Grant,
It wouldn't serve anyone's best interest to name names, but, I just can't agree with your general condemnation of superintendents as the culprits or catalysts for the problems you perceive.
The ultimate authority and the funds lie with the club, the membership and the club's leaders, not the superintendents.
Superintendents can't spend money indiscriminately or carte blanche.
I know, when I was Chairman, as a policy, checks over a certain amount had to be countersigned by me as Chairman or another club officer I designated, in my absence.
I know that the Superintendent was NOT authorized to enter into contracts in excess of a rather low threshold, and that countersignatures, from me and another club officer were necessary when entering into contracts, and subject to review by the clubs inhouse, and often, retained outside counsel.
Now perhaps, I'm an advocate for a very disciplined, very controlled environment, one that others don't adopt or adhere to, but, in terms of fiscal responsibility, I just don't see the "rogue" superintendents that you portray.
Perhaps I'm naive or overly thorough, but, I can't imagine clubs that don't have similar internal and external controls when it comes to funds, contracts and decision making.
Where am I in error ?