What makes a good Greens Committee Chairman?

[Scott Stambaugh]

Brian-

If your head hasn't exploded by now, my two cents- read post #30 and leave this thread behind.

I'm not familiar with all of the names of the Superintendent's who post on this site, so there may be others who have posted on this topic other than Don Mahaffey. Really, if you want to know what makes a good Green Chair, why not ask the Superintendent's themselves?  Your Club sits in a region full of great clubs with great Superintendents. How about taking some time to phone/email some of those individuals and see what kind of common answers they give?

One of the simplest replies on this thread said "hire a good Superintendent.". There ya go... A good Superintendent will ultimately make a good Green Chair. I'm not certain that I've ever heard of it being the other way around. Good luck.

Scott

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian-

If your head hasn't exploded by now, my two cents- read post #30 and leave this thread behind.

I'm not familiar with all of the names of the Superintendent's who post on this site, so there may be others who have posted on this topic other than Don Mahaffey. Really, if you want to know what makes a good Green Chair, why not ask the Superintendent's themselves?  Your Club sits in a region full of great clubs with great Superintendents. How about taking some time to phone/email some of those individuals and see what kind of common answers they give?

One of the simplest replies on this thread said "hire a good Superintendent.". There ya go...

How do you know, which of the candidates you interview are good, which are mediocre and which aren't so good ?

The proof is in the pudding.

Do you think that the club intentionally hired a bad superintendent prior to the new superintendent ?

It's easier said than done.

A good Superintendent will ultimately make a good Green Chair.

He may make the Green Chair look good, but he won't necessarily make him a good Green Chair.

I'm not certain that I've ever heard of it being the other way around.

I have, but, I won't get into it.

Good luck.

Scott

[SL_Solow]

As usual I am late to the party.  However this is an area where I have a fair amount of experience and a lot of interest.  I have served as Greens Chair, Club President and assistant Greens Chair for our 1921 Colt & Alison course since 1994.  During that time we installed a new irrigation system, renovated the course after a major storm destroyed over 250 trees along with other damage, installed XGD drainage in our push up greens and then gassed and regrassed them after the terrible summer of 2010.  We also saw our legendary Super retire to emeritus status after 48 years and a Super of the Year award and, after conducting a search, hired as his successor an outstanding young man.In addition I am cochair of the CDGA's greem committee working with our full time agronomist and for 10 years I have moderated our annual seminar for Greens Chairs and their Superintendents.  As a result I have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject and I have spent a lot of time with a large number of Greens Chairs and Superintendents.  My 2 cents worth follows.

First, you need not be an expert in agronomy, that is your Super's job.  However, some knowledge will help you to understand what the crew is doing and will also make you more credible in talking to your fellow members.  You can learn a lot from your Super and crew, from reading and from attending seminars.  Just remember, you are not the expert.

Second, while the job can be difficult, it is not that complex.  Your first task is to set standards.  Where on the scale between Augusta National and Goat Hills Muni do you want to fall?   Next, you must establish a budget and the budget had better match your standards.  Clubs get in trouble when their standards (expectations) exceed their budgets.  Third, you must act as a buffer between your members and your Super so that he may do his job.  Many, if not most, members believe that they are experts in agronomy and course architecture.  Some insist on expressing their views to the Super and some are downright obnoxious about it.  You need to stop this from happening and you need to keep these "experts" from becoming opinion leaders.  We instruct our Super to answer politely the first 2 times a member raises the same issue.  On the third time, the member is referred to the Chair who, unlike the Super, can tell him what he really thinks of the member and his ideas.  At the same time, the Chair and a good committee can work the locker room, the grill room and the first tee to reinforce the Super's communications and make sure the membership understands what is happening at the course.  

It is, as Pat has noted, a time consuming job.  You should bring a real love for your course.  Don't expect to make major architectural changes.  But it can be very satisfying to help your crew create excellent playing conditions.  You develop a new appreciation for the work that they do and a better understanding of how a golf course works as a mini ecosystem.  Given time, a decent budget and a good Super and crew, you can improve your course.  But do it because you like it; don't expect any praise.

If you ever want to talk, send me a PM and we'll make time.

