Should A Master Plan Be In A Club's By-Laws?

[Jim_Coleman]

   I attended a very interesting presentation by Gil Hanse over the weekend.  I was struck by his observation that one of the most important things he learned from Tom Doak, who in turn learned it from Pete Dye, is that great golf courses are not designed on paper; they are designed on site.  I found this interesting, because about 20 years ago Gil developed a master plan for my course, and appeared at a club annual meeting to urge the club to adopt the plan into its by-laws.  The club rejected the recommendation, and went on in later years hire Jim Nagle from Ron Forse's firm to make changes outside the letter of Gil's plan.  The members are very pleased with how the course has evolved.
   By-laws, by their nature, are not flexible.  Although incorporating a master plan into a club's by-laws is intended to protect the course from the whims of future administrations, I believe the tactic could inhibit actual progress for years to come.  Master plans are a good thing, but only as a guide, not as binding policy.  Thoughts?

[PCCraig]

Frankly, in order to get a master plan adopted into the club bylaws it would require so much input from various board and committee members (outside of a Green Committee) that it would be a disaster.

[Tim Martin]

I think of a Master Plan as a guide or blueprint that ideally gets carried out as stated but obviously could be subject to change depending on a variety of circumstances. Would it make sense to legally bind the club and what effect might it have on other operations?

[Rick Shefchik]

I'd be reluctant to put in a great deal of effort as a board member to establish a master plan if I knew the next group of board members could simply dump it on a 5-4 votes. I think any measure that important to a club's future needs an extra level of protection. That doesn't mean a master plan can never be changed. By-laws can be changed every year by a vote of the membership. If a club feels it has locked itself into a master plan that is no longer feasible or wise, the members can vote to change it.

[mike_malone]

It should be a plan not a straight jacket.


 Since I have studied the plan you mentioned hundreds of times I can say that a master plan often has inclusions which aren’t properly vetted and shouldn’t be done. They also miss rather obvious things which should be included.

[Mark_Fine]

This will be debated forever but one thing I am sure of is that ALL clubs/courses should have some kind of master plan/short to long range road map for the maintenance and management of their golf course.  I have worked with clubs on dozens of these plans and whether they put the plan into the club's by-laws or not, the process of going through and preparing a plan is invaluable.  I often ask club members and owners how many of them would run their own company or business without any kind of forward looking plan?  Hopefully not many.  Winging it can work but I have seen literally hundreds of courses that have not necessarily evolved for the better because of constant tinkering by overzealous committees trying to do the "right" thing 

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps some of us, myself included, are getting hung up on the "Master Plan" verbage.


It seems so confining/rigid/restrictive.


I'm thinking it'd be good to have something along the lines of a mission statement or rules to live-by type of thing in this situation....

[Tom_Doak]

Every club should have a mission statement as part of its by-laws.  That mission statement should be as clear as possible ... and then be left to the board of the day to interpret.

Putting a master plan in the by-laws is a mistake.  It's usually the result of a particularly controlling president or greens chair trying to maintain his control even after he's gone.  There are always some details that will be noticed later on ... or by a different set of eyes.  [Don't forget, every club that hires me as a consultant, is doing so after finding their previous master plan wanting.] 

Putting a master plan in the by-laws is also, in the long run, irrelevant.  I've worked at places where this was the case, and we just ignored it when the time came to do something at odds with the plan.  As someone famous once said, it's only a piece of paper ... and that's relevant to what I taught Gil.

[Ed Brzezowski]

When to the same event Jimmy. Had a great talk with him afterward.

If not binding what keeps Mrs. Haverkamp from planting azealas all over creation? A master plan should be a clubs North Star, a guidepost as the club goes forward. Our club votes on it and we see it as binding as the By Laws. Open as far as dates of projects to be done but solid guide as to the future.

ed

[Terry Lavin]

Yes, as long as you have the right architect and the right plan. It’s a great way to limit the mischief of a grounds committee or superintendent who’ve run amok. Our master plan is in our bylaws at Beverly and its presence imposes a modicum of discipline that is occasionally crucial.

[jeffwarne]

A Master plan is merely a snapshot in time of current tastes, fads, and personalities.


