TEPaul,
You bring up a good point.
Once the answer is received, who analyzes it and who then makes the decisions based on the information at hand ?
There's almost an inherent conflict between between a green committee, a superintendent and an architect.
When all are well informed and well intentioned, the best arrangements tend to be hand in glove approaches to agronomic, architectural and playability issues.
However, infalibility doesn't reside with any one party, and thus, the checks and balances in place can have merit.
Each club is unique,as are the parties involved.
My concern, as I watch Green Committees in action, is the acceptance of trends in maintainance and design despite the clear architectural and maintainance history of the club.
Beautification and structure programs seem to be littering up course after course.
Simple functional features like cart stops or turnarounds now find themselves adorned with stone and/or wooden structures, shrubs, flowers and the like. There's an effort to beautify every location where a golfer might pause for a nano-second, even if he's just using a ball washer.
All too often clubs are quick to adopt the newest fad rather than respect and fine tune the basics, that have endured for 80 or so years.
And, too often, there are no qualifications required to be nominated to serve on a green committee, rather, clubs want a broad spectrum of golfers to populate these committees irrespective of their knowledge or interest in related areas.