[JMEvensky]

Second, while the job can be difficult, it is not that complex.  Your first task is to set standards.  Where on the scale between Augusta National and Goat Hills Muni do you want to fall?   Next, you must establish a budget and the budget had better match your standards.  Clubs get in trouble when their standards (expectations) exceed their budgets.  Third, you must act as a buffer between your members and your Super so that he may do his job.  Many, if not most, members believe that they are experts in agronomy and course architecture.  Some insist on expressing their views to the Super and some are downright obnoxious about it.  You need to stop this from happening and you need to keep these "experts" from becoming opinion leaders.  

Everything SLS typed is good--this part is great.

The minute that you,the Super,and the membership start having different ideas of how the golf course is to be prepared,the problems start.

IMO,the Green Chairman's number one job is to defend the golf course--from well intentioned members,from overly solicitous GM's,and from Boards who may not think the golf course is the most important amenity.

I,too,would be happy to answer any questions offline.

[RDecker]

A Super who's willing to take on the job at a place like Hudson National and ultimately beat out the competition that the club's search will encompass should be a fellow that could guide a novice GC through the process.  As a super I can tell you I'd rather have a GC who knows too little and is enthusiastic than one who thinks he knows more than he does.

[Ted Sturges]

I'm going to weigh in on this one.  I think this is a great topic and one that (obviously) most clubs seem to mess up.  There are countless examples of poor club leadership in this area.

First of all, and not to be a "snob" (with apologies to Pat Mucci), the correct term is "Green Committee", not "greens" (plural).  The committee is not managing the "greens", but rather, "all things green" at the club.

Here is my philosophy on this issue (and it's not for everybody, but it is a philosophy I truly believe in):

1.  I think every club should have a proper master plan prepared by a qualifed golf course architect.  Once you have this plan (blue print) in place, everyone is now aware of the club's long term plan.

2.  Every club needs a qualifed superintendent.  If you don't have one, get one.  If you have one, let him do his/her job without interfering with them (and, in my opinion, making him or her attend Green Committee meetings is wasting their valuable time).

3.  Have the club appoint a Green Committee Chairman.  He/she serves at the pleasure of the club's board.  If he or she is doing a good job, continue to have him or her serve in this role.  If not, get someone better.

4.  Don't have a "green committee".  You have a master plan, which was approved by the board...stick to it and execute it.

5.  It is the responsibility of the Green Chairman and the course supt. to implement the club's master plan with the budget given to them by the board.  Those two are held responsible/accountable.  Those two meet as often as they need to to affectively peform their tasks.


That's it.  Pretty simple.  This approach would have saved millions on millions of wasted dollars at countless clubs over the years.  This approach would eliminate so many opportunities for other well meaning people to screw things up.  All those Green Committee meetings where you entertained countless bad ideas (sadly, many of them implemented) are simply eliminated.

TS

[Steve Curry]

Brian,

A great Green Chair I worked with had the motto "Let the professionals do their job"  I have always held the greatest respect for those that managed as such.  The Chair is all about politics and providing the superintendent the means to accomplish the goals, good luck!

On a side note, I have met and had long phone discussions with Pat Mucci and he is a wonderful gentleman!

Cheers,
Steve

[David Bartman]

I'm going to weigh in on this one.  I think this is a great topic and one that (obviously) most clubs seem to mess up.  There are countless examples of poor club leadership in this area.

First of all, and not to be a "snob" (with apologies to Pat Mucci), the correct term is "Green Committee", not "greens" (plural).  The committee is not managing the "greens", but rather, "all things green" at the club.

Here is my philosophy on this issue (and it's not for everybody, but it is a philosophy I truly believe in):

1.  I think every club should have a proper master plan prepared by a qualifed golf course architect.  Once you have this plan (blue print) in place, everyone is now aware of the club's long term plan.

2.  Every club needs a qualifed superintendent.  If you don't have one, get one.  If you have one, let him do his/her job without interfering with them (and, in my opinion, making him or her attend Green Committee meetings is wasting their valuable time).

3.  Have the club appoint a Green Committee Chairman.  He/she serves at the pleasure of the club's board.  If he or she is doing a good job, continue to have him or her serve in this role.  If not, get someone better.

4.  Don't have a "green committee".  You have a master plan, which was approved by the board...stick to it and execute it.

5.  It is the responsibility of the Green Chairman and the course supt. to implement the club's master plan with the budget given to them by the board.  Those two are held responsible/accountable.  Those two meet as often as they need to to affectively peform their tasks.


