[Paul Richards]

Why has reforestation created the need for a tree management plan?
 
Aggressive tree planting by well- meaning individuals over the past 60 years has significantly impacted the agronomic health of our playing grounds and has eliminated many strategic elements of play.
1.      Our trees will continue to grow
and spread, further restricting the width of our fairways and “closing off” more and more strategic lines of play.
2.      The density of the tree canopy in
certain areas is also seriously jeopardizing the health of the underlying and surrounding turfgrass areas.  Insufficient sunlight and inadequate air circulation will continue to create stress on the golf course turf and in many cases, these deficiencies will promote the spread of turfgrass diseases.
3.      The tree management plan will
provide for healthier turfgrass, the elimination of double-hazard situations (which bring both trees and bunkers into play on some shots), the recapturing of lost playing corridors, and a reduction in the competition for water, nutrients and space which now endanger our most important specimen trees.  Mr. Prichard’s tree management plan calls for the ultimate removal of 193 of our more than 2,200 trees.  
 

Why are all our “new” bunkers part of the plan?
 
1.      Our green-side bunkers were re-
done seven years ago and will require
significant work (sand replacement, drainage replacements, re-facing, etc.) in the next few years.  The fairway bunkers were re-done less than three years ago.
2.      The Golf Course Maintenance
Research Study indicated that the
membership was less satisfied with the bunkers than any other part of  the course. The majority of the responding members were not satisfied with the bunkers’ playability and the consistency of the sand.
3.      Mr. Prichard’s plan calls for the
modification and minor repositioning of most of the sand bunkers on the golf course.  In conjunction with the putting surface expansions, the green-side bunkers will be restored in a manner which will situate these hazards closer to the green surfaces.  Average players will no longer be forced to carry many yards of bluegrass rough between bunker edges and the green collars.  Additionally, skilled players will find pin positions which will be cut closer to the bunkers than before.  This restoration work will call for greater skill when playing to our greens and will place a new premium on bunker play.  Some original Donald Ross bunkers and a few other new bunkers will be added and some bunkers will be eliminated, as reflected in the overall plan.  
4.      The Committee believes the
bunker plan will resolve most, if not all of the current membership criticisms and complaints and will help re-establish the original beauty of our classic Donald Ross golf course.
 

Are the changes just for “better” players and will the course be more difficult?
 
1.      As Mr. Prichard states in his plan,
“The work recommended is not intended to favor the low handicap player or members of any other specific playing capacity.”  
2.      Mr. Prichard also believes that
there will be no significant impact on
our course ratings or slope ratings and that the course will reflect a significant increase in “classic character” and strategic options rather than an increase in difficulty.

[Paul Richards]

What if we like most of the plan but disagree with some of the details?
 
1.      The plan should be considered in
its entirety.  Mr. Prichard is one of the
acknowledged experts in classic course restoration as attested by his studies of Donald Ross and his restoration/ improvement work at such highly respected and highly rated Donald Ross clubs as Aronimink, Wannamoisett, Minikahda, Skokie, Highlands, Mountain Ridge, Irondequoit, Longmeadow, Charles River, Concord, and Worcester.
2.      The Committee has therefore
placed full confidence in Mr. Prichard’s
overall plan and his ability to apply the appropriate solutions to each of our issues.  This is not to say that modifications will not take place from Mr. Prichard’s plan before and during construction.  For example, some of the recommended changes to holes #5, #13 and #15 are and will continue to be analyzed, discussed and tested as the project proceeds.    

Why do we have to begin the process now?
 
1.      Aside from the necessity to correct
the numerous issues, the goal of the plan is to make our great course more appealing to the membership as well as to prospective members.
2.      The golf course quality “bar”
continues to be raised in the Chicago
private club market, witness the major improvements at Olympia Fields and Skokie and new entries like The Glen Club.  The Board of Governors and the Committee firmly believe the plan must go forward to ensure Beverly remains at the top, now and well into the future.    
 

What is it going to cost and how will it be paid for?
 
