Are Green Committees a waste of time?

[Ted Sturges]

I've served on more than one Green Committee at clubs I've been affiliated with over the years.  So, my comments here come with some personal experience. 
 
I think Green Committees are (a) a waste of time, and (b) potentially (usually) harmful to golf courses.
 
Why I think this:
 
How many Green Chairmen have sought to "leave their mark" on the golf course after they've assumed the Chairman's role?  Tree planting/memorial programs?  New ponds?  Adding flower beds for "beautification"?  Any of that sound familiar?
 
After many years of serving on Golf Club Green Committees and enjoying the benefit of seeing many of the great courses in the world, I have come to the following conclusion for the best way for a club to manage their golf course property.
 
1.  Hire a top-notch golf architect to develop a thoughtful Master Plan.  The plan is adopted only if approved by the club's leadership board.  The plan includes architectural guidance, course maintenance standards, and a plan for project prioritization.
 
2.  Elect or appoint a Green Chairman who will report to the club's leadership board.
 
3.  The job of the Green Chairman is to execute the Master Plan within the Club's financial abilities, and stay in compliance with the plan going forward.  Nothing more...nothing less.
 
-No need to ask 6-8 other members to serve on the committee (they only provide an opportunity to screw the whole thing up).
-No need for monthly Green Committee meetings (the Master Plan is in place...nothing to discuss other than the pursuit and compliance of the plan).
-No opportunity for anyone to "leave their mark" on the golf course as if it is not in the Master Plan, it ain't happening.
-This approach saves time, money, energy, and removes layers upon layers of opportunities to screw up golf courses (which by the way has been happening for decades).
 
Agree?  Disagree?

[SB]

I think it's good to get different points of view.  Hopefully, you would get diverse points of view which should prevent, not cause, the attempt to "leave their mark".  Obviously that's not always the case, but the whole point of committees is to get lots of opinions.  If it's a Chairman and a bunch of "Yes Men", then you might as well not have the committee.  At one course we had specific appointments from the women's group, the men's group, the "old guys" group, a young guy (they didn't have a group but we picked one anyway). We also did it with the board.  I thought it was fantastic and I think they did, too. 

[Thomas Dai]

Pretty much go along with what you say Ted having been in a not dissimilar position myself. Private members golf club committee's are usually full of "friends of friends", ego/vanity/control freaks, bigheads, ditherers, procrastinators, folk with nothing better to do and occasionally someone who does actually have a clue or who does make a contribution. Most of those who 'serve' on committee's stay involved for far too long and then you all sorts of have turf protection etc etc issues. Apologies for the cynicism but....
My preference would be no committee/no greens chairman but the lead member of staff responsible for the course, whether they be entitled Superintendent, Course Manager, Curator, Head Greenkeeper or whatever should sit on and report directly to the main/top club committee/board and be responsible for all matters to do with the course and grounds....staff recruitment, budgets, everything.....including liaising/appointing any specialists outwith the club whoever they may be. Pay the bloke/lass a really good/appropriate salary. If they do the role well, say thanks and pay them some more. If they do a poor job, hire someone else.

Years ago I was told that golf clubs have showers in the lockers rooms because a committee can't run a bath! Over the years this has proved imo to be pretty accurate summary.

atb

[Jason Topp]

I have experience serving as a chair of a green committee and as a member of a club without such a committee.

I really enjoyed my time as a green chairman, primarily because of everything that I learned about course maintenance and political processes.  I enjoyed the opportunity to advocate for the superintendent both for budget and for needed projects.  The membership and leadership of the club were also very supportive in my first year (and the first year for the new superintendent) when we had major winter damage to 4 of our greens.  We were able to make changes that allowed the course to thrive through a recent winter that damaged many neighboring courses.

Advantages of a good green committee:

- serves as an advocate for the superintendent, particularly in situations where something has gone wrong with the course.  A good committee represents all of the major factions of the membership and provides a communication point with each group.

