Can old committees be held responsible

[Joel_Stewart]

I was playing yesterday with another member of our club and discussing some of the changes and restoration efforts being made when this member turns angry and says all of these changes are because of mis-management and stupidity of previous management.  He suggested that previous greens committee members should be kicked out of the club.  

Is this possible and does anyone know of any examples?  

[Bill_McBride]

Typically they are just voted off the committee!

[TEPaul]

In many cases, no, they should not be held responsible--not at all!!

Cases like extensive tree planting and such. The reason being is most of those committees were just doing what was accepted practice in those days--they really weren't out to corrupt the course with their own individual ideas (although that could happen by an over-egotistical chairman etc).

The primary reason I say this is during our two years of meetings to construct our restoration master plan with Gil Hanse one member of our committee (a man of over 90) listened throughout those meeting without ever really saying a word. These were meeting where many of the things that had been done over the past fifty years, trees plants, changes, you name it, were criticized.

Finally near the end of those meetings this man said: "It was me who did many of these things. We didn't look at it then the way you've been describing it throughout all these meetings. But everything you've said makes perfect sense! I agree with everything as it's been explained. If it will help I will go before the membership and say what I just said here!"

Well, did we ever hang our heads! That damn near made me shed a tear! What a great thing to say.

So no, you shouldn't blame those people! Blame is so easy and it generally doesn't produce much benefical. But if you happen to have a man like the one I just mentioned he can very likely be the greatest help of all!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I would disagree with you.

The example you cited reflects more on the strong character and willingness to accept responsibility of a unique individual.

If there is no ACCOUNTABILITY, the floodgates of changes in the interest of personal agendas will be opened, resulting in unending assaults upon the architectual integrity of the golf course.

If there is no consequence, no criticism, no accoutability for horrendous decisions, what's the impediment to stop the continuation of ruinous projects ?

If someone or some committee is responsible for ruinous work, it should be clearly identified and the error clearly explained so that they, and others, clearly understand where the mistakes were made, TO PREVENT THEM FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.

You of all people, who correctly insist on thorough research before undertaking any project, should champion
ACCOUNTABILITY.

Dismissal from the club is excessively harsh, however, those who make horrendous decisions shouldn't be rewarded by continued participation on a committee that determines the future of the golf course.

[Joel_Stewart]

I have to agree with Pat that there has to be some degree of accountability of the actions taken by committee members or board members.  This is similar to corporate board responsibility.

Scrutiny of board members and now green committees is increasing each year and members must take it seriously.  Its not just a perk anymore.

Perhaps clubs should write new provisions for expulsions rather than rely on a vague interpetation of mismanagement.

[Gib_Papazian]

Joel,
This is not to pile on or hang our dirty laundry out in the Treehouse, but I can understand the frustration of whichever member you are referring to.

Too often, what happens is that a clique of arrogant idiots take control of a club and continually recycle themselves and their friends through the committee system - keeping a virtual stranglehold on control of the golf course and effectively squashing out any free exchange of new ideas.

Arrogance and stupidity is a dangerous combination - you might as well give a monkey a gun as put some of these professional social climbers we used to have in charge of our precious golf courses.

You are right Joel, there is a movement afoot to be far more careful who is given the keys to the Ferrari - and it is sad  how much grief and pointless change was forced on our historic golf course in previous years.

I don't kiss anybody's ass, but I have absolute confidence in the guy we have at the helm now . . . . and you know me, if I thought him a fool, I would say so whether he is in the Treehouse or not.

I disagree that we ought to call past Green Committeemen on the carpet for public flogging. Their embarrassment will be bad enough when everyone realizes how much better off the club is when being run by students of our game and not a bunch of recycled, power mad wannabees.

End of rant.  

[Dave_Miller]

Wow!! Kicking them out of the club is pretty extreme.  As a member of Green Committees and Course restoration committees my experience has shown that most members try to do the right thing.  The real problem comes about when the line between personal agenda and what is truly best becomes obscured.  
Restoration to the architects original design with built in protections requiring inclusion rather than the thoughts of  the few is probably the only true protection and even then individuals can still do things that are personal agenda.
I don't know of any examples where anyone was kicked out of a Club but do Know of several where the club has tried to build the necessary protections to prevent these type things from happening.

Best
Dave Miller

[TEPaul]

Come on Pat, get over it! What are you talking about with all this accountability? Just recognize what a particular time and a particular mentality about classic courses did to those courses all over America! Your father probably did it the same as mine--they didn't think they were corrupting their golf courses! Times have changed now--just go with it instead of looking for people to blame!