What happenes if Judge Smails hires Ted Robinson  to do a Master Plan for the next 50 years and you're stuck with that in a by-law?

[Ed Homsey]

My club developed a golf course master plan, under the guidance of architect Ian Andrew, in 1998.  With the exception of this year, Ian has been involved in reviews and modifications of the plan every 7 years.   Our bylaws has a section dealing with changes "in shape or location of basic features of the golf course" (examples given), that "must be done under the direction of a certified golf course architect and consistent with the long range golf course plan".  What I've learned, however, is that with the change of regimes, bylaws provisions are forgotten, or overlooked, so major changes have been proposed that violated the intent of the bylaws provision, and Travis character of the course, but were "caught" before implementation.  So, the procedures established in 1998 have not been foolproof.

[Peter Pallotta]

Terry -
Reminds me of a chat I had at a bar in NY City. The fellow was a lawyer. I don't remember how, but we got to talking about the Hollywood 10 -- the 'communists' during the witch-hunts in the late 1940s and 50s. Turns out his father was also a lawyer, and had represented them. They were cited for contempt of Congress for not answering the "are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?" The 10 argued against the charge by saying they had First Amendment rights. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, which basically said "No you don't - not in this case". And they went to jail.
I said: Hmm. I guess the constitution is there to ensure justice  -- until someone out of step with the zeitgeist actually *needs* justice, and then it isn't.
And he said: Yup.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, as long as you have the right architect and the right plan. It’s a great way to limit the mischief of a grounds committee or superintendent who’ve run amok. Our master plan is in our bylaws at Beverly and its presence imposes a modicum of discipline that is occasionally crucial.

Terry:


So what are the details of your master plan that you think are actually important to enshrine, beyond a mission statement to preserve the routing and playing strategies of Donald Ross's original design?


The only thing I can see is that might have given your consulting architect less flexibility to propose adding bunkers where Ross didn't have them, under the guise of "Ross".  Enshrining any architect's master plan as law helps lock them in as one's consultant ... which is the main reason I believe architects suggest it.


The most helpful bylaw I've seen at any club was the one Pasatiempo enshrined before they hired us.  They simply said that any future changes to the course had to be based on restoring historical features.  It didn't lock them into restoring everything precisely in any way, but it prevented them from going the opposite direction.

[Joe Hancock]

Take my advice with many grains of salt, as I have only had the opportunity to work with one club(on my own)to develop a long range improvement plan. But I see these plans (whatever you want to call them) as more an opportunity to educate than it is a binding, authoritarian policy. The interaction that occurs with club leaders and staff is a fantastic way to get the word out, in a philosophical way. Details are details, but philosophies are the foundation.


I would imagine that architects egos would be a significant force behind a demand for their paper ideas to become part of a clubs constitution. If I was a club leader, I’d have none of it.

[Mike_Young]

Below is an outline that has been around for a few years and I'm not sure which architect initiated it but it is a good outline IMHO for what transpires during the process.  I may be wrong but I assume many here think of the Master Plan as a drawing but the drawing is just one part and it is conceptual with the understanding that technical drawings ( if used) would come later as the plan was implemented.  Most committees really have no idea and will often say they are doing a Master Plan when all they really want is a CYA for what they wish to see done as soon as they can do it.  A course where I am a member voted to have a master plan done and what happened is the board reworked the greens and bunkers and a few other things but no one ever saw a detail of any master plan that would take us past that year of work.  That happens often.  As for putting it in by-laws..I assume that requires a vote and the same vote can remove it just as quickly by the board that wants it removed.  So why do it?

PS..I do like the part in Ed's post where a "certified architect" is required....I have never met such an animal.