- helps to make sure that the club's money is spent on the projects that fit with the priorities of the membership.  My current club (without the committee) has spent money on a number of projects that was the highest priority of ownership but, I suspect, not the highest priority of the membership.  In retrospect, some of those projects have turned out very well.  In others, I believe money could have been better spent elsewhere.

- helps set maintenance expectations and should be charged with obtaining a budget that will meet those expectations.

- provides the membership with "ownership" over the course.


Of course, a bad green committee will be a disaster and many such committees are a disaster.  Any green committee is a headache because of the varied perspectives that will be brought to bear and working through those perspectives is a messy process. 

So - a bad green committee is a waste of time.  A good committee adds value.

[Tom_Doak]

Ted:


It's an interesting point you bring up.


First off, I should say that although I've been working with green committees for almost 30 years, it hasn't been until the last few years, when I'm closer to the age of the green chairman and have developed personal relationships with several, that I realized what a thankless job it is.  Most of them are badgered day and night by member suggestions and recriminations for stuff they have done [or not done].  I'm amazed that anybody would want to do the job, especially on a volunteer basis.


In some cases, I think you are right, that most of the rest of the green committee are just there for political purposes to pretend it's all a group decision.  And there's no point in that.


But, green committees are about more than golf architecture.  Their biggest job is to communicate from the membership to the superintendent, and there are many advantages to having that be something other than just a "boss and employee" communication.


And, with respect to architecture, your proposal ignores several sources of change:


1.  Master plans are never as clear-cut as you imply.  Back when I started consulting, places like Garden City and SFGC had never really had a consulting architect ... but in the last 15 years, every place I've been hired, it was because the master plan in place wasn't working, or the club had a change of heart [and direction].


2.  Each new green chair wants to work with an architect he likes, and will push for his own ideas with that architect.


3.  The only way to have a smooth transition of power is for the next green chairman to be on the committee for several years previously.  Maybe you could have a vice-chairman and nobody else, but you'd have to be prescient to pick the right person several years early.


4.  [though it will be politically toxic to bring up here]  Superintendents can change a course drastically on their own, and green committees are one check against that going too far.

[JESII]

Interesting topic.


How many architects could prepare a maintenance program?

[Niall C]

Jim

I was thinking something similar when I read Ted's OP. For me the question was how could anyone, including GCA's, know exactly what the detailed and exact maintenance regime was going to be going forward when I presume a fair portion of it would be reactive ?

Niall

[Ted Sturges]

To Tom Doak:
 
To address three of your points-   1.  If the club has no master plan, your experience and comments suggest the need is great to have one.  If the plan is no longer working (which could be for any number of reasons) then get a new one, and if that includes changing architects, so be it.  I see having a master plan as extremely important.  Mistakes that were beginning to be made at places like Camargo and Yeamans Hall (which, by the way you helped correct at both places) could have been prevented with a thoughtful master plan in place to preserve the Seth Raynor assets those clubs own (had master plans been in place at both places, Camargo would not have hired Von Hagge to begin to change the look of the bunkers and YHC would not have rebuilt the first green to look different from everything else on the course...costly mistakes at both places).  2.  Your comment that each Green Chair would want to work with their favorite GCA and then attempt to influence him makes my overall point.  A thoughtful master plan would be a safeguard against that happening to the detriment of the property.  A new Green Chr. would be bound by the master plan unless the board replaced it with a new plan.  3.  In response to your point about grooming the next Green Chair, I would say that it is of the utmost importance to have the right person in this job.  I would guess that most clubs have only a half dozen people capable of doing it well.  When you get the right person in place, that person should serve as long as they are accomplishing the goals of the master plan.  I wouldn't mind having the "right" person, stay in that job for 10 or more years (as long as they would like to serve in that capacity).  My friend Dr. Terrie comes to mind. 
 
