I am sure that Mike Policano is a superior committee chair. I would offer, that based on the work and changes I have seen, and having Mike as the committee chair, the Superintendent is very good. I don't think Mike would tolerate anything less.
Most all the responses on this thread make sense, the problem is not all clubs have Mike Policano's in leadership roles, or fine Superintendents or club managers.
I would stipulate that any Super that frequents this site is the type of person I would want at my club. I would also stipulate that any green chair that participates on this site is most likely very good.
The problem is the average club does not have such Supers and does not have such people in leadership positions so I have a hard time accepting some of these answers.
We have any number of clubs that have maintenance practices that appeal to the lowest common denominator..How did that happen? And we are told to keep quiet and listen and nod our heads as members of the committee?
I will offer just one observation. Over many years the greens at many classic era courses have "shrunk". Indeed, that is often the first and easiest thing to "fix" for a restoration architect . How did they shrink over all these years? Do you think that was some committee mandate (under what guise? saving money? making course "harder"), or a function of the Super that we are being told by the USGA to always support etc etc.
We assume because we are on this site that all Supers are Superior and all golfers share the same view on the game and the architecture and how maintenance fits into the puzzle. They don't.
In the end, the real answer to this question as to how a greens committee should be formed is "Who is asking" ?