[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You know what you need to do today and in the future is just stuff it!  

You didn't tell me anything of the kind. I've been on the boards of these kinds of organizations and also totally aware of the way the USGA works for about 20 years before I ever knew you and your over-arching opinions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

You know what you need to do today and in the future is just stuff it!  

You didn't tell me anything of the kind. I've been on the boards of these kinds of organizations and also totally aware of the way the USGA works for about 20 years before I ever knew you and your over-arching opinions.

Then why would you contradict yourself by implying that the revolving door method of management produces good results as you did in reply # 20

And, if the present management setup was so efficient, as you allude to in reply # 20, why would you need to take polls to get a sense of what's going on ? [/color]

[TEPaul]

"Then why would you contradict yourself by implying that the revolving door method of management produces good results as you did in reply # 20

And, if the present management setup was so efficient, as you allude to in reply # 20, why would you need to take polls to get a sense of what's going on ?"

Patrick:

I said nothing of the kind in post #20---not even remotely close. To carry on a discussion on a vehicle like this which pretty much relies on the written word the first thing you need to do is learn to read the written word.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Tom, this goes back to my premise that the USGA needs professional management."

Mike:

The day the USGA can't attract 15 people to populate the board and an Executive Director who are qualified and capable enough to run their own affairs is the day I stop becoming a dues paying member and the day I'd recommend other dues paying members do the same.

There's no question in my mind that day will have arrived when they need to use their own financial resources to pay some professional management company to do it for them.


If they continue to attract 15 qualified and capable people, why would they need to pay a professional management company to do it for them ?

You're contradicting yourself again.

You just don't know it  [/color]

[PThomas]

maybe they should, since they seem to be making so many bad decisions lately

like, are they still flying around in private jets after cutting benefits for the staffers?

[John_Cullum]

I vote no for an opinion poll of the "membership."

Who is a member? The guy who sends in his check and gets the bumper sticker and bag tag. I believe they are called "Associate members." They have little to no desire to think through the functions of the executive committee.

[Mike Sweeney]

MikeS:

Where is the "minority representation" on the USGA's board?

I think you need to take a closer look at the USGA's board, Mike.  

Was National Geographic ever a "not for profit" organization or was it a business corporation?

Geoffrey Yang Tom? His next step is to Augusta via Silicon Valley. I would rather see a minority golf course owner or operator who deals with minority golfers on a day to day basis.

The National Geographic Society still is "not for profit". They have spun off the magazine and others into for profit entities which then help fund The Society and its charter.

____________

The National Geograpgic Society historical mission is "to increase and diffuse geographic knowledge while promoting the conservation of the world's cultural, historical, and natural resources."[1] Its President and CEO since March 1998, John M. Fahey, Jr., says National Geographic's purpose is to inspire people to care about their planet. The Society is governed by a twenty-three member Board of Trustees composed of a group of distinguished educators, businesspeople, scientists, former governmental officials, and conservationists. The organization sponsors and funds scientific research and exploration.

____________________

Basically Fahey is President and CEO, unlike David Fay, runs The Society and reports to the board. In my opinion it is a model the USGA should look at.

[TEPaul]

""Tom, this goes back to my premise that the USGA needs professional management."

Mike:

The day the USGA can't attract 15 people to populate the board and an Executive Director who are qualified and capable enough to run their own affairs is the day I stop becoming a dues paying member and the day I'd recommend other dues paying members do the same.

There's no question in my mind that day will have arrived when they need to use their own financial resources to pay some professional management company to do it for them.


If they continue to attract 15 qualified and capable people, why would they need to pay a professional management company to do it for them ?

You're contradicting yourself again.

You just don't know it  "



Patrick:

Perhaps you'll learn how to comprehend the written word someday but clearly that day has not arrived yet.  

[TEPaul]

"Geoffrey Yang Tom? His next step is to Augusta via Silicon Valley. I would rather see a minority golf course owner or operator who deals with minority golfers on a day to day basis."

MikeS:

So if Geoffrey Yang has made a success of himself what do you think he is now, a WASP? There's also an African American on the Board. If he's made a success of himself has he turned into an elistist WASP too?  

Apparently you also think belonging to Pine Valley or Augusta should disqualify a board member too.

That's interesting. I wonder how the women members of the Executive Committee feel about that.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Instead of asking the women members of the Executive Committee about how they feel about several of the male members belonging to exclusionary clubs (in this I am non-judgmental), I think a better question for them would be to ask them of their experiences when they initially applied to join clubs where they are members of. Did their memberships come as the rsult of their husbands memberships? Had they applied elsewhere and been turned down?

They certainly are in a unique position to elicit social golfing changes if they feel it is both relevant and important enough.
And for this they need neither public opinions or supporting polls...

[Doug Siebert]

The USGA should beward of polls, they may not get the answers they want.  They can ask the British government (which has a website that puts up public polls and pulled a few when they were embarressed to not be getting the response they expected)

[TEPaul]

"They certainly are in a unique position to elicit social golfing changes if they feel it is both relevant and important enough."

Philip:

They are?

What kinds of 'social golfing changes'?

Could they require all women members of Oakmont who are grandmothers to play from the US Open tees to determine if the course has some heretofore unknown interesting social strategies from back there?

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

Of course they should, and in a broad manner (i.e. total universe of interested parties), as your intitial post implies.

I managed some polling in my earlier life, and I still remember the little company in Beaverton, Oregon in 1980 that resisted our conculsions that the vast majoirty of the people who bought their products were not, in fact, elite athletes.  Most of their customers bought their products because they looked "good" (in a fashion sense) and made them feel as if they were an athlete, even though they were not.  I wonder what happened to that company........?