GOLF COURSE RENOVATION/REMODELING
MASTER PLAN

GOLF COURSE PROJECT DATA
   
    I.    Existing or proposed master development plan for the overall  project including the golf course site and adjacent areas
   
   II.    Comprehensive list of golf course problems, deficiencies, and proposed improvements as related to the playability, maintenance and operation of the golf course

    III.    Proposed participation of Owner during construction phase, including:

        A.    Labor (skilled and unskilled) available

        B.    Equipment and tools available

        C.    Supervisory personnel available

        D.    Contract administrative personnel available

    IV.    Proposed time schedule for planning and construction phases

    V.    Proposed budget covering planning and construction costs
   
    VI.    Proposed administrative, operational and maintenance procedures affecting golf course renovation/remodeling

THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS

    I.    IDENTIFICATION OF NEED

        A.    General modernization

        B.    Improvement (or change) in course playability

        C.    Problem correction

        D.    New facility addition

        E.    Renovation
    II.    INITIATION OF THE MASTER PLAN PROCESS BY GOLF CLUB REPRESENTATIVE

        A.    Establish preliminary Master Plan program, budget and  schedule

        B.  Select the Design Team (Golf Course Architect plus other required design professionals)

        C.    Collect and disseminate Project Data (see Item I: Golf Course Project Data)

    III.    CONTINUING THE MASTER PLAN PROCESS

        A.  The Design Team
       
            1.    Familiarization with site, Project Data, preliminary Master Plan program, budget, and schedule

            2.    Consultation with Golf Club Representatives and pertinent parties

_______________________________________________________________________

        B.    The Design Team and Golf Club Representatives

            1.    Preparation of final Master Plan program, budget and  schedule

            2.    Identification of basic development concepts controlling future design, remodeling/renovation procedures, and                 maintenance

          C.    The Design Team

            1.    Sketch studies, site checks, and consultation with pertinent  parties

            2.    Preparation of preliminary Master Plan (alternative solutions, if required), design analysis, preliminary construction cost estimate and schedule

            3.    Review of basic development concepts in relation to preliminary work above

______________________________________________________________________

        D.    The Design Team and Golf Club Representatives

            1.    Site check and consultation on all preliminary work

            2.    Decision on best alternate solution(s), as required

            3.    Approval of all preliminary work
______________________________________________________________________


        E.    Design Team

            1.    Preparation of final Master Plan, design analysis, construction cost estimate and schedule

            2.    Present to Golf Club Representatives

    IV.    GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS DURING MASTER PLAN  PROCESS

        A.    Golf Club commitment

            1.    Commitment of Golf Club governing body to Master Plan  process

            2.    Commitment of Golf Club governing  body to imbue future golf course remodeling/renovation and maintenance procedures with concepts dictated by the Master Plan

            3.    Commitment of Golf Club governing body to obligate a  regular review procedure to update Master Plan concepts, and the Master Plan itself, as required

        B.    Scheduling to accommodate:

            1.    Golf play

            2.    Maintenance and operational procedures

            3.    Available work force (staff and outside work forces)

            4.    Available funds

            5.    Weather

        C.    Allowing golf play to remain as normal as possible

        D.    Maintaining continuity in design, construction and maintenance of golf course components when accomplished  over an extended period of time

    V.    MORE SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS CONCURRENT WITH  MASTER PLAN PROCESS

        A.    Retention and/or improvement of non-technical (aesthetic) qualities

            1.    Interest

            2.    Attractiveness

            3.    Satisfaction

            4.    Conventional or traditional golf course characteristics with redeeming value

        B.    Retention and/or improvement of technical qualities

            1.    Uniform soil conditions

            2.    Complete and functional irrigation system

            3.    Complete and functional drainage system

            4.    Best possible turf condition

            5.    Practical and economical construction requirements

            6.    Practical and economical maintenance and operational  requirements

[corey miller]

I agree with Joe as the document/plan is an opportunity to educate the members and attempt to bring them up to speed.

Ultimately, it seems more important for the club to maintain a relationship (and actually listen) to the consulting architect rather than get caught up in trying to memorialize a document. 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Great topic.
Have lived some of it.


I think there is a bifurcation that could be recognized as this question is posed:


1. Golf club
2. Country club with a golf course


Sure, both entities can get it right just as both can really screw the pooch.
But the mindset of a golf club lends it to more readily embracing outside expertise and acumen - especially if the original architect is integral to the club’s “brand”.


Club politics are tricky and it takes a deft touch to navigate waters like these.
Golf clubs are smaller with smaller committees and a more direct line to getting things done.


