course alone.

Obviously, a golf course that had been previously disfigured would benefit from a Green Commitee seeking restoration.

The danger is that the same Green Committee could continue with the disfiguring process.

The problem as "I" see it is that today, club's seek or are forced to operate democratically, with the theory that broad membership participation will improve the club and keep the natives from getting restless.

I find this trend to be increasing as each club distances itself from its founding roots, and as increasing membership turnover renders the architectural history of the club meaningless.

If you don't know where you came from, you'll probably lose your direction in the future.

[T.J. Sturges]

Good points TP and PM.  TP, I was thinking the same thing when I read Tom Doak's post.  Our club happens to be listening to him, but lots of clubs listen to others who have "enabled" them to do harm to their courses.

That's why I think a club shouldn't even have a Green Committee.  But, Pat makes a good point on conditioning.  I suppose it is all in the way clubs organize the committee.  Having the committee clearly define the role of the committee it seems would be crucial.  I know our committee does not do this, and I wonder how many out there do?

TS

[tlavin]

There is no doubt in my mind that Greens committees generally do more harm than good.  In order for these committees to be beneficial to a club, you need a strong and talented Superintendent and a knowledgeable  and strong course architect who will TELL the committee what should be done.  The main role of the committee should be communication to the membership, a role that is fraught with peril since people never really remember what they're told...

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You bring up a good point.

Once the answer is received, who analyzes it and who then makes the decisions based on the information at hand ?

There's almost an inherent conflict between between a green committee, a superintendent and an architect.

When all are well informed and well intentioned, the best arrangements tend to be hand in glove approaches to agronomic, architectural and playability issues.

However, infalibility doesn't reside with any one party, and thus, the checks and balances in place can have merit.

Each club is unique,as are the parties involved.

My concern, as I watch Green Committees in action, is the acceptance of trends in maintainance and design despite the clear architectural and maintainance history of the club.

Beautification and structure programs seem to be littering up course after course.

Simple functional features like cart stops or turnarounds now find themselves adorned with stone and/or wooden structures, shrubs, flowers and the like.  There's an effort to beautify every location where a golfer might pause for a nano-second, even if he's just using a ball washer.

All too often clubs are quick to adopt the newest fad rather than respect and fine tune the basics, that have endured for 80 or so years.

And, too often, there are no qualifications required to be nominated to serve on a green committee, rather, clubs want a broad spectrum of golfers to populate these committees irrespective of their knowledge or interest in related areas.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()