The Board of Governors has approved a “not to exceed” budget for the restoration and improvements at $1,500,000.  The Club has built a reserve fund of more than $1,000,000 and we will fund the plan via $500,000 from the reserve fund and the balance from bank financing.  The principal and interest on the note will be budgeted and paid for out of the Club’s capital budget, annually.
 

Will there be a dues increase or an assessment because of the restoration and improvements?
 
No.  The entire plan will be funded as described above.  Future operational costs of the Club and membership levels will continue to dictate dues levels.  
 

What is the time line for the project and will the course be closed?
 
1.      If the plan is approved by the
membership, some preliminary work can begin in the late fall of 2002 and proceed as far into winter as the weather permits.  The majority of the construction work, however, will begin in the fall of 2003 and should be (weather permitting) largely complete by the spring of 2004.

2.      The course will remain playable
during construction although there will be some ground-under-repair and some unplayable areas.  There will also be periods of time when certain greens and certain fairways may not be available for play.  The duration of these periods, however, should not be more than a few days for a green and a week or so for a fairway.

[Paul Richards]

When can we get our questions answered and when is the “vote”?
 
June, 2002 – A presentation of the
master plan and a question and answer period will be conducted for the membership by Ron Prichard, the Committee and the Board of Governors.  This will be followed by a course tour for those interested.  Sign-up sheets for this and other course walks with the Committee in June and July will be posted in the men’s locker room.

July, 2002 – A special meeting of the membership will be convened and after discussion, the members will be asked to vote for or against the Long Range Master Plan and the funding of the plan.
Per our by-laws, each Regular and Perpetual member will have one vote.  Notification of the meeting and a ballot will be mailed to all Regular and Perpetual members in early July.
 

How do we find out more information?      
In addition to reading the Long Range Master Plan and the hole-by-hole descriptions, you may direct your questions
to the members of the Long Range Master Plan Committee or to The Board of Governors.

 
The Long Range Master Plan Committee
 
Tom Allison, Tom Boyd, Duane Brann, Tom Bridgeman, Peter Carey (Vice-Chairman), Tim Finerty, Bill Fitzgerald, Allen Flagler, Mike Floodstrand (Chairman), Rick Holland, Terry Lavin, Tom McCleary, Craig McDonnell, Al Pandola, Larry Riccio, Paul Richards (Vice-Chairman), Rick Ten Broeck

The Board of Governors
 
Tom Boyd, Peter Carey (Vice- President), John Curtin, Mike Floodstrand, Michael McGrail, Joseph Nolan, Neil Roney (President), Brad Telander, Greg Zawaski

[Paul Richards]

Well, that's our entire brochure for the Master Plan.

Our membership vote is on July 20th.  

I'll keep you up as to progress after the results are in!

[Dave_Miller]

Paul:
I'm coming into this somewhat late.  I served on the Course Restoration Committee with Ed Baker at Charles River.
Ed has given you exactly what needs to be done and he will tell you it is important that the Restoration Committee remain a standing Committee with continuity.  
It is equally important that a final report by the committee be issued so everyone knows exactly what was done, why, and what was not done for whatever reason.  In our restoration there were certain recommendations that were "Ron Pritchard" and not Donald Ross.  Research showed that certain items were not included, etc.  Ron had a view of how he thought a certain hole should be and was adding his vision to it.  We decided as a group to not implement these items.  Without a final report some one in the future will pick up the plan and say "What happened to the Ferris Wheel on # 6 and the Windwill on #12 that the restoration plan called for".
Obviously facetious examples but I'm sure you get the drift.

Aronimink GC in Newtown Square, Pa. actually incorparated the plan into the By-Laws and the vote, wording, etc. was hanging in the Clubhouse.  I will track down a copy of this and fax to you.  I probably have this at home somewhere.  If you know anyone else at Aronimink they may be able to get you something quicker.
Good Luck,
Dave Miller

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I'll email you the number of the guy to talk to at Aronomink.

[SL_Solow]

Before you take the trouble to incorporate the plan into the by-laws, examine the procedure for amending them.  It my not be worth the effort if the by-laws can be amended without too much trouble.

[Paul Richards]

Thanks for the thoughts!