Country club committees and boards can “group think” this to death.
Doubtful you would ever attach a master plan to your bylaws, but endorsing a 3-5-10 year plan for the golf course just shows sound financial and strategic stewardship. Doesn’t have to be all about GCA either.


1.tree plan
2. Irrigation
3. Practice area and driving range
4. Course length
5. Bunker maintenance
6. Greens expansions
7. Native grasses and river banks
8. Course enhancements
9. Etc.


Neophyte as I might be, I have rarely seen a detailed master plan that also creates budgets and timelines. Boards love that kind of stuff. So, when these “dirt whispering GCAs” come along and tell corporate type committee members that they get in the dirt and make the magic on the fly, for them it’s like their daughters weed smoking artist  boyfriend just told them to “trust me”.


Trust, but verify...


Drawing master plans in the dirt is not actionable for all but the most insightful of clubs who have clear unified and efficient leadership empowered to execute and be accountable.


My experience is limited, but I was part of a process that interviewed 12 GCAs. Not one discussed finances, long term budgets, return on investments. Plans that we saw all involved golf hole drawings, renderings, etc. sure, all essential and required, but how do you get transient boards to embrace the rigidity of a master plan? Make it about budgets and ROI.


....my point....finally....know your audience. I think GCAs could get clubs to do amazing things and follow their vision much easier if “master plans” were morphed with long range plans. Solve a clubs’ problem, don’t just lecture them about shot values.


Staple that to your bylaws.   

[Tom_Doak]

ROI ?


LOL.


The people in the golf business who talk about ROI are the ones you have to watch like a hawk.  They are rarely accountable for their actions.  I'm qualified to talk about what I can build, and what it will cost; it's up to you to decide if it's worth doing, and I should not have a role in that decision if I'm not one of the ones who will pay for it.

[V_Halyard]

This is a good thread.
Here is our real life outcome that led to a by-law regarding course alteration.

1: We started with a Long Range and Restoration planning committe that scoped the restoration of our Donald Ross. (2 years)
2: The Golf and Greens committee was seperate from this committee as was the Chair but we shared input and a seats.
3: Scope was to develop a process with the OUTCOME being a Master Plan for the Golf Course and Expected Golfer Expereinces
The deliverable specified selection of the Architect that would then oversee development of that master plan with both committees, the board , Golf Pro and Management - We did an RFP/Search and selected Ron Prichard and Tyler Rae

[/size]4: End result was an outstanding restoration with the following entered into the bylaws:
[/size]To paraphrase, any future work or alteration that ventured far outside of the architectural plan MUST be overseen by the restoring architectural team, or an equivalent architect or architectural team widely recognized as expert in Donald Ross and/or Classic courses equivalent to the era of our course.

[/size]This mitigates ad-hoc tinkering by future Green Chairs (Like me) and other board members who's great aunts may have problems getting out of the restored bunkers. (Don't ask)
[/size]The moral of our story is that we luckily had Board and Membership support and buy-in to our addition of this to our by-laws.  The selling point was logical: we as a club all worked extremely hard and did the due diligence to deliver an outstanding restoration. We need a way to protect the integrity of that Member Investment with this by-law.

[/size]Message: "We now have a great course,... Don't f*** it up."

[Ian Mackenzie]

ROI ?


LOL.


The people in the golf business who talk about ROI are the ones you have to watch like a hawk.  They are rarely accountable for their actions.  I'm qualified to talk about what I can build, and what it will cost; it's up to you to decide if it's worth doing, and I should not have a role in that decision if I'm not one of the ones who will pay for it.

Tom,


Your response underscores my point.
This is not about your clientele or your projects where, I assume, you have earned the right to be picky. My point above specifically cited and excluded that group from this.


In most markets, the top 1% is unaffected by such pedestrian drivel.
But, what about the second tier of clubs or the third? What about the public access track where you would rarely venture but where they may hire a GCA to make improvements that also have a fnacial benefit.


I’m not talking about some uber-wealthy NYC finance wizard bankrolling his vanity project with a blank check.
More like “Whispering Woods Country Club” designed by Joe Lee or Bob Lohrman that is now over-treed and crowded by all types of clutter.


Or, the old Ross gem that is encountering challenging times and is faced with tough choices, has tight budgets but really needs professional GCA help but boards are throwing nickels around like they’re man-hole covers. I can think of 10cpurses like that here in Chicago.