That's it.  Pretty simple.  This approach would have saved millions on millions of wasted dollars at countless clubs over the years.  This approach would eliminate so many opportunities for other well meaning people to screw things up.  All those Green Committee meetings where you entertained countless bad ideas (sadly, many of them implemented) are simply eliminated.

TS

Does this master plan deal with the length of the rough? Green speeds? upgrading design features?  what type of sand to put into bunkers?  How the sand, rough, fairways, hazards etc should be maintained in terms of play-ability?  I have seen more than a few master plans and none of them addressed these aspects, they addressed , tree removal, bunker updates, and other architechtural plans for 5,10 and even 20 years down the road but not the specifics of day to day operations and desires of a club's golf course. 

[David Bartman]

Brian,

A great Green Chair I worked with had the motto "Let the professionals do their job"  I have always held the greatest respect for those that managed as such.  The Chair is all about politics and providing the superintendent the means to accomplish the goals, good luck!

On a side note, I have met and had long phone discussions with Pat Mucci and he is a wonderful gentlemen!

Cheers,
Steve

What if the professionals are not good at their job?  Who decides what a good job is?  Who frames the day to day desires of the membership in terms of the golf course?  Who decides to let them go?  The board? who in my experience has little or no golf knowledge, time or expertise to lean on.  The GM? another person in charge who in my experience is a food and beverage guy as opposed to a golf person.  The Director of Golf?  usually this person is simply trying to keep their job and keep everyone happy, once again, in my experience, it seems to me that keeping most of the members happy in terms of a golf course will lead to an overly green, slow, wet and slow golf course.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - Earlier, the original poster said that his club may become non-equity.  If so, the green committee becomes more of a focus group than a decision-making body.

Dan,

He said, in the FUTURE, it MAY become non-equity, but right now it's equity.
So my response was in the here and now, not the hypothetical future.


In that world, the best you can hope for is that the owner hires an expert that understands architecture and is an expert on growing grass, keeping to budget, and hiring the right people.  You can suggest all you want in the non-equity model, but ultimately it's up to the ownership and who they hire.
The owner of a non-equity club isn't much different from the Board at an equity club.
And the reality is that it's currently an equity club

To me, it doesn't make much sense for a non-expert (say, an MD) to be put in charge of a guy with a MS in agronomy and tell him how to do his job.  If you hire the right super, your job becomes extremely easy.  Get out of his way, have him keep you informed, and watch the property bloom.

Dan, with all due respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

The nonsensical position that you just hire someone and get out of their way is the formula for disaster.

Did it ever occur to you to think how that would have worked out with the super they just fired.
The notion that you hire someone and let them operate without direction and oversight would indicate that you don't have much experience in this area.

I don't know anyone who hires someone and let's them alone to do whatever they want without any oversight oversight. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Curry,

Thanks for the kind words.

Let me try to educate the morons, and I use the term affectionately, about the realities of club life.

Let's suppose you follow the not so sage advice of Adrian, and you don't have a Green Committee and Green Chairman at an equity club with 300 members.

When the members and their spouses have complaints, and complaints are a given, who are they going to express those complaints to ?

Answer:   The Superintendent.

Now he doesn't have one boss, he's got 300 bosses plus their spouses.

Talk about the worst possible scenario, that's it.

A Green Chairman is THE BUFFER between the membership and the Superintendent, the FILTER by which complaints are fielded.

For that other group of morons, who think that Boards present a unified rather than a fragmented message, you don't know what you're talking about.  Different factions within a board want different things, so who is the Super to listen to ?
Again, that's where the Green Chairman is invaluable and can act as the proper conduit for the will of the Board/membership.

Look, I only have so much time that I can devote to educating the various groups of morons, and, trust me, it ain't easy.

There's a reason that clubs have structure, a Board with reporting committee Chairs who are board members.
Those committees are staffed by a cross section of the membership such that you get diversified opinions from different factions within the membership.  In theory, there's very broad membership participation in the affairs of the club.

The key is to have intelligent members who have a love for the club, who have the time to devote to their appointed duties.

Brian has expressed an interest in becoming Green Chair.

If you "morons" think it's easy to get intelligent members who love the club, to devote their free time to serve the club, with no renumeration and plenty of aggravation, then again, you don't have a clue about how clubs are run.

If it was so easy to find the perfect, highly qualified superintendent, then Brian's club never would have had the need to fire the existing Super.

A green Chairman and Superintendent should adopt a "hand and glove" approach in carrying out their respective duties.
They should compliment each other even though their responsibilities differ.

