[W.H. Cosgrove]

As the new year begins, many clubs are changing their chairs for committees.  

What would you suggest as priorities and directions to get a committee on track and functional?

How would you structure the committee and members?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cos,

The answer depends upon each club's methodology for selecting their green chairman.

Some clubs insist that the new green chairman has to be selected from the cadre of the previous green committee members, thus assuring a degree of continuity, experience and familiarity with the budgeting process, manpower and other current issues, agronomic and architectural, as well as the political climate.

This usually   assures that the new Chairman will be the most qualified candidate.

The new green chairman MUST be a Board member.

Other clubs select a green Chairman based on his connection to the new powers at the club.  Often times he has no prior experience in this area, and is amongst the least qualified individuals to head the committee at that point in time.

Often, these individuals need a one or two year learning period to get up to speed.  For these individuals, they should do NOTHING to the golf course for their first year or two at the helm.

I have a different and unpopular point of view with regard to the composition of green committees.

I believe that there should be a Green Chairman, and that he should be the committee.  He and he alone should interface with the Superintendent, and he and he alone should report to the Board and Membership.

Remind me again, of all of the statues commemorating committees.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
A friend who is a green committee member told me that a recent meeting there were over two dozen concerns brought to them by members. I like your idea of an individual as chair/committee but how can one person do a thorough assessment and give a complete report to the board on all the member issues? It seems like it would be a burden on anyone who is otherwise gainfully employed.    

         

[Robert Emmons]

Patrick,
As a current green chairman I could not agree more...RHE

[W.H. Cosgrove]

As clarification, In this case,the Chair has traditionally served on the committee for a period of time.  Board supplies a Liaision to report back to the board.  In the event of a large issue, the Chair goes to the Board directly.  

The issue of dealing with Members concerns is one that has to be dealt with at any level of club politics.  

I was more seeking large picture input.  Methods of building a framework on which to hang policies and decisions.  In this case a committee that has floated directionless for some time need to be reenergized.

And finally, which players or members shold be looked at for membership?  Women? High Handicaps, Low handicaps, leaders? followers?  Club Champs, Ranking panel members?

I want some excitement, not whether the greens should be fast, slow or turned inside out.  The Super simply needs direction and then subsequent backing and communication support.

Now what do you suggest?

[TEPaul]

Interesting timing of this thread. At this very moment I'm starting to write up a memo for the green committee that might be called the ideal maintenance meld to strive for on our course.

When I present it we'll see if the golf and green committees and then the board agree with it in principle and if so I'd expect that the green committee can then use it as a goal statement to follow to determine how acheivable it really is.

A number of components go into it and if we can impliment them our maintenance practices should be geared towards getting the golf course to play as it was designed to be played.

As this thread mentions this is a good time for it as a new green chair will be coming in shortly.

[SL_Solow]

Cos;  I have a fair amount of experience in this area having served as Greens Chair for 6 years, club Pres. for 2 during a major renovation, and have now returned as co-Greens Chair.  Part of the answer to your question depends upon the nature of the issues confronting your course.  Is the superintendent experienced and does he/she enjoy the confidence of the membership?  Are there particular problems confronting the course?  What is the condition of your maintenance equipment?  Is the irrigation system in good condition?  All of these are important factors in determining what you need to do.  With regard to broader philosophical issues, I tend to agree with Pat that a benevolent dictatorship is the best system for dealing with this area of a club.  However such a system is often impossible to implement.  Therefore I suggest a broad based committee with the understanding that the function of committee members is to informally collect members' comments and relay them to the Chair.  Members seeking direct contact with the superintendant should be directed to the chair by committee members and employees including the super.  Committee members should also be actively involved in budgeting, equipment purchases and the like.  Members should be kept away from agronomic decisions.  Establishing goals and scheduling maintenance and tournaments should be part of the committee interaction with the superintendant.  This is a fairly complex topic which is not suited to a single post.  If you think my input would be useful, feel free to contact me by privat message or email.