[Scott Stambaugh]

I am interested to know if anyone can provide some insight into the real-life successes and/or failures of incorporating a master plan into the club's by-laws.  Or, other measures that have been put in place at your club to guard against all the undesirables that come with committee turnover.

This eight year old thread is full of suggestions and opinions, but I am hoping to get some feedback from those who have actually been through this process.

Thanks

Scott

[Paul Richards]

Scott:

Getting it put into the by-laws is key.  Also, a standing committee of people who were involved with the architect and the restoration should be named.  As Boards change, it seems things get 'lost' without one!

Hope this helps.

Paul

[Jim_Coleman]

   I think putting it in the by-laws is a huge mistake.  Takes away all flexibility.  Fortunately, my club rejected putting a Hanse master plan in our by-laws in a very close vote.  Several years later we accomplished a very successful restoration project designed by Forse/Nagle.  Had the Hanse plan been part of the bylaws, I suspect we'd have a far inferior course today.  And, by the way, the final product looks quite a bit different than the original Forse/Nagle plan.  Very good changes were made as the plan was built out.  In my opinion, putting a plan in the by-laws is the height of arrogance.  The board that approved the plan is all knowing in perpetuity?  Bad idea!

[Paul Richards]

Jim, without getting into it too deeply, the point is that the next green chairman can't remove a bunker, or put in a new tee, or fill in a pond - without the architect's blessing.  We faced it almost from the get-go that a small vocal minority wanted to remove one of our new bunkers.  All's they had to do was collect enough signatures, and then the membership would have had to vote.  They either couldn't or didn't and now that bunker is still there, doing what Ron Prichard intended it to do. 

For the record, I doubt anyone else is in it more than I have been!

[Jim_Coleman]

   I understand the point.  I just don't agree with it.  A plan in the by-laws removes all flexibility in a process that absolutely requires flexibility.  What if Prichard decided he didn't like the bunker that he put into the plan once he began to execute it?  Would he be bound by the by-laws to put it in?  I'd say yes.  What if he decided to add another bunker?  What if Prichard goes out of business in 10 years and the club wants to add yardage?  Architectural change is a fluid and ever changing process; by-laws are (and are supposed to be) inflexible handcuffs.  In your effort to handcuff future boards or committees, you might handcuff them from doing some very beneficial things.  That why I think it's arrogant.

[Paul Richards]

Jim, under any of these scenario's, it just takes a majority vote of the membership.  If Prichard goes out of business and changes need to occur, then that would be a pretty easy thing to secure.  The protection it affords is well worth the price.

[Rob_Waldron]

Paul

The one thing I have learned about calling for a vote among members is that you do not call for a vote unless you are certain the vote will go your way. Kind of like an attorney never asking a question that he does not already know the answer to. Good luck

Rob

[Scott Stambaugh]

Scott:

Getting it put into the by-laws is key.  Also, a standing committee of people who were involved with the architect and the restoration should be named.  As Boards change, it seems things get 'lost' without one!

Hope this helps.

Paul

Having a standing committee of those involved is interesting.  Have you taken this approach at your club?

   I think putting it in the by-laws is a huge mistake.  Takes away all flexibility.  Fortunately, my club rejected putting a Hanse master plan in our by-laws in a very close vote.  Several years later we accomplished a very successful restoration project designed by Forse/Nagle.  Had the Hanse plan been part of the bylaws, I suspect we'd have a far inferior course today.  And, by the way, the final product looks quite a bit different than the original Forse/Nagle plan.  Very good changes were made as the plan was built out.  In my opinion, putting a plan in the by-laws is the height of arrogance.  The board that approved the plan is all knowing in perpetuity?  Bad idea!

Couldn't it be argued that the powers-that-be that deemed the Hanse plan inferior and went with a Forse/Nagle plan was an arrogant move itself?

It seems to me that, by incorporating this into the bylaws, all it would do is create another step in the process of making amendments.  Say if it only requires a majority vote by the Board, what's the harm in this additional measure?

[JMEvensky]

Jim, without getting into it too deeply, the point is that the next green chairman can't remove a bunker, or put in a new tee, or fill in a pond - without the architect's blessing. 