What if a retained GCA’s recommendations could contribute to  save 8-10% per year on OpEx. Funds the GCA’s fee and part of the work stretched out over 5-10 years per the new master plan.


Or, my points are off base as most GCA’s phones are ringing off the hook with new work....

[David Wuthrich]

Master plan, yes!


In by-laws, no.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


Your response underscores my point.
This is not about your clientele or your projects where, I assume, you have earned the right to be picky. My point above specifically cited and excluded that group from this.

In most markets, the top 1% is unaffected by such pedestrian drivel.
But, what about the second tier of clubs or the third? What about the public access track where you would rarely venture but where they may hire a GCA to make improvements that also have a fnacial benefit.

I’m not talking about some uber-wealthy NYC finance wizard bankrolling his vanity project with a blank check.
More like “Whispering Woods Country Club” designed by Joe Lee or Bob Lohrman that is now over-treed and crowded by all types of clutter.

Or, the old Ross gem that is encountering challenging times and is faced with tough choices, has tight budgets but really needs professional GCA help but boards are throwing nickels around like they’re man-hole covers. I can think of 10cpurses like that here in Chicago.

What if a retained GCA’s recommendations could contribute to  save 8-10% per year on OpEx. Funds the GCA’s fee and part of the work stretched out over 5-10 years per the new master plan.

Or, my points are off base as most GCA’s phones are ringing off the hook with new work....

Ian:


Please, don't be like my "friend" from yesterday, who thinks that all of my clients are white billionaires.  I think I've got a pretty good handle on the costs of all types of projects, and the potential benefits, in terms of reputation.  But there are not many golf architects who know enough about the markets they are working in for their pronouncements about the ROI on a redesign effort to be anything more than self-affirmation.


The ONLY thing you should pay attention to on that score is whether they have delivered that sort of success for past clients. 


You are right that I don't get involved in those types of projects very often, because I'm not sure I know many examples of successful results.  You start with 18 holes, spend a lot of money, and finish with 18 holes, and whether it's "better" is pretty much a matter of opinion.  That's as true of a restoration as it is of a renovation ... the main difference is whose name you are attaching to the changes.


Funnily enough, I'm working on one of each right now.  At Bel Air, obviously, we're restoring George Thomas's design.  At Concord in Australia, the club asked us to redesign their course and make it better, which I am usually quite wary of doing, but I didn't think their greens and bunkering were very good and they trusted us to do better.  I'd have never taken that on if they'd said they were going to borrow money to do the work on the course in hopes that more people would join ... the jury is still out on that count!  Instead, they said the members want to have a more interesting course to play, and I could see where they were coming from.


I agree with you that a smart renovation can also reduce the maintenance budget and help pay for itself ... IF that's the club's goal and they don't get all carried away with trying to make some top-ten list.  But I think that goal has to come from the club, not the architect ... because there are a bunch of my courses where I'd like to see them spend less on maintenance, and they don't.     It's been a while since we had a client who asked for that -- CommonGround was probably the last one that was truly driven by the budget numbers, and they're the first client I'd have anyone call if they wanted to know how well we could keep to a budget.

[Sean_A]

I don't understand the concept of a masterplan in the bye-laws.  Shouldn't a real plan include a budget and timeline with periodic checks of the work to see if it is going to plan?  Do folks want to alter the bye-laws every time work is initiated or completed?  Or in terms of maintenance it will be a bye-law?  What if money becomes scarce? Do the bye-laws need to be altered if they can't be met?  No, to me they should be separate issues dealing with different aspects of club business/life.  It is quite easy to limit the power of a committee in terms of what it can do to a course...that can be a bye-law...not the nitty gritty of how a course is maintained etc.


I would be very uneasy about archies coming in with plans with no costs or timelines.  If truth be told, I would be uneasy listening to an archie lay-out plans without a fairly firm budget in mind.  I am looking for opinions on how to get the best bang for buck...not be sold on a massive project that isn't necessary or perhaps unaffordable.  Is this how we get these 5, 10 & 15 million projects started on courses which are essentially fine?


Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Absolutely no.