[Robert Emmons]

Cos,
 In my experience the chairman has also always been a board member, this is important when forming both general and capital budgets and the over all direction of the club. He needs to be in the loop.
 The direction and energy needs to come from this leader utilizing input from the super.
 The commitee needs to be a cross section of members with a interest and desire to protect the course and respond to its needs. The chairman is always the boss...RHE  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Pat,
A friend who is a green committee member told me that a recent meeting there were over two dozen concerns brought to them by members. I like your idea of an individual as chair/committee but how can one person do a thorough assessment and give a complete report to the board on all the member issues? It seems like it would be a burden on anyone who is otherwise gainfully employed.    

It's duck soup

It's very doubtful that these two dozen concerns are brand spanking new, that not one of them has ever come up before.

I would imagine that two dozen issues can't all be of great magnitude.

In addition, if two dozen items suddenly came up it would seem to indicate that either he or his predecessor didn't do a thorough job, previously.  Something doesn't seem right with the scenario you present.

A green Chairman, in conjunction with his Superintendent should be able to field inquiries, research and report to the board and membership their findings, no matter how many issues they're presented with.  It's not that difficult if they're competent, thorough and organized.

On the other hand, if they're not any of the above, perhaps they're not devoting the time necessary to properly perform their duties, or perhaps they're not qualified for the job, or a combination of the above.

I've always said that anyone who serves on a committee and especially a board has to have three basic components.

1  A love of the entity
2  Put in the time required to perform the function, admirealbly
3  Subjugate their agenda to what's best for the club.

[DPL11]

Pat,

Let me tell you a story about my first supt. job at age 23. I had a newly elected chairman who convinced the club board members that he knew all about this grass stuff, since he owned a retirement community and adjacent sewage treatment facility. The board, wisely, gave him the helm to run the show.
My predecessor was well known for his tendancy for over-watering, and my main goal as the new supt. was to dry the place out and get the ball running again. This new chairman decided that no water should be turned on until July 4th, since his 3.5" lawn usually didn't need it until around that time. My response was we will not need to water at all, because just about everything should be dead by then (being located in southern NJ).
Luckily, this genius was ousted from office before any real damage could be done, but this is just one example of a knucklehead dictatorship. If you have the right person, it is definately the way to go, but how many club board members are qualified to appoint such a person?

Doug

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cos, SL Solow and others,

The moment you implement a broad based committee is the moment you dilute the quality and effeciency of the committee.

It's one of the dumbest ideas in country club golf.

Let's get as many members as possible involved, irrespective of their qualifications, irrespective of their inability to put forth the time, and irrespective of their inability to think of the club first.

To me, it shows a total lack of leadership, and ineptness.

It allows club leaders to couch their decisions in popularity, and not in making tough but prudent decisions.

Let's expand the broad based committee to the ultimate by sending out a general survey to every member on every green committee issue, then we'll know what every member thinks, and we'll let majority decide on the outcome.  
That's democratic isn't it

Give me a strong President, a Strong Green Chairman and a Skilled Superintendent and you don't need anything else.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DPL 11,

You may recall in one of my earlier posts that I indicated that the intern process, the educating and grooming of a successor from within the ranks of the green committee is a viable method.

Each Green Chairman should be charged with grooming his successor, internally or externally.

Any club can name an unqualified individual to be the Green Chairman, and, most clubs do.

But, that doesn't mean that a successful process can't be implemented.

Lastly, you could have the best Green Chairman in the world, but, if you've got a Board that doesn't have a clue about golf, architecture, agronomy and maintainance, a board who listens to every complaint and whim of the membership, I can't imagine that Green Chairman lasting his appointed term.

That's why I referenced a Strong President, a Strong Green Chairman and a skilled Superintendent as all that is needed.

[DPL11]

Pat,

Agreed.

I was just pointing out how many clubs often regress before they progress. Too many clubs just appoint "Jim" because he is the next in line, and he needs to perform his obligation before he becomes El Presidente.

[SL_Solow]

Pat, we're really not far apart.  I agree that the ideal system centralizes authority in knowledgable, well intentioned leaders.  However, I suggested that in many clubs this is not possible.  Therefore a broad based committee, selected by the chair can be useful in gathering information, building consensus, and creating a pool for future chairs.  The key is to make certain that the superintendent/chair maintain control of the process.  This can be done through a combination of intelligent selection of members and education of the committee.  Is this as easy as selecting a single person to act as greens czar?  No it requires much more managment effort.  But given the structure of many clubs, the czar construct will never happen and thus the club must strive to get the best manageable result.  In my experience, we have worked with an extremely experienced and competent superintendent.  We never failed to obtain committee approval of any significant initiative.  It just took a little homework but when we were done, we already had a broad base of support in the event members questioned a decision.