To J. Sullivan and Niall C:
 
How many GCA's would be capable of helping formulate a maintenance plan?  My answer would be if they aren't up to that, you wouldn't want to hire them.  And to Niall's point of how much assistance their maintenance input would be as a club deals with ongoing circumstances, the maintenance part of the master plan should, in my opinion, have a set statement as to what maintenance standards should be (general principles).  For example, do we favor green over firm and fast?  Do we seek green speeds at a certain level?  More general guidance to have in writing when the membership starts to voice an opinion that is inconsistent with the master plan's statements on those topics.  The master plan would have been accepted by the board and would stand as policy until amended or changed by the board.
 
TS

[mike_malone]

I think the green committee should be a communication link between the super and the members. Tell members what is happening and provide input from members.


  Members own the place and need to feel that they are part of the process.

[Paul Jones]

The USGA recommends a 5 person committee, 7 maximum. However, each club is different and what authority the committee actually has....


If a committee agrees on something, then it gets sent to the board for a vote- then the committee doesn't have any real authority except to give suggestions.


I am also torn on Consulting Architect... If a green chair tells the architect he wants to make the course harder, the architect will tell them how to make the course harder.

[Terry Lavin]

I've had plenty of time on greens committees and have come to the inarguable conclusion that they waste a lot of time. I'm not quite sure that their existence is a waste of time, but they can create a lot of inconsistency in the maintenance and modification of a golf course. The main problem I've run into are those who have strident opinions based on nothing but their personal preferences.


The real fun on being involved in a greens committee stems from the educational process of learning about architecture, maintenance and tree projects. That education allows an informed member to better assess recommendations from people in the various disciplines.


In my experience, too many committee members don't trouble themselves to become informed. That's the root of most of the mischief that one sees at private clubs.

[jeffwarne]

yes

[Sean_A]

I do think it is necessary to have club representation at Comm level.  However, I have never been convinced a green committee was necessary, or a house comm or a ....

I think I prefer one committee (9 seats) which controls the lot.  Each guy is given one or two jobs to do and then kicks on with research and making proposal recommendations to the Comm.     

Meetings held quarterly with the ability to call extra-ordinary meetings. 

Each year comm members can switch jobs if they choose. 

Elections every year with only one third of seats up for electon in any given year....so a 3 year term.   

Chair of the Comm is elected each year.

Majority decision of members present to make resolutions...Chair a casting vote.  5 members present to be quorate.  Must be present to vote.

7 members can declare a proposal too important for comm resolution and declare a club-wide vote be held at the AGM or if an emegency, at an Extra-ordinary meeting. 

Agenda distributed to membership at least 1 week prior to the meeting with proposals as specific as possible. Members are welcome to attend if they give 5 day notice of their intention to do so, but they may not participate in the meeeting.  The Chair can decide to adjourn the meeting for a short period to allow the membership to speak to issues included on the agenda.  Only business included on the agenda should be discussed in terms of decision-making...so no matter arising for decision unless it is deemed to be an emergency.

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

Most Green Committees I have seen don't have any power but to suggest.  The board at most private member owned clubs can do as they vote.

As TD suggest my comment here can be politically incorrect here, but for 14,000 of the courses in this country the members and the supt don't want a consulting architect.  All sounds good on paper but in reality so many of the green chairs know what they want and do it.

[BCowan]

Green committees hold meetings for guys to have an excuse to get away from their wives. 

[Martin Lehmann]

Our British agronomist told me that a Greens Committee should always have an uneven number of members. And as a general rule, three are to many.


As chairman of the Greens Committee at our (private members) club, I can only underline the importance of having a comprehensive and up-to-date Masterplan. The input from professionals like agronomists and golf course architects in such a plan is absolutely key.


The question however, is who is responsible for setting up, implementing and keeping up the Masterplan? In our case it's the Greens Committee's main responsibility.


To avoid amateurism and personal preferences, the chairman of the Greens Committee at our club is also member of the board. Not sure if I haven't been guilty of leaving my personal mark on the development of the golf course though. But wouldn't that be the same with a superintendent or golf course manager?
 