The USGA is stuck in the mores of the 1920's, but overly influenced by the big bucks mentality of the Naughties, and clueless of not only of who their customers/clientele are, but what they really, really want.

Polling could be a hurtful process for them (if done professionally), but hopefully they are big boys and can take their medicine.  I'm not convinced of that yet, however.

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Good post. As always, you have a different and interesting take on things.

One of the things that struck me about the responses to this thread is how many responders believe they know what the USGA "wants" and that a poll may be counter to what the USGA "wants".

Do you know what the USGA/R&A "want"?

I'm not sure I do, although I did hear a rumor that they were trying to contact Al Queda and help fund terrorist attacks on the corporate headquarters of all the world's major club and ball manufacturers.

[Rich Goodale]

Do you know what the USGA/R&A "want"?

Not really, Tom, but I'll hum it and see if you can sing along.....

1.  To defend the game of golf, as described in the Rules
2.  To defend the game of golf, as implied by their collective wisdom
3.  To promote the game of golf, whether or not described by the Rules or implied by their collective wisdom.
4.  To be seen as Important people, at least in the little sub-world of the game of golf.

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Not really, Tom, but I'll hum it and see if you can sing along....."



Well done. I think it should be at the top of the pop charts within a week.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I think this flows better and has a greater chance of going to #1 on the Pop Charts---

To defend the game of golf, as described in the RULES,
To promote the game of golf for the benefit of the FOOLS,
To defend the game of golf, as implied by their collective WISDOM.
To be seen as important people in the little sub-world of golf's DOMINION.


Actually, your lyrics suck. You have about as much chance of writing a song for Elton John as you do besting in golf Tiger Woods' two day old daughter.

[Rich Goodale]

That's very good, Tom, but it doesn't quite fit the tune I was thinking of.  Try this, to the tune of "Substitute"....

"Defend the game, prescribed in the RULES.
 Promote the game to benefit the FOOLS
 Defend our turf, based on our OPINION
 Act important to retain our DOMINION."

You can then go into the chorus which starts:

"Substitute your lies for facts....."

Richard Farnsworth Sondheim Goodale
 

[TEPaul]

Damn, that really is good. You're better than Bernie Terpin.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, you must be kidding...

How can being on the Executive Committee of the USGA NOT allow you to be in a position to "elicit social golfing changes if they feel it is both relevant and important enough?"

Or are you saying that those on the Executive Committee of the USGA are without influence or an ability to bring to light situations or problems in golf and the clubs where it is played?

Are they all just "Yes Men and Women?"
 

[John_Cullum]

Maybe the USGA needs to wind down the entire operation as it pertains to Rules and I&B, just run the Championships.

The R&A is perfectly capable of dealing with Rules/I&B issues

[Patrick_Mucci]

Maybe the USGA needs to wind down the entire operation as it pertains to Rules and I&B, just run the Championships.

The R&A is perfectly capable of dealing with Rules/I&B issues

John,

The R&A was AWOL on most of the I&B issues, their past performance contradicts your assertion that they're "perfectly capable" of dealing with I&B issues.

TEPaul has some interesting information on that issue.
I'm sure he'd be glad to relate it to you, provided he can remember it.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, you must be kidding...
How can being on the Executive Committee of the USGA NOT allow you to be in a position to "elicit social golfing changes if they feel it is both relevant and important enough?"
Or are you saying that those on the Executive Committee of the USGA are without influence or an ability to bring to light situations or problems in golf and the clubs where it is played?
Are they all just "Yes Men and Women?"


Phil:

No, I'm not kidding when I asked you what 'social golfing changes' you were referring to.

That was a legitimate question and not one I expected to be answered by the question "You must be kidding.......?"

What "social golfing changes" do you have in mind that you think the Executive Committee members may think are relevent?

And what do you mean when you ask if the Executive Committee members are all just "yes men and women"?

Yes men and women to whom?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark:

What do you know about the various members of the USGA's Executive Committee, who they are, where they come from and what kind of consituency they inherently represent, or are you just making some assumption that you know who they all are and whose interests in the golfing community they represent?

No, I don't and that smells like the kind of "question" I get "asked" by my wife when I utter yet another inanity!

I'm sure that, in contrast to 100 years ago, today undoubtedly they are hard-working, up-by-their-bootstraps types and far more reflective of certain aspects of diversity in this nation.  (Speaking of which, do they have or need to have any Mexican members on the ex comm?)

Some honest questions that will help me understand better:  
How many on the board represent muni golfers?  (Having played Bethpage Black once or twice or a muni 20 years ago doesn't count!)
Are there any "Joe Jemsek" types on the ex comm?
What percentage of "associate members" are public golfers?
What percentage of handicap fees come from public golfers?
What percentage of member clubs are public?

If they receive virtually no support from players and institutions outside private clubs, then I guess one argument is they don't need any representation of those groups.  But is that "for the good of the game?"

Mark

[John_Cullum]

Maybe the USGA needs to wind down the entire operation as it pertains to Rules and I&B, just run the Championships.

The R&A is perfectly capable of dealing with Rules/I&B issues

John,

The R&A was AWOL on most of the I&B issues, their past performance contradicts your assertion that they're "perfectly capable" of dealing with I&B issues.

TEPaul has some interesting information on that issue.
I'm sure he'd be glad to relate it to you, provided he can remember it.

Just because the R&A was allegedly "AWOL" on most of the I&B issues doesn't mean they are incapable of dealing with it, they may have just chosen not to. But they are certainly in a position to handle the matter.

It seems many take the position that the USGA was AWOL on the issue as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()