[DPL11]

Can't the club pass a bylaw that the committee shall hire and retain a competent, experienced super who abides by X, Y and Z principles, and then stay the hell out of his way during the season and limit themselves to retain/fire and budgetary decisions in the off season?

Yes. In a perfect world.

[stovepipe]

Over here. (the uk) in some cases, more often than not, the less qualified guy misses out.

Reason's being, one of money & power, (not good).

Why have a green's committee in the first place? why not put it to the club member's to saught the clubs budget out, so thay can decide where the money is spent.

This normaly goes to the,"what i call the snobbish non Golfer element" The Whiskey swilling gang, these guy's dont listen, and dont want to know.

On some of the courses i have been a member on, seem to spend, perhaps "waste" is a better word, there money on bunker's etc, when there not needed.

but as alway's thay dont listen to the individuel.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

No.

Remember too, that club's change philosophy as membership demographics change, and new leaders ascend into authority.
Since the Superintendent is an employee of the club, he must do the club's bidding, and that's not a static mandate.

SL Solow,

If you had to have a committee rather than a single individual,
It would seem that the best committee would be one composed of those concerned members who have the golf course's, the member's and club's best interest at heart,
who have the time to devote to this pursuit, and the intelligence and common sense to provide the best imput and make the most prudent decisions.

But, I don't think this can be achieved by appealing, politically, to the broadest base of the membership.

It may seem elitist, but you have to select the best men and women for the committee, and not cross sections of every faction of the membership.

I know of a club that had 150 members and 20 of them were on a committee.  The club only had 12 board members, but 20 members were on a committee.  The meetings were unruley, and little got done after they finished discussing all of the ridiculous items that each member threw out on the floor for discussion.

I think you have to select the most qualified individuals, irrespective of their backround or demographic, and hope that they will assist you by serving.

Once you have that core, one of the committees most important tasks is the ongoing recruitment of other qualified members, such that generations of members will serve on the green committee, providing expertise, experience and continuity for the club.

All too often, a new chairman is named, and he/she terminates all previous green committee members and names a new group with ABSOLUTELY NO prior experience or knowledge.  And their agenda is often SCAREY

In my limited experience, if you want to stifle a member who complains about the golf course, put them on the committee and put them in charge of a project.  It's amazing how quickly them become silent or unavailable.

The other difficult task many committee chairman face is deflecting or resisting fads that groups of members want to implement.

[Don_Mahaffey]

TEPaul,
It is my belief that every club/course should have a written document defining the desired level of course conditioning. The more detail the better, because once this document is set as a goal then it becomes an excellent planning and budgeting tool. And, more importantly, once a document like this is developed, then the processes that need to be managed to meet the goal become the focus, not the personnel. In other words, set the goals, develop the process, manage the process, measure the quality, and adjust as needed. If a problem arises, the fingers get pointed at the system, not the people. Obviously, the system needs to managed well, but done right, I believe it's the golf course management method of the future.  
I know this thread is about green’s chairmen, but I think my post is relevant, because I believe it would be in every club’s best interest to have a written set of goals relating to course conditioning

[DPL11]

Don,

I couldn't agree with you more.

This takes all the hidden agendas and ego driven decisions out of the picture. Some of the most successful supt./board relationships in the business, have a written code of standards for golf course maintenance.

Doug

[TEPaul]

Don Mahaffey:

Regarding your entire post #18---that's exactly and precisely what the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" in written form IS!!! It's supposed to be a precise process guide of EXACTLY how to "meld" those maintenance practices that are ideal for any particular golf course into it's particular design style and intent.

This could never be said for the other condition description that's been around for so many decades called simply "GOOD CONDITION".

What the hell did that mean exactly? Well, now we probably know and it didn't work very well on some courses--the idea of "good condition" in America in the last fifty or so years was a "one size fit's all" maintenance process if I ever saw one!

