A proper Green Committee

[Ted Sturges]

I have gone on record as saying that I don't believe a club should actually have a Green Committee.  It has been my belief that all a Green Committee can do is screw things up.  I've maintained that if there is a consulting architect, and a master plan, a thoughtful club could simply appoint a Green Chairman and his/her job would be to report to the board updates as to compliance with the master plan.  That being said, this approach is likely not practical at most clubs. 


So...my question is:


What should a proper Green Committee look like?
How can a club make sure that their Green Committee doesn't screw up their golf course?
Can examples be provided from this panel as to how a proper Green Committee is functioning at your own clubs?




TS

[Joe Hancock]

Green Committee= Qualified Golf Course Superintendent

[Ian Mackenzie]

Ted -

This issue really has been covered extensively here as far back as 2006 by...uh...you...;-)

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,25064.0/nowap.html

https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sponcia-joe-green-committee-primer/

There is a ton of info on USGA's site. Here's a good start:

]https://cloud.3dissue.com/73035/73358/111041/AGuideForGreenCommiteeMembers/index.html

https://www.usga.org/course-care/tools-for-green-committees.html

Assume you are talking only about private courses.
The largest distinction and bifurcation comes quickly: golf club or country club?

Logic and pragmatism usually apply at golf clubs.
Politics and optics usually prevail at country clubs.

Yes, if you have an excellent super and a talented retained GCA, then most committees serve as "window dressing" to create a monthly 1-page summary that the committee board liaison can present at the monthly board meeting for 15 minutes.

You're now going to see all the cliches and maxims come out:

- committees should have an odd number and 3 and 5 is too many.
- best clubs have a "benevolent dictator" who knows what he is doing and does it for life.
- thankless job, blah-blah-blah, etc.

The sad truth is that most clubs' committees are set up by the club board that is made up of mostly corporate and big company guys (finance, lawyers, CEOs, etc.) , not entrepreneurs and small business people. So, what you usually end up with is an impotent entity that is used as a "tool of transparency" when, in fact, all the decisions are going to be made at the board anyway.

so, if you want to waste 2 hours of your time on a Saturday am to hear about the conditions of the new mowers and the schedule of maintenance for the course, then knock yourself out.

I'll be in the 14th hole thanking myself for bowing out of greens committees years ago...;-)

BUT - to answer your question - if it were up to me, I would...:

- Have a committee of 5
- Board member liaison/chair who is empowered to make decisions
- Superintendent
- Head pro
- Low hdcp younger member
- Hi hdcp older member

- a charter and a vision/mission
- a 5 year term
- carte blanche to adhere to GCA master plan assuming super and retained GCA sign off

[Tom_Doak]

BUT - to answer your question - if it were up to me, I would...:

- Have a committee of 5
- Board member liaison/chair who is empowered to make decisions
- Superintendent
- Head pro
- Low hdcp younger member
- Hi hdcp older member

- a charter and a vision/mission
- a 5 year term
- carte blanche to adhere to GCA master plan assuming super and retained GCA sign off

The #1 question mark on this list for me is including the head pro.  I've worked at clubs where the pro was a huge asset to the green committee - Fred Muller at Crystal Downs, for one - but I've worked at others where the pro had a heavy thumb on the scale, as it were.


The club professional is the person most exposed to the daily complaints of golfers [the poor chap].  If he feels obliged to report all these complaints up the chain, it could be a disaster to have him involved, unless you believe in the adage that "the customer is always right".  He is also likely to be deferential to particular members, for reasons other than the business of the committee.


I do know for a fact that the former club professionals at several clubs where I consult were instrumental in making changes to the course that I had to undo later, because they felt the original features were Unfair.  Of course, members can suffer from the same delusion . . . but the difference is you take it with a grain of salt when a member says it.

[Thomas Dai]

Too many cooks spoil the broth.
I’d go with no green committee or green chairman at all. Instead the Superintendent/Course Manager/General Manager/person in change of the course would sit on the main club committee/board. And there’d be precious few others on the main committee/board either and those who do sit on it, apart from the aforementioned employees, wouldn’t be allowed to stay in position for too long.
Let the experts not the butchers and bakers and candlestick makers run the course/club.
Atb

[Jeff Schley]

Isn't there a joke about a green committee that goes something like: "I like a green committee with less than 2, me."  Or something like that.

[Jason Hines]

This is truly an issue and in my experience an issue of balance.  Not all Greens Committees are comprised of philistines according to our principles on this discussion board.
You can have a militant BOD’s that wants to:
Drive your membership from 350 to 150 and jack up dues.
Cannonball every effort to employ native grasses by an actual architect because a green golf course is a good golf course.
Put expensive concrete everywhere and most egregiously in play – so people can cut down on distance walked to the green.
Balance.

[Steve Sayre]

I've been lucky to be on green committees, and it's interesting and fun. All my experience has involved master plans developed by architects you know and like.


I haven't seen a "too many cooks" scenario at all. Rather, I've seen the close involvement of the superintendent, respect for the architect, and strong support for the master plan. Committee review and input? Maybe one meeting. Not a painful step.


The important reason, IMO, to have a committee of 6 or 8 (let's say) is political. In a good way. That is, informed committee members serve as emissaries to the membership at large, providing information and reasoning. Everything that is this expensive naturally gets membership scrutiny, and committee members can help prevent dumpster fires when the costs are revealed, trees are removed, bunkers changed, etc by communicating with members they know. Committee members provide needed transparency, to use a term much in vogue.


Maybe some clubs can get away with a couple of powerful members jamming a master plan on their membership, but I'm thinking that wouldn't work out very well in the vast majority of cases.

[Ed Oden]

I cringe a bit at the pervasive negative view of green committees each time this topic comes up and would caution against assuming that all green committees are a scourge just because of horror stories at other places.  I have been on my club's green committee for over 10 years and chaired it for the last two.  In that time I haven't seen any of the bad things that many seem to assume are the nature of the beast.  No changes to the golf course that aren't consistent with our master plan or approved by our consulting architect.  No decision ever made which our Superintendent was not fully on board with.  No unnecessary projects.  No one trying to make a legacy for themselves or make changes that help their game.  On the contrary, in my experience a green committee can be a tremendous asset by being first and foremost a tool for the preservation and maintenance of the architectural and historical heritage of a golf course and club.  If done right, a green committee should be the first line of defense against the exact type of poor decision making that people fear.  They are in a position to educate members about why things are the way they are and should stay that way.  They are liaisons between the membership, the board and the maintenance staff.  Do you really want your Superintendent or GM to be the final arbiter?  That seems to me like a good way to get them fired.  In my opinion a good green committee and, by extension, a club's board, can be a Superintendent's best friend by providing cover and taking the heat for actions approved by the committee and board.  The problem isn't with green committees conceptually, but rather the failure of clubs to understand their primary role (i.e., preservation and maintenance) and ensure that the right people are in place to carry out that role.


All the best,


Ed

[Kevin_Reilly]

Well said, Ed.  I have a similar experience at my club (6 years on the GC, with probably a few more before I get put out to pasture).

[Dan Herrmann]

The Green Committee at my club is a glorified focus group.   Our head greenkeeper makes all the decisions.   Any architectural changes must be run by the architect or his firm first.


It's perfect.