Believe me....

[TEPaul]

...unless your interest is developing a thick skin, you do not want to consider serving on a Green Committee.

For those who have served on a green committee or do now, let me ask you something---and I'd appreciate a considered and thoughtful answer--

Why do you do it?

Tell me why you do it, and after a time and some answers, I'll tell you why I do it.  

[John_Cullum]

I did it because there was noone on the committee who could break 85 from the white tees, nor did they have any idea about any aspect of the playability of any golf course.

It has largely been a waste of my time except I got to know the superintendent very well, and he keeps me informed about course issues, and patiently and thoughtfully answers my questions.

Serving on any committee where the members do not own the golf course is an exercise in futility

[Ken Moum]

I did it because our was dominated by low handocappers who insisted on doing things like planting trees on the inside of doglegs where they could easily carry them.

But someone who was in the middle of the fairway, but short off the tee, would be left with no second shot.

These guys also think narrow fairways and long rough are essential to good course.

It was an interesting experience, especially since they would say things like, "Why should someone who only hits it 180 yards off the tee have a chance to aim at the green?"

Ken

[Dean Paolucci]

Tom,

On a macro basis, it is partially a labor of love, partially a caretaker, and partially fiduciary among other things.  Let me explain.

I love the game, my Club, and my golf course.  

Giving back to the game is a primary objective in the fabric of amateur golf.  If you believe and have the time, give back!  Be a caretaker of your passion.

Volunteerism is the fuel which runs the Club engine.  I believe if you care and you have the time to serve on some committee, serve!  We have subject matter experts (staff) but they need informed direction from the Membership to perform their duties as we the stakeholders would like to see them done.  

My Club as an institution has been around since 1894.  For the better part of those 113 years someone acted in a fiduciary role to make the Club a better place for current and future generations.  I believe we have a duty, a responsibility to perpetuate the founding ideology of our Club.  If you benefited from those who came before you and have the time, pay it forward!

On a more granular level, I serve to balance those who come to the table with selfish agendas.  I have an agenda……to do away with those who have a personal agenda.  Green Chairmen want to build a monument or leave a mark, low handicappers want it harder, high handicappers want it fairer, women want what they want, juniors etc.  I want every Member at every skill level to fully enjoy our golf course every time they tee it up.  

That’s why I serve!

DEAN

[Adam Clayman]

When our patriarch was leaving PG he gave a short speech, through the tears, stating exactly what Dean has said above, "It was a labor of love".
I know I was much appreciative of all his efforts, but I also know I was in the minority. Truly a pity.

Jim Kennaday's ended up OK. He moved to Ashville and joined a Ross muni, Buntecombe. Where i'm sure he still plays to this day. (He's really not that old) His golfing spirit lives on undoubtedly through his son, Tom, the coach of the Santa Clara golf team.

[TEPaul]

DeanP:

Guys like you are why good things (good restorations) happen to good old golf courses. You're beyond the Green Committee. Yu da Man.

[Patrick_Mucci]

...unless your interest is developing a thick skin, you do not want to consider serving on a Green Committee.

For those who have served on a green committee or do now, let me ask you something---and I'd appreciate a considered and thoughtful answer--

Why do you do it?

Tell me why you do it, and after a time and some answers, I'll tell you why I do it.  

TEPaul,

I did it for close to 40 years and am still involved tangentially.
As you know, I favor dictatorships at clubs, and, if there has to be a committee, I favor small committees of knowledgable individuals.

I did it for several reasons.

My love for the game.
My love for the entity
My desire to see the course preserved and maintained properly.
My desire to prevent fads and wild ideas from disfiguring the golf course.

To serve any function at a club, efficiently, I think you must possess three critcal elements.

The love of the entity.
The time to commit
Knowledge and wisdom[/color]

[Cory Lewis]

I do it because I have to, part of my education at a golf professional.  It's fascinating stuff too.  Just like others have said on this thread, it's amazing how many people on the committee are in it for themselves and suggest changes based on their own playing experience.  I have even greater respect and admiration for Superintendents now because I don't know how they don't strangle some of the people on these committees sometimes, at our last meeting they spent 15 minutes discussing the placement of the new scorecard box on the second tee and would the sprinklers hit it and the women didn't notice it so it should be moved and blah blah blah.    There are those rare people that are looking out for the club and preserving the integrity of the design and those people are a joy to work with.

[Tom_Doak]

I served on the Green Committee at Crystal Downs for a couple of years.  I did it because I love the course, and because I wanted to see how green committees actually work -- when you meet with them as an architect you only get to hear their thoughts on architecture, and I assumed that wasn't the whole job.

We have an excellent superintendent, Mike Morris, so there really wasn't much for the committee to do anyway.

[Dan Herrmann]

I did it to try to keep good people from unintentionally messing up the course's architecture.  Things like planting trees or messing around with hazards.  I also wanted to try to promote firm & fast; what I thought were the proper playing conditions for our course.

But it's really tough and very frustrating at a non-equity club.  You're really not more than an advisory committee or glorified focus group.  The owner will do what the owner wants to do, which is his right, after all.

[RJ_Daley]

I did it to try to keep good people from unintentionally messing up the course's architecture.  Things like planting trees or messing around with hazards.  I also wanted to try to promote firm & fast; what I thought were the proper playing conditions for our course.

But it's really tough and very frustrating at a non-equity club.  You're really not more than an advisory committee or glorified focus group.  The owner will do what the owner wants to do, which is his right, after all.

I think Dan sums up my thoughts, were I ever to be in a situation to serve as a green chairman at a club.  