[Mark Chaplin]

Why do you need a Greens committee to inform the members what is going on?? This is 100x better;


https://royalcinqueports.wordpress.com/

[Jon Wiggett]

The club membership should decide what style of course and play they wish to have which ought to be part of an overall master plan for the club. This master plan will be decided at the AGM and only altered through an AGM. The head greenkeeper will decide what methods and techniques are employed to achieve this. The Green committee only really need to ensure that the master plan is being followed so I am with Sean in that just one person is needed.


If the greens committee decides either policy or method/technique it is difficult to see how it can work efficiently or achieve any long term goals.


Jon

[Thomas Dai]

Butchers and bakers and candlestick makers, tinkers and tailors and soldiers and sailors all telling an experienced professionally qualified Superintendent/Course Manager/Head Grenkeeper/Curator how to do his/her job. Those employed in these roles have my sympathy.
As to a committee coming up with a Master Plan, more likely to be one of Baldrick's 'cunning plans'.
Boards members should hire good people and then retire to the bar for a pink gin whilst undertaking an element of high level supervision. The senior employee's should run the show, recommend future plans and budgets etc etc. If they can't run the show, hire someone who can. No interference, no micro-management.

atb

[Steve Okula]

 The private club where I’ve been superintendent the past sixteen years had a greens committee when I started. Eventually, the general manager became annoyed with it and through artful political manoeuvers managed to get it disbanded. At that point the GM answered to the general committee and was pretty much my sole channel of communication, I was never invited to the general committee meetings.



Three years ago the GM left for another position, and it created a storm of problems for me. The new GM was still finding his way around, so with no direct communication the membership and especially the general committee began to speculate on the cause of every problem, be it real or imagined, and some of them concluded that the only reason the golf course wasn’t better was due to the ignorance and/or apathy of the superintendent. I would get second hand reports of the meetings where I was mercilessly excoriated for the condition of the golf course, mainly because green speeds weren’t consistently in the 11-12 foot range. None of the critics had even spoken to me, let alone spent time with me in the maintenance facility or on the course to learn anything about the operation.



At my request, we reconstituted a greens committee, because I needed a way to speak to the members and hear their comments for myself, and so far I have not regretted it. Sure, it’s a pain in the ass going to meetings that always have to be on a weekend when it’s convenient for the members, but now they have at least a modicum of understanding what’s involved in the maintenance, and I believe it’s blunted the worst of the super-bashing.



"In my experience, too many committee members don't trouble themselves to become informed. That's the root of most of the mischief that one sees at private clubs."   Terry Lavin


That is my biggest problem. I invite one and all to come to the maintenance building or ride the course with me for an exchange of ideas. They could tell me what they see as lacking and I could implement their ideas or explain why I couldn’t. I could also point out some of the myriad maintenance tasks that maybe aren’t noticeable to the golfer but nevertheless essential. So far, no one has taken me up on it.



"How many GCA's would be capable of helping formulate a maintenance plan?  My answer would be if they aren't up to that, you wouldn't want to hire them.  And to Niall's point of how much assistance their maintenance input would be as a club deals with ongoing circumstances, the maintenance part of the master plan should, in my opinion, have a set statement as to what maintenance standards should be (general principles).  For example, do we favor green over firm and fast?  Do we seek green speeds at a certain level?  More general guidance to have in writing when the membership starts to voice an opinion that is inconsistent with the master plan's statements on those topics.  The master plan would have been accepted by the board and would stand as policy until amended or changed by the board."      Ted Sturges
 
My answer would be that if your superintendent can’t formulate the maintenance plan without an architect then you need to find one who can. Firm and fast, soft and green, neither is always possible. It’s nonsensical that a superintendent after years of intensive training and probably more years on the same golf course won’t know what to do without an architect who’s just arrived on site, no matter how skilled the latter might be. I have never met a GCA who laid out a maintenance plan, taking into account the characteristics of the soils, water, budget and climate and designing programs for fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation, cultural practices, staff organization and equipment purchases. That said, there are consulting agronomist who could be useful in such a situation. A knowledgable individual would either help the GCS to improve the program or support him if he already has an effective one. 