Would those morons needing additional help please sign up for my class on the INS and OUTS of club governance.

Questions ?

[Steve Curry]

Brian,

A great Green Chair I worked with had the motto "Let the professionals do their job"  I have always held the greatest respect for those that managed as such.  The Chair is all about politics and providing the superintendent the means to accomplish the goals, good luck!

On a side note, I have met and had long phone discussions with Pat Mucci and he is a wonderful gentlemen!

Cheers,
Steve

What if the professionals are not good at their job?  Who decides what a good job is?  Who frames the day to day desires of the membership in terms of the golf course?  Who decides to let them go?  The board? who in my experience has little or no golf knowledge, time or expertise to lean on.  The GM? another person in charge who in my experience is a food and beverage guy as opposed to a golf person.  The Director of Golf?  usually this person is simply trying to keep their job and keep everyone happy, once again, in my experience, it seems to me that keeping most of the members happy in terms of a golf course will lead to an overly green, slow, wet and slow golf course.   

David,

The Green Chair certainly is the most able to develop consensus and a professional is by definition good at their job.  What I do as a professional Golf Course Superintendent is as much art as science and therefore the work is challenged by subjectivity.  Professionalism requires a strong level of resolve and common sense.  I understand your comment about keeping most of the members happy and the conditions that may evolve thereof.  The best playability often follows the best agronomic protocol and educating is the work of a professional superintendent.  The conditions you describe may meet some expectations are not the best agronomic protocol.  As a superintendent, I set out to exceed member’s expectations by following the best agronomic protocol.

Steve

[Dan Byrnes]

As usual I am late to the party.  However this is an area where I have a fair amount of experience and a lot of interest.  I have served as Greens Chair, Club President and assistant Greens Chair for our 1921 Colt & Alison course since 1994.  During that time we installed a new irrigation system, renovated the course after a major storm destroyed over 250 trees along with other damage, installed XGD drainage in our push up greens and then gassed and regrassed them after the terrible summer of 2010.  We also saw our legendary Super retire to emeritus status after 48 years and a Super of the Year award and, after conducting a search, hired as his successor an outstanding young man.In addition I am cochair of the CDGA's greem committee working with our full time agronomist and for 10 years I have moderated our annual seminar for Greens Chairs and their Superintendents.  As a result I have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject and I have spent a lot of time with a large number of Greens Chairs and Superintendents.  My 2 cents worth follows.

First, you need not be an expert in agronomy, that is your Super's job.  However, some knowledge will help you to understand what the crew is doing and will also make you more credible in talking to your fellow members.  You can learn a lot from your Super and crew, from reading and from attending seminars.  Just remember, you are not the expert.

Second, while the job can be difficult, it is not that complex.  Your first task is to set standards.  Where on the scale between Augusta National and Goat Hills Muni do you want to fall?   Next, you must establish a budget and the budget had better match your standards.  Clubs get in trouble when their standards (expectations) exceed their budgets.  Third, you must act as a buffer between your members and your Super so that he may do his job.  Many, if not most, members believe that they are experts in agronomy and course architecture.  Some insist on expressing their views to the Super and some are downright obnoxious about it.  You need to stop this from happening and you need to keep these "experts" from becoming opinion leaders.  We instruct our Super to answer politely the first 2 times a member raises the same issue.  On the third time, the member is referred to the Chair who, unlike the Super, can tell him what he really thinks of the member and his ideas.  At the same time, the Chair and a good committee can work the locker room, the grill room and the first tee to reinforce the Super's communications and make sure the membership understands what is happening at the course.  

It is, as Pat has noted, a time consuming job.  You should bring a real love for your course.  Don't expect to make major architectural changes.  But it can be very satisfying to help your crew create excellent playing conditions.  You develop a new appreciation for the work that they do and a better understanding of how a golf course works as a mini ecosystem.  Given time, a decent budget and a good Super and crew, you can improve your course.  But do it because you like it; don't expect any praise.

If you ever want to talk, send me a PM and we'll make time.

Pretty on target IMHO.

Dan

[Dan Herrmann]

Last time - I promise.  Brian (the OP) said his club may become non-equity.  If so, the green committee chair doesn't have ANY of the powers discussed here. 

If you have a good super, it's fantastic (my experience).  If you don't, it's horribly frustrating.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan,

What you don't understand is that there's very little difference between the will of the Board under an equity membership and the will of an owner under a non-equity membership.

