Golf club committees

[Thomas Dai]

I came across this rather insightful, suggestive and amusing article in U.K. National Club Golfer which might be of interest.
https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news/ditch-golf-club-committees/
As the old joke says -
“Why do golf clubs always have showers in the locker rooms?”
“Because a committee cannot run a bath!”
😀
Atb

[Scott Champion]

To paraphrase Don Harradine, “committees should have an odd number and three is too many”.

[Ian Andrew]

Most amusing thing I've heard "this year" was a Greens Chairman pitched that he should be appointed the club's golf course architect because he felt he could do the job ... this was during their golf architect search. He didn't get the job. But I can assure you that the architect will have to deal with him ...

[BCrosby]

Ian -


I am surprised that sort of thing still happens. Particularly after all the talk/debate about golf architecture and architects over the last couple of decades. Must be a rare mix of ego and ignorance.


For your sake, I hope you didn't get the job.


Bob

[Lou_Duran]

There are other far more important "committees" that I worry about, namely the ones which could land me in jail if I didn't agree with their orthodoxy.


I am in the possession of a manuscript written by a reputable gca who wrote voluminously about the problems with working with committees.  Like many technical people, he didn't like interference.  And I haven't found a way to tell his story fairly and concisely while omitting this important aspect of how he perceived his work.


I think it is a natural, reflexive repulsion that subject experts feel when having to work with people who they consider to be rank amateurs in their fields, especially if the latter have influence and/or control.  There are pros and cons, good committees and bad ones; gcas who are good stewards of their clients trust and money and others who put their personal interests first.  I know that if I was a fiduciary, I would want other eyes and ears involved.  And it has to do with much more than covering my behind.

[Ian Andrew]

For your sake, I hope you didn't get the job.

Wasn't considered ... didn't want the job ...

[SL_Solow]

I'll ignore Lou's political jab to focus on the topic.  While most if not all of us have real concerns about the qualifications and activities of Greens' Committees, we should be realistic and understand that they are here to stay.  So long as clubs are member owned the members will create structures to supervise their investment and these structures will likely consist of Boards of Directors and Committees.  Even clubs that are owned by an individual or outside company will be dependent on the wisdom/judgment of the owner with respect to the architecture and maintenance of the course.  The question becomes, is there a way to improve the performance of those entrusted with these decisions.


Here in the Chicago District, we hold an annual seminar dealing with all aspects of running a club.  There is a separate break out session for Greens' Committees.  We stress the limited role, reliance on the Superintendent, hiring a professional for architectural advice as well as other practical advice.  I cannot be certain how much impact we make although the Superintendents have expressed their appreciation.  But given that clubs are independent entities, all we can do is to try and educate the decision makers.  Anecdotes are instructive and amusing in identifying a problem but the real issue is whether we can make an impact.

 

[Lou_Duran]

Mr. Solow- thanks for ignoring my comments while referring to me by name.  I just see a great deal of irony in trusting our lives to mostly total strangers while being highly suspicious of a handful of our own colleagues to act honorably on our behalf on the much more inconsequential matters of golf. 


It is popular on this site to knock the work of committees.  I guess you should be let in the secret: with the relatively rare exceptions of some single-owner courses, everything about club governance is political (and often undemocratic).  Based on very personal experience, I am extremely suspicious of the collective.  At least at most golf clubs, the committee has to eat its own cooking.  And if one really screws up, the damage can be undone in relatively short order.

[SL_Solow]

Lou,  I have been involved in club governance for a long time and if taking the effort to obtain a consensus is political, so be it.  Democracy can be a real bitch.  The trick, on the club level, is to have a club with shared values, a charter (constitution) that guarantees the rights of minorities and a membership that supports and respects the underlying values embodied in the charter.  Fortunately for me, we have maintained that type of culture at our club.  But we have to work at it.

[Anthony Butler]

If the greens committee chairman versus the house chairman is the guy on the hot seat, the club has its priorities in order, but perhaps needs work on their governance model.

The first thing the club needs to do is work out whether the goal is maintain and enhance the current playing characteristics of the course, or whether they are looking for a change agent. You can't move forward  or productively engage outside expertise unless there is consensus on that matter.