 
 

[Anthony_Nysse]

As TD suggest my comment here can be politically incorrect here, but for 14,000 of the courses in this country the members and the supt don't want a consulting architect.  All sounds good on paper but in reality so many of the green chairs know what they want and do it.

 Sometimes, Mike, I really scratch my head as to where you get your information or if it's truly just a tunneled opinion. Of the many Superintendents that I know and communicate with nearly daily, we enjoy having a consulting architect to work with. We enjoy enhancing a golf course and learning from an architect. Many times, having an architect is added support for design, turf health and creates a career long bond. Obviously, C&C still work at Friars Head to consult/make changes, Keith Foster was our consulting architect for many years at Colonial. (now Gil Hanse) We used Ron Forse while I was at Pine Tree and he will be doing a green renovation there this summer and obviously, we used Chris Lutzke this past summer who has worked with Pete Dye for 30 years. Those are just examples in my career.
  This is just scratching the surface. I think that most clubs and are aware of committees and most people voice a stronger opinion than before. The days of a Green Chair running things like a Czar are much less than you make it out to be.

[Mark Chaplin]

Steve Okula your problem shows why the blog Bledge publishes is so important, he does have a conduit to the membership but the blog enables direct communication with as much detail as he wants. We even get Facebook live reports from the course where he goes around and member's can see the guys working and get an explanation of exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it.

[John Mayhugh]

Why do you need a Greens committee to inform the members what is going on?? This is 100x better;

https://royalcinqueports.wordpress.com/

James Bledge does an outstanding job communicating about his team's work.  Not sure when I'll ever make it back to Deal, but I enjoy reading his updates and have a far greater appreciation for the variety of work that is involved.  You're lucky to have someone like that.

[SL_Solow]

Just like most institutions, its all about the execution.  Greens' Committees can be a real benefit or a detriment.  By way of background, I have been a Greens Chair or member of the committee at my club continuously since 1993.  In my role with our local Association, I have been involved for about 15 years as Chairman of our committee, which employs a full time Agronomist, conducts research and works with all of the local superintendents.  I have moderated a panel for greens' chairs for that time period.  We emphasize that committees understand their role. 

First, they should understand that they are not architects.  While their knowledge of a how a course "plays" can be very useful, a consulting architect who develops a long range plan and is allowed to stick around is ideal.

Second, the committee should work with the super to develop standards.  The degree of "grooming", greens speeds, bunker conditions etc.  should be understood by all.

Third, a budget must be developed which matches the maintenance expectations.  You can't have Augusta conditions with a Goat Hills budget.  Many clubs have a finance committee populated by individuals who refuse to understand what it costs to maintain a course.  Often they view the super as an empire builder.  The committee, if well prepared, can overcome this attitude.

Fourth a long term maintenance and equipment plan is useful.  Machines wear out as do irrigation systems.  Planning helps prevent surprises.  There will be inevitable variances, but a well thought out plan helps greatly.

Fifth, the committee can help in communications with members.  Blogs, letters and websites are great but many members won't take the time to read them.  Committee members can stop a lot of misinformation in the locker room and on the course.

Finally, the committee, and particularly the chair, can act as a buffer for the super.  Inevitably, some members will be dissatisfied and some may even become confrontational.  Supers are at an extreme disadvantage in any confrontation with a member so we advise them to refer those situations to the chair (me).  The chair is on equal footing with the member and can take care of the problem in a variety of direct ways.

Of course if the chair or the committee intrude in areas where they don't belong, e.g. excessive tree planting, they can be a real problem.  That is why we strive to educate the clubs in our Association.

[Ryan Coles]

Yes.