And that the Green Chairman Chairman's powers are the same.

In fact, under a non-equity club, the Green Chairman's job is easier since he has to listen to but one voice and not many voices, often conflicting with one another.

Under a non-equity membership you only have to listen to one voice, please one person and you get clear directions not a mixed message from those you have to report to.

[Sean_A]

Interesting thread.  I think where Adrian is coming from is Captain/Green Chair having a say in the day to day operations of the Super. Meaning, Captain/Green Chair making decisions about course closure etc.  No question I am with Adrian here with the caveat that the Super must be reasonable in balancing member desires with course conditioning.  I also think Adrian may be thinking of private clubs without membership equity - big difference.

But, I disagree with Adrian in that I believe private clubs need a Green Comm to do the things mentioned above - ie

Super/membership liaison and flack deflector
budget agreeing with membership expectation
overseeing master plans

I think the biggest assets one needs to be Green Chair is common sense, good listener/communicator, flexibility, time, sense of humour and a willingness to learn.  This all sounds quite easy, but it takes incredible patience to be a committee man.  Without a very good chair, so much time and energy is wasted that it drives people away from serving.  

Ciao

[Jerry Kluger]

I think that the most important responsibility for the greens chairman is to get as much of an education as he can before and during his tenure.  The first part of that is to serve as a member of the committee before serving as chairman.  It shouldn't be a learn as you go situation as you aren't a CEO, etc.  You have to understand what the superintendent wants to do and balance that against what the members want and what the budget allows.  You also need to be receptive of the opinions of other committee members and try to make a report to the board and the membership which all of the committee members support.  

I had the unfortunate experience of serving on a greens committee where the chairman was well-respected by the superintendent and the members of the committee only to be replaced by a buddy of the new president.  The new chairman had never served on the committee and knew nothing about the subject and chose to tell the super what to do without holding committee meetings or discussions. He was an executive with a major corporation and thought it was his to run.  I don't know how many times I had to soothe the feelings of the super and tell him we would get through it.  The super was really good and had done a really great job with a limited budget and was faced with a chairman who wound up spending a significant amount of money on making the course "pretty."  

[Ted Sturges]

I'm going to weigh in on this one.  I think this is a great topic and one that (obviously) most clubs seem to mess up.  There are countless examples of poor club leadership in this area.

First of all, and not to be a "snob" (with apologies to Pat Mucci), the correct term is "Green Committee", not "greens" (plural).  The committee is not managing the "greens", but rather, "all things green" at the club.

Here is my philosophy on this issue (and it's not for everybody, but it is a philosophy I truly believe in):

1.  I think every club should have a proper master plan prepared by a qualifed golf course architect.  Once you have this plan (blue print) in place, everyone is now aware of the club's long term plan.

2.  Every club needs a qualifed superintendent.  If you don't have one, get one.  If you have one, let him do his/her job without interfering with them (and, in my opinion, making him or her attend Green Committee meetings is wasting their valuable time).

3.  Have the club appoint a Green Committee Chairman.  He/she serves at the pleasure of the club's board.  If he or she is doing a good job, continue to have him or her serve in this role.  If not, get someone better.

4.  Don't have a "green committee".  You have a master plan, which was approved by the board...stick to it and execute it.

5.  It is the responsibility of the Green Chairman and the course supt. to implement the club's master plan with the budget given to them by the board.  Those two are held responsible/accountable.  Those two meet as often as they need to to affectively peform their tasks.


That's it.  Pretty simple.  This approach would have saved millions on millions of wasted dollars at countless clubs over the years.  This approach would eliminate so many opportunities for other well meaning people to screw things up.  All those Green Committee meetings where you entertained countless bad ideas (sadly, many of them implemented) are simply eliminated.

TS

Does this master plan deal with the length of the rough? Green speeds? upgrading design features?  what type of sand to put into bunkers?  How the sand, rough, fairways, hazards etc should be maintained in terms of play-ability?  I have seen more than a few master plans and none of them addressed these aspects, they addressed , tree removal, bunker updates, and other architechtural plans for 5,10 and even 20 years down the road but not the specifics of day to day operations and desires of a club's golf course. 