This is exactly why a master plan must be incorporated into the by-laws.

You never want to run the risk of one guy(or a small group of guys) having the power to alter a golf course just because they think that their ideas are worthy.Having a professional architect to act as arbiter solves this.

If nothing else,a bylaw-incorporated master plan SHOULD prevent some future Green Chairman from waking up one morning convinced that he's the second coming of A W Tillinghast.

[Bill Brightly]

   I think putting it in the by-laws is a huge mistake.  Takes away all flexibility.  Fortunately, my club rejected putting a Hanse master plan in our by-laws in a very close vote.  Several years later we accomplished a very successful restoration project designed by Forse/Nagle.  Had the Hanse plan been part of the bylaws, I suspect we'd have a far inferior course today.  And, by the way, the final product looks quite a bit different than the original Forse/Nagle plan.  Very good changes were made as the plan was built out.  In my opinion, putting a plan in the by-laws is the height of arrogance.  The board that approved the plan is all knowing in perpetuity?  Bad idea!

Jim,

It seems your club only makes changes based upon and architect's plan, and that is great. But what if 5 years from now a few armchair amateurs get themselves in power and decide they want to make a few changes to the course? Sounds like there is nothing  in your by-laws to stop them...

The membership vote is critical to prevent this scenarion, IMHO.

[mike_malone]

 Putting it in the bylaws is cumbersome even if you have a process for amendment. I believe that you should trust your club  committees, board, and members. If the board that adopts the plan and the membership as well state clearly that no changes are to be made to the course that are inconsistent with the plan for a proscribed period of time that should be enough.


  It is , after all, a plan. So, the only thing you can be sure of is that changes will be proposed and there will be a difference of opinion as to whether those changes are consistent with the plan. Once the architect has presented the plan you should not stay married to that architect.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Michael.  We agree!  Hell has frozen over!  Chickens have grown lips!  Bears no longer shit in the woods!  The Pope is not Catholic!
And for all you friends of by-laws, what if it takes a 2/3's vote to amend a by-law?  Do you really want to go to the membership for a 2/3's majority (or even a simple majority) every time you want to add a new tee; or take out a tree that isn't called for in the plan; or reshape a bunker?  I don't think so.

[Paul Richards]

Didn't realize this was a campaign on this issue!

That being said, our experience has been that it is GOOD to have it put in the by-laws.  It would have been good to also keep a standing committee of the restoration committee put in as a perpetual committee.

[mike_malone]

 Paul,

    I like the idea of a restoration committee. Often the green committee doesn't have a focus on that one concern.

[Bill Brightly]

   Michael.  We agree!  Hell has frozen over!  Chickens have grown lips!  Bears no longer shit in the woods!  The Pope is not Catholic!
And for all you friends of by-laws, what if it takes a 2/3's vote to amend a by-law?  Do you really want to go to the membership for a 2/3's majority (or even a simple majority) every time you want to add a new tee; or take out a tree that isn't called for in the plan; or reshape a bunker?  I don't think so.

I absolutely want the committee to go to the membership before they start adding tees and re-shaping bunkers!!!!!!!!

I don't know where you play Jim, and I wonder if you have ever been in a position of leadership, but many clubs have a history of well-intentioned chairman/presidents who tried to add their mark to the course. If it is a good change with an architect's recommendation, it can withstand a membership vote...

[Paul Richards]

Thanks, Bill.

[Mike McGuire]

Paul Richards  especially - but anyone welcome to comment

Our club has a master plan recently completed. It was conceived as a long term plan to at least stop the bleeding if we could not fund it. The maintenance crew could make simple changes, expanding greens / fairways, tree management etc .. within their existing budget.

Should the members vote on accepting the plan without asking them for funding?
What if they vote no? Get a different plan or have no plan?

In our case the vote would likely pass but stirring everyone up might cause resignations etc.

Should the committee execute the plan without a vote if the scope (read budget) is small enough (a bunker here, tee there, expand a green or fairway over there etc..) ?  At what point should the members vote on course changes?

Thanks

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()