I can only think of one situation I would serve, and that is a club I know well, know its origins, design intent, and designers.  I know the superintendent's basic philosophy and cabability.  Thus, I'd serve to support those ideals, strive to educate those that don't know these things from a technical perspective, and try to preserve the facility to it's best intended use.  That would be Wild Horse.

The issue of green chairman is not possible at our home course, a county owned muni, where the super has a county department head status, has been at the course for many years, has total say on all matters, and doesn't play golf, yet does a good job.  I guess he is the benevolent dictator model...    He does have to report to the county board recreation committee.  But, he has outlasted many turn-overs of supervisors over the years, and when he gets technical, can glaze their eyes over so that they just pass resolutions to leave matters to the super.  

I fear the day he retires.  I don't think the loyal and hard core users of the facility have a clue what could happen when the dictator's position becomes a vacuum for every yahoo and club management proposal to steal the power and get their mits on the budget process.  

[JSlonis]

I do it because I love the game, I have an appreciation of golf course architecture, and by being involved, I think I can help as a caretaker to preserve the integrity of our course.  During my time spent on our committee we have undergone a tremendous restoration project, and by continuing to serve I feel as though I can help carry on the good that we have accomplished.

It's funny reading a couple of the posts above.  I'm having the exact opposite problem that a couple of you are having.  I'm trying to convince higher handicappers that a tree needs to be removed on our 7th hole, and they want it to remain.  Although, with it in place, they cannot properly play the hole.  It's just crazy.  Our 7th hole is a 350 yard dogleg left that is about a 85* dogleg at about the 110 yard mark.  There is a large tree on the inside corner of the dogleg that prohibits any shot toward the green from the middle of the fairway from 115 yards and beyond.  For the better player, it's rarely an issue because they can hit it past the corner, but for the average player, or 99% of our women members they can't play the hole properly.  

At our last meeting a week ago, this subject came up and I was amazed by the opposition to take this tree out.  

[Paul Stephenson]

The reason I served on the Green's Committee was for two reasons.  One was not for selfish reasons, and one was.

The first (unselfish) reason was to support the club in general, and the Super. in particular.  I've grown up at my golf course over the last 26 years and I had the time and the experience to contribute.  I also thought the Super was doing a nice job with the course and wanted to support him.

The second reason was that the course was going through a redesign project.  I really wanted to learn about the process right from the beginning.  From the selection of the architect to the actual construction of the course.  My involvment in this was what really generated my interest in golf course architecture; and my respect for architects and contractors.

I guess in my 4 years on the committee I was lucky.  We were so involved in the placement of holes, that we didn't bicker about ball washers or tee markers.  There was a long drawn out discussion regarding signs however.

With 2 kids under 2 it will be a number of years before I get the opportunity again.  But I would do it again if asked.

[JMEvensky]

Dean Paolucci,would you mind if I passed around your reply at my place?-JME

[John_Cullum]

It's funny reading a couple of the posts above.  I'm having the exact opposite problem that a couple of you are having.  I'm trying to convince higher handicappers that a tree needs to be removed on our 7th hole, and they want it to remain.  Although, with it in place, they cannot properly play the hole.  It's just crazy.  Our 7th hole is a 350 yard dogleg left that is about a 85* dogleg at about the 110 yard mark.  There is a large tree on the inside corner of the dogleg that prohibits any shot toward the green from the middle of the fairway from 115 yards and beyond.  For the better player, it's rarely an issue because they can hit it past the corner, but for the average player, or 99% of our women members they can't play the hole properly.  

At our last meeting a week ago, this subject came up and I was amazed by the opposition to take this tree out.  

I have encountered the same. The long handicappers want 3 inch deep bermuda rough right up to the collar of the putting green. I asked them how many greens they were hitting per round on average- a relatively low number naturally. Their reasoning is they want to see the low handicappers struggle around the green just like they do

[Dean Paolucci]

Mr. Paul,

I think it is time for you to way in before the thread goes into second page oblivion.

Bump!

DEAN

[Jason Topp]

I do it because I think we have a terrific golf course and the green committee is the entity most likely to screw it up.

We spend most of our time discussing flowers, containers for beverages and whether to move a cart path because a caddie slipped on it.  All inconsequential stuff which is a good thing because our super is terrific and does not need a committee to get in the way and the course does not need to be improved. (I thank Rick S. for this perspective).

I share the experience that higher handicappers are the strongest voices for toughening the course.  We had a couple of trees go down and it improved our 10th hole, turning it into something similar to a reverse of the 10th at Riviera.  Higher handicappers insisted on putting in a bunch of new trees at the corner in order to punish a short tee shot.  Instead, once grown, the trees would require one to hit an approach over them unless a layup tee shot was placed within about a 5 yard area.  By contrast, the trees would probably never take away the chance to try and drive the green.

A bunch of higher handicappers insisted the hole was too easy without the trees.  I would love to see their average score on the hole.

I lobbied for their removal, got rid of them all but they will be replaced by 2 trees out of the line of play.  Hopefully, this compromise will work out ok.  The changes will happen after the course closes this fall.

[TEPaul]

"Mr. Paul,
I think it is time for you to way in before the thread goes into second page oblivion."

Dean:

Whoops, I got my threads mixed up for a moment there.

Allow me to think about this one a while longer. If it goes into oblivion I know where to find it.  

But off the top of my head, I find one of the real reasons I'm interested in serving on the green committee is to try to truly figure out what it really is (perhaps even in detail) that just may make the most golfers possible happy.

This kind of thinking on my part seems to just drive some people on here nuts, and I think most of us know who they are.  

[Jim Franklin]

I love my club and I love the game and would love to serve on our Green Committee, but have not been asked.