Does the master plan deal with the length of the rough?  Yes...any good master plan will include recommendations on mowing patterns.  Many master plans will include adjusting mowing patterns of tees, fairways, greens (recapturing lost portions of putting greens), as well as recommendations for height of cut on all of these as well (including rough and greens, which would answer your second question on green speeds).  If any one of these areas is not addressed in the master plan, then ask the architect to include it for use in guiding the club going forward.  Once it is in writing and the master plan has been accepted by the club's board, then you simply stick to the plan.  Problems arise when "the next" green chairman decides he wants to "leave his mark" on the place.  My approach prevents that from happening.

I do not know what "upgrading design features" means.  Lots of classical designs have been ruined by campaigns to "update" the design, so perhaps the answer to this one is, I hope not.

Yes, the plan should address bunker sand.  This is another great example of well meaning green committees screwing things up.  Countless clubs have endless debates on stuff like what type of bunker sand to use, when most (the members of the green committees) have no idea what type of bunker sand should be used on a particular club.  If this was addressed in the master plan, countless hours (and dollars) could be saved.  This is another item of something that a club would be wise to ask their architect to specifically mention in the master plan to help guide the club.

Yes, the master plan should include recommendations on how to maintain the through the green and hazard areas (another area where green committee involvement  can mess up a course).

TS

[Mike McGuire]

Green Committees should be an odd number.

Three is too many.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am dissapointed to say the least that so much that I said has been distorted.

If you read clearly what I have said, you will see.

I am not advocating that the superintendent can do what he wants with no controller.

Standards of greenkeeping and knowledge have advanced so much over the last 20 years that no longer does a board member who may be successfull in one area of business have the knowledge to over ride the majority of superintendents calls. In days gone by the Greens Chairman was the controller, if you really think he needs no agronomy knowledge then he aint no Greens Chairman, he might be good as a communicator, a go between but its likely he will communicate incorrectly back to the membership because of his low knowledge and cause a further problem. The less he knows the more autonomy you need to give superintendent which is basically my rant anyway, I do think a club and superintendent should work with an agronomist and perhaps an architect to determine the best long term plans for the turf health and course future. I have not said that committees should be axed, but largely as long as the golf club has smart staff and smart advisors theres not such a need for sub committees, if you have a great food and beverage man thats doing well you should not go questioning, you should not be making half cocked decsions.... but you do need to keep a general eye on everything and act when things do go wrong.

[Ted Sturges]

Green Committees should be an odd number.

Three is too many.

Pure genius

[David Bartman]

Brian,

A great Green Chair I worked with had the motto "Let the professionals do their job"  I have always held the greatest respect for those that managed as such.  The Chair is all about politics and providing the superintendent the means to accomplish the goals, good luck!

On a side note, I have met and had long phone discussions with Pat Mucci and he is a wonderful gentlemen!

Cheers,
Steve

What if the professionals are not good at their job?  Who decides what a good job is?  Who frames the day to day desires of the membership in terms of the golf course?  Who decides to let them go?  The board? who in my experience has little or no golf knowledge, time or expertise to lean on.  The GM? another person in charge who in my experience is a food and beverage guy as opposed to a golf person.  The Director of Golf?  usually this person is simply trying to keep their job and keep everyone happy, once again, in my experience, it seems to me that keeping most of the members happy in terms of a golf course will lead to an overly green, slow, wet and slow golf course.   

David,

The Green Chair certainly is the most able to develop consensus and a professional is by definition good at their job.  What I do as a professional Golf Course Superintendent is as much art as science and therefore the work is challenged by subjectivity.  Professionalism requires a strong level of resolve and common sense.  I understand your comment about keeping most of the members happy and the conditions that may evolve thereof.  The best playability often follows the best agronomic protocol and educating is the work of a professional superintendent.  The conditions you describe may meet some expectations are not the best agronomic protocol.  As a superintendent, I set out to exceed member’s expectations by following the best agronomic protocol.

Steve

and a professional is by definition good at their job - Actually a professional by definition is someone who gets paid for a service, the definition itself has nothing to do with the qualify of the work.  I'm sure you come across people who are professionals who are not good at their jobs.  I'm sure you have come across other superintendents who are not good at their jobs.  My only point is that just because someone is a professional doesn't mean someone is good at their job.  We recently did a survey at our club, run by professional or so our president insisted, however, many of us on the committee to guide the process pointed out many errors in the survey before it was delivered to the members.  The people on the committee were very successful business people, doctors, lawyers etc, all of us could have easily been the best survey developers in the land, however, we all chose different career paths. Long story short, we used the professionals survey and virtually all of our concerns came to fruition with the results.  Just one example at a club how professionals don't always get it right.  Ever hired a bad plumber, lawyer, auto mechanic? All professionals by the way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Interesting thread.  I think where Adrian is coming from is Captain/Green Chair having a say in the day to day operations of the Super. Meaning, Captain/Green Chair making decisions about course closure etc.  

sean,

I don't think you're correct on that issue

First, ask yourself, who has the time and interest to get involved in daily minutia ?
The routine , boring aspects of everyday operations  ?