The ironic similarity is you're convinced you're right, just as they were!

One man like the one I mentioned is about 100 times more valuable than some guy you stick "accountability" on! What good is that going to do anyway? Restore the golf course and destroy the morale of the golf club?

[Mark_Huxford]

Joel,
 
I think we often over analyze other peoples motives when the main reason poor work is done to our golf courses is simply a lack of ability. MacKenzie said to avoid "he who knows not but knows not that he knows not" but he said nothing about guillotining them!  

If you do find yourself on the outside looking in at a club then my advice is to get involved and promote your ideas in a way that isn't confrontational or belligerent. If all your good people aren't making themselves part of the process then of course less talented individuals with take the helm.

Maybe Dale Carnegie should be just as much a part of our golf libraries as MacKenzie, Thomas, Simpson and Hunter are too.

[Paul Richards]

Most of the times these guys made what they thought was
the best decision at the time it was made.  Until you walk a
mile in another man's shoes ... and all that.

Unfortunately, well-meaning committee members have made
some terrible blunders, especially when planting trees.  In
many cases, little thought was given to how big those trees
would be in 20 or 40 years and how they would effect the
playability of a hole or the growing of the turf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Most changes or the disfiguring of golf courses were made in the interest of the agenda of those in power, their perception of how the golf course should look or play.

Irrespective of whether it was the removal of bunkers, the planting of trees, the redoing of greens, the genesis of the project usually boiled down to personal agendas.

Since power bases and influence at golf clubs tend to perpetuate themselves, and/or groom their successors to follow in their footsteps, it is imperative that the changes resulting in the disfigurement of the golf course be:
RECOGNIZED AS IMPROPER
CORRECTED IF POSSIBLE
PREVENTED IN THE FUTURE

This can only be accomplished through ACCOUNTABILITY.

If there is no impediment to imposing horrendous changes to the golf course, what will stop the next green chairman or President from altering the golf course to suit their personal game.   What will stop them from removing that bunker they always seem to hit into, or leveling that fairway with the uneven lies, and changing that green that slopes with the land, away from them, to a green angled toward them ?

One only has to look to their own club, and nearby clubs to see the horrendous changes made to those golf courses, by individuals or commitees who thought the golf course was their own LAB RAT TO EXPERIMENT ON.

ACCOUNTABILITY IS THE SOLE SENTINEL

[TEPaul]

Pat:

No way, I don't agree with you about accountability if by that you mean finding people on past committees to blame for things that were done in the past. The general mentality of those past committees was generally a different mindset than many of our committees today.

A new and more intelligent mentality for committees is to look at a particular golf course and how it was designed and how it should be maintained, and that is happening more and more today! That's the sole sentinel and that mentality emanates from a master plan for the future constructed by an architect and the type of architect that understands that particular course and its design intent.

The man I mentioned who spoke up and said that he understood the validity of what we were proposing even though he was the one who recommended many things in the past that he could now see were not the right things to do is far more valuable than finding someone to hold accountable and blame.

We could have simply held him accountable and blamed him for what he did, but again, what good would that really do now? The fact that we did not blame him obviously allowed him to come forward and admit that he now understood why some of the things he did were not so good, although he did not understand that nor look at it that way back then!

Just ask yourself a very simple question Pat. What would be more effective in front of a general membership? If we held this man accountable, and blamed him for things done wrong back then or if he got up in front of the membership and explained it himself, what happened then and why and how he sees it now and why?

To me it's a no-brainer--unless of course we were just looking for someone to hold accountable just to blame someone!

[ian]

They are volunteers, how can you hold a vounteer responsible? When the screw up, they have to live with the dissention in the club as long as they are members; that can be punishment enough at some clubs.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have to agree with TEPaul and Paul Richards here.

The biggest question I have to Pat Mucci is - "Accoutable to who?"  Golf Club Atlas?  A few hundred architecture buffs who think they know better?  What would be the punitive damages and who would they be paid to?  The Donald Ross society?

As TEPaul says, the irony is that people now are just as sure they are right as people back then!  It is entirely possible that this "restoration craze" will be viewed as a real low point in architecture that held the game back in about 20 years.  Our attempts will look feable and comical to the future club members, just as old haircuts and clothes look goofy to us now!

I think they accept their posts knowing they are accountable to their membership.  Most projects go to a vote of very concerned members.  I'm sure we can find cases of ramrodding and power struggles. Politics may trump common sense in some cases.  But, that is all part of it, isn't it?