Golf courses have different styles and design intentions and a "one size fits all" maintenance process is definitely not the ideal application!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don Mahaffey,

The flaw in your reasoning is that it assumes a monolithic or universal consensus in a static form.

As Green Committees and Boards turn over, so do their perspectives and philosophies, and the more democratic the nature of the organization, the more prone to change they become.

I've seen written and formally adopted Master Plans and Maintainance Mandates rendered useless by the new regime in power.

Continuity in understanding and implementation is the key to what you seek.  Written documents can be amended or rendedred null and void with a new vote by those now in power.

[DPL11]

Pat,

That is why clubs that are serious about continuity and progression actually adopt "Maintenance Standards" into the bylaws. If a club is serious about what it wants, it has to be protected from ego's and agenda's.

As Don points out, it makes a superintendents job a hell of alot easier if expectations are on paper for all members to review.

Doug

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

Pat, why not?

Isn't handing the super a set of goals and a "go to it, do your best to comply with the goals, and we'll reevaluate at the end of the season" better than sticking your nose into everything and micro-managing the hell out of the guy during the season?  

This isn't what you said in your earlier post # 14.
The above represents a departure from your prior position.

You're adding a new element, micro-management, which confuses and complicates the issue.

If you hand the super the WRONG set of goals, and he achieves them, what then ?

You're also making the assumption that there is total agreement amongst the committee on the instructions, which is frequently not the case.  

He can always come to the committee for guidance or major issues.  How is this any different than a Board of Directors of a company giving the CEO a set of objectives and saying "this is your responsibility, go to it, ask for a meeting if you need us or if anything major comes up, but otherwise, it's up to you"?

Because a golf course is a living organism, affected by many variables during the course of a year, it can't be approached in the same manner.

A mistaken directive can have disastrous results from which recovery is impossible..

In addition, your approach seems confined solely in agronomics, conveniently forgetting architecture and capital improvements to a golf course.

If the committee tells the superintendent to make asphalt cart paths throughout the golf course, are you content to abdicate the sole responsibility for the location and construction of those paths to the superintendent ?

And, once they're in, what are you going to do if they're wrong ?   Where are you going to get the funds to rip them out and redo the project correctly ?  Do you think that the Board would be comfortable with you screwing the project up, but assuring them that you'll get it right the next time ?

Lastly, How much experience do you have at serving on green commmittees ?

DPL 11,

I don't necessarily disagree with you and Don, it's just that I've seen By-Laws amended at will.  More important then By-Laws is the collective understanding of the membership, their will, with respect to the conditioning standards of their golf course, adjusted for weather and other conditions.

[TEPaul]

"The flaw in your reasoning is that it assumes a monolithic or universal consensus in a static form."

Ah, for Christ Sake Pat, what are you talking about? You know what the ideal maintenance meld process is all about on some of these older strategic courses like GCGC and NGLA. Once it's put into place everyone will love it, you know that. Now that NGLA is into it do you hear anyone complaining? Unfortunately the same can't be said yet for GCGC because they haven't figured it out yet.  

It's so logical, once their attention is captured they have to figure it out. The only thing to worry about is the super doesn't burn the place up by mistake and lose the greens and fairways or something.

[SPDB]

pat -

i would think limiting a green committee to a single person is a pretty dangerous approach. i think a number of great courses would be vastly different if green comm. responsibilities were consolidated in a single person. look at what joe dey did to the creek when he was the reigning autocrat. I think the success of your theory depends too highly on likelihood that such a scheme would be expediently beneficial, as opposed to the opposite which is equally likely (if not more likely based on the all too typical lack of knowledge of green committee members).

i'll concede that it has its potential benefits, but they are probably outweighed by the potential risks. a committee, however (and not merely a slate appointed by the incoming chair) with all of the attendant gridlock problems probably would guard against any detrimental plans envisioned by an overzealous member among them (who under your plan could conceivably be judge, jury and executioner). Correspondingly, positive change could also be staunched, but in most courses there isn't a pressing need for an overhaul in practices or an urgent need for renovation.

The argument you made (and I echoed) on the FH-Rater fiasco suggested that human nature told you otherwise. I think the same case could be made here - your plan IMO puts too much faith in a system which would consolidate power in one person on the assumption that (s)he will do the right thing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()