Any Green Chairman who immerses themselves to that level is a terrible GC and should be replaced ASAP.

That was NEVER the issue or focus of this thread, that's simply your outlier interpretation.

No question I am with Adrian here with the caveat that the Super must be reasonable in balancing member desires with course conditioning.

I also think Adrian may be thinking of private clubs without membership equity - big difference.

Not necessarily.
In a non-equity membership it depends upon how actively involved the owner wants to be and how much he wants his members to feel that they have a voice  in how the club operates.

Think Trump, Hansen and Bergstol.

But, I disagree with Adrian in that I believe private clubs need a Green Comm to do the things mentioned above - ie

Super/membership liaison and flack deflector
budget agreeing with membership expectation
overseeing master plans

I think the biggest assets one needs to be Green Chair is common sense, good listener/communicator, flexibility, time, sense of humour and a willingness to learn.  This all sounds quite easy, but it takes incredible patience to be a committee man.  Without a very good chair, so much time and energy is wasted that it drives people away from serving.  

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am dissapointed to say the least that so much that I said has been distorted.

Adrian, we're all capable of reading, with a high degree of comprehension, your typed words

If you read clearly what I have said, you will see.

I am not advocating that the superintendent can do what he wants with no controller.

Standards of greenkeeping and knowledge have advanced so much over the last 20 years that no longer does a board member who may be successfull in one area of business have the knowledge to over ride the majority of superintendents calls.

That's simply not true.

Successful, intelligent and highly intelligent people are fully capable of acquiring the knowledge to make important decision.

Used that you've tried to redirect the discussion by focusing on "over riding" the superintendent, and that you're assuming that the super hasn't briefed the GC on the important details

In days gone by the Greens Chairman was the controller, if you really think he needs no agronomy knowledge then he aint no Greens Chairman, he might be good as a communicator, a go between but its likely he will communicate incorrectly back to the membership because of his low knowledge and cause a further problem.

That doesn't preclude Brian from acquiring that knowledge, especially if he has the three qualities I cited.

You have now couched the discussion as an adversarial relationship between the GC and the Super.

Perhaps that's based on your own style and relationship with Supers

The less he knows the more autonomy you need to give superintendent which is basically my rant anyway,

The GC, with no knowledge of pesticides or herbicides is going to tell the Super what applications he needs to make.
Yours is an absurd argument/rant


I do think a club and superintendent should work with an agronomist and perhaps an architect to determine the best long term plans for the turf health and course future.

Most clubs in the U.S. require that the Superintendent has a degree in agronomy, so why the need for another agronomist unless there's a unique problem ?
Now your suggesting that an architect be brought in to deal with agronomic issues ?  ?  ?

I have not said that committees should be axed,

Yes you did.
You advocated for the elimination of the position of Green Chairman and that committee

but largely as long as the golf club has smart staff and smart advisors theres not such a need for sub committees,

So the club should wait until they don't have smart staff and smart advisors and THEN AND ONLY THEN form their committees, when they're in disarray ?  ?  ?   That's a great strategy and business plan........ For disaster,

if you have a great food and beverage man thats doing well you should not go questioning, you should not be making half cocked decsions.

Of course you should be questioning, lest you forfeit your oversight responsibilities.
Have you never heard of employees and management stealing, getting kickbacks, etc., etc.? ?  ?
Your ideas and recommendation that you don't question and provide due diligence and controls is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of when it comes to running/managing a club

... but you do need to keep a general eye on everything and act when things do go wrong.

That's really bad advice.
You want to wait until things go wrong, until after the horse is out of the barn, to act, because you didn't put the proper controls and oversight in place.  You want to be reactive, whereas I recommend being proactive with ongoing oversight, starting with the committee chairs who are members of the board.

Stick to what you do best, designing courses, not managing clubs.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Patrick - You are a disgrace.