As TEPaul also implies, those membership votes are at most times in history, made solely as a pocketbook decision.  We have to remember that the last decade of great economy has allowed us to do things that in most times in history were just not possible for the average club.  I'll bet that one reason that clubs planted so many trees is that it was the least expensive way to improve the course at the time. (of course, most people like trees a lot, too!)

When you judge the people of the past, in any context, its important, IMHO, to judge them in the total context.  Applying a narrow prism of wanting to preserve "original intent" doesn't do this.  If the game was changing as fast then as it is now, they may very well have not wanted to preserve original intent - but to improve it!  They may have had more pressing problems - like money, road widenings, keeping up with the Jones, etc.  Or do you think they should have been clairvoyant enough to say, "if we wait 20 more years, and do nothing, 50 internet guys will back us up 100%"

Nice to be back!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian Andrew,

When volunteers spend a couple of million dollars of my money and the memberships money to wreck a golf course, you bet I'm going to hold them accountable.

Do you let people spend your money without any form of accountability ?

TEPaul,

There you go again, creating an absurd example.

No one is suggesting the identifying and abusing of past committee members at a General membership meeting.

But, there are ways to IDENTIFY the bad work and those responsible for it, in an attempt to CORRECT the bad work, and..... to PREVENT bad work from being thrust upon the golf course again.

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to relive it.
And that applies to changes to a golf course as well.

[Dave_Miller]

Patrick:  
In this instance I have to agree with TEPaul and Paul Richards.  Accountability in a private club is different than the corporate environment.  
My experience with course restoration committees was not to assign blame or castigate individual members.  It was to research, analyze and restore to make the layout what it should be and to remove things which given the test of time proved to be incorrect.  
The reforestation issue in any restoration is huge.  When Donald Ross designed many of his best courses much of the land was farm land and rocky ledge areas that had few trees.  The plantings and changes over the years along with other factors such as economic consideration, gasoline during WWII, etc.  had major impact on the courses.
Most committees that make changes over the years truly feel they are doing the right thing.
Yes there are many instances of personal agenda which needs to be corrected because in that case the individual is changing a hole to fit his game and is not necessarily aware of the architectural requirements.  
Holding people accountable generally, in a private club, means achieving a consens and then having safeguards that require this consensus to make future changes.
Best to all
Dave Miller

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

I thought I was pretty clear.......
ACCOUNTABLE to their respective memberships, and....
ACCOUNTABILITY in the context of the most recent of years if the same individuals are involved as committteemen or iterested parties.

I'm not talking about going back 35 years to see who did what, unless of course that/those individuals are still active on the committee.

When a chairman and/or committee makes a terrible decision, costing the club money, and harming the architectual integrity of the golf course, if there is no accoutability for those actions, it will happen again and again, with the same or different parties at the helm.

You can view it as the domino effect,  or the Lab Rat experiments, the results are the same, ongoing detrimental alterations to the golf course, almost universally done as a result of personal agendas, with the ultimate result being a course that bears no resemblence to the original design.

Look at all the courses that have been disfigured, that have had their design integrity squeezed out of them over the years, were they altered just that one time, or did the process begin with one alteration, and just continue itself with green chairman after green chairman leaving their fingerprints all over the golf course, until little was left that could be identified as original.

RARE is the club that is just touched once.

Forty years of personal experience of serving on Green Committees and Boards at several clubs has been a learning experience, most of it bad, when it comes to protecting the architectual design integrity of the golf course.

[Gib_Papazian]

Look, I am not taking sides, but Jeff Brauer . . . . I am completely shocked at your post.

With 2 exceptions at my club, people I have known on our green commmittees have fallen into two distinct categories:

#1. Read a book or two and think they know enough to rethink the brushstrokes of the great designers who came before them. Just enough knowledge to be terribly dangerous.

#2. Kissed ass, sided with powerful guys in the club even though they knew it was wrong or are too stupid to know what is right. After a few years as professional sycophants, they are rewarded for their loyalty with an appointment to the Green Committee. At this point, they NEVER READ A WORD OF ANY RECOGNIZED TOME ON THE SUBJECT, but simply make every decision based on some visceral impression or what the prevailing opinion of the masses are.

We have had several presidential administrations who bent with the whim of the masses and look at what is has brought us!!!!!!!!!

You have to have a core belief and philosophy based on convictions learned from extensive study and love of the game and an intimate knowledge of the history of your club.

Otherwise, just give the damned monkey a gun and get it over with quick.  

[Don_Mahaffey]

Have any clubs come to the realization that maybe green's committees might not be necessary? Does every private club feel the need for a green's committee? If so, is it because every other club has one? Do you really need a permanent committee?

[ian]

Pat,

You elected them, and they have by-laws to follow. Its like government, you elect them to do a job. If they do it poorly you remove them. If the project is over a cetain amount it almost always goes to a membership vote for approval. If you approved the project with a vote, then you as a membership are all accountable.

If your worried about your club's direction, make sure your on the board. Its like voting, if you don't vote, you have no right to complain.

If you want to hold people accountable, give all the decisions to one person willing to take on all the responsibility. I have worked with at least 5 private clubs that have done this.

I get your emotion on this issue, I often get mad with clubs who throw away history. I just don't see a way to realisticly punish members without causing all clubs to remain stuck forever. Additionally, who is the judge for what is wrong?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Who is to decide what was ill advised and what was not? In the other arts it is normally a very small group of experts/acedemics - probably smaller than this group (usually a handful at a given time).  Critical analysis during golf architecture's heyday - following the turn of century - was common place. Modern design has been relatively immune from much criticism (until recently and I don't think they are used to it). The other arts have accepted criticism as part of the process and I believe they benefit.

I think it is more useful to hold the architects responsible, after all they are the professionals. The great majority of the most agregious changes have been made under the supervision of golf architects. The green committee person many times is not a student of golf architecture nor have they researched their courses thoroughly - they are fine golfers, popular figures, promintent citizens or overbearing personalities - and they rely on the professionals for their expertise. For example Pat who considers himself a guardian of architecture and relatively knowledgable about Hollywood had no idea how extensive was the redesign work(and the apparent disreguard of the past). In that case it would be the architect's responsibility to educate him about what might have existed before and explain how he was going to utilize some of the outstanding lost features into his plan.

In my mind the architect should be the protector of those who came before him. He owes it to his profession and to those past fine architects who created his livelyhood to do the homework to identify what outstanding work he might preserve, protect or restore. Afterall it is their heritage. Courses evolve naturally over time and there is nothing wrong with the process of natural and practical change, but when our current architects loose respect for the great work of the past (or they immediatley think they could do it better) this relatively young profession is in serious trouble. Golf architects could learn a great deal from their brothers in architecture who have been at it for a few more years.

[Gib_Papazian]

Tom,

(How the heck do you qualify as a guest?)

The irony is that the older architects are the worst offenders.

Think of the best guys in the biz who uphold our high ideals. How many are established with enormous shops?

[mike_beene]

Golf clubs should be places of enjoyment.Sure there are some insecure people(arn't we all?)who seek notice,but most do their best.I am convinced that most club fights become personal and develop a life of their own.Why would I want to be on a committee and face some of these mean spirited attacks?We would probably all benifit from another read of Dale Carnigie.The points made are solid but people may resist them if they are not properly presented.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Gib
I'm not sure I understand your first question.

Who do you consider the older architects and what offenses did they commit?

Aren't the best guys in the biz those who are involved in day to day preservation and isn't most of that work done in house?

[Damian]

I'm not sure what we are really going to gain by trying to pin blame on anybody, especially on an exercise as subjective as golf course architecture.

At some point, I think it needs to be accepted that people who are acting on behalf of others, whether elected by their peers, self elected or otherwise have to be trusted to be acting in the best interests of those they represent. This doen't mean you have to agree with them all the time; it just means that if they have that power, they should be given the freedom to exercise it, with an overarching control structure (e.g. projects of a given size put to a member vote).

I think most people usually do act in the best interests of those they represent. If something is viewed as being less than perfect and they decide to attempt "improvement", no matter how good the people who are implementing a proposed change are, there is ALWAYS the risk that the situation will be degraded, even if the people concerned actually manage to avoid making what could be view later as mistakes. The reality is that an assessment of the outcome can only be made in hindsight.

Of course we don't want a situation where the sins of the past are repeated, but how are parameters of acceptable performance in relation to the architecture of a golf course going to be set up in advance?  This is analogous to deciding what aspects of a painting will render it being viewed as "acceptable" before brush is applied to canvas!!

In all of this though it seems the assumption is that the original architectural elements of a golf course actually continue to have merit, now and into the future. Is this necessarily so in all cases? I would doubt it.

In addition, it needs to be recognised that golf courses evolve over time all by themselves, without specific human involvement. Are we going to hold someone accountable for this??