What makes a good Greens Committee Chairman?

[PGertner]

Allow me to add to Mr. Burke's good start.

5  Get the heck out of the way!!!
6  Scream, yell and pound on the Board room table to get the operating funds and equipment he needs.   

[Mark Lester]

A good greens chairman knows what he doesn't know.
A good greens chairman asks the supt if the current/budget/equipment/staff can provide the standards the membership wants.
He hires the best supt money can buy,after that the club can be cheap,the most importtant asset is well protected.
He travels and plays courses of all levels both low and high budgets to have a balanced perspective.
He takes alot of arrows in his hide from the membership at all times.
He makes himself available to the supt as well as the pro and the membership.
He is a liason between the supt and the board but has the supt meet with the board on a regular basis.
He leaves his ego and visions at the curb.He resists the urge to leave his imprint on the course.
He realises that his job is to be a steward of the land for the next generation of golfers.
I was a greens superintendent for 26 years at the same club on long island before retiring.
I never lost a green and was always under budget.
Some of the posts in this thread reminded me of greens committee meetings I attended.

Hudson National was saved by the consultant they hired this summer,the new chairman should follow his recs. He is one of the best in the business. Talk to him on what makes a good greens chairman.
And cut down the tree behind the 11th green, it needs all the help it can get.do not worry about seeing the cart path either.

[Brian Potash]

I just wanted to thank everyone for their participation on this thread and also those who reached out to me privately offering their help.

We voted between the old greens chair and myself last night.  I was able to use much of the information contained in this thread to my advantage when explaining why I believed I could handle the job. 

I won the vote.  Ryan Oliver, formerly at Metedeconk National in NJ will be our new Superintendent.

I am very excited to get started and hope to post updates from time to time detailing the experience and what is going on at our course.

Thanks to all again!

Brian

[JMEvensky]

Congratulations--I think.

Don't expect everyone to now accept your vision as gospel.All you've got is a bully pulpit--use it wisely and you may end up with a majority of members willing to try some of your ideas.

[Terry Lavin]

Many good men have made the same mistake as you, my friend, myself included.  Don't get too wrapped up in the minutae and just let the super do his work.  Your most effective role should be that of a well-informed and well-educated liaison between the super and the membership.  Good luck.

[David Ober]

Many good men have made the same mistake as you, my friend, myself included.  Don't get too wrapped up in the minutae and just let the super do his work.  Your most effective role should be that of a well-informed and well-educated liaison between the super and the membership.  Good luck.

Sorry, but I must respectfully and adamantly disagree. At my old home course (Canyon Crest Country Club in Riverside, California, a Club Corp course in a middle-class area), the superintendent is simply not very good at his job. Letting him "do his job," resulted in a soaking wet golf course with bumpy greens and tee boxes that were never cut to tee box height, but instead werleft as shaggy as a four-day old beard.

Lo and behold I went back this last Sunday to play a round at my old course and I noticed that the tee boxes were actually firm and cut lower than I'd ever seen them cut in the last 20 years. I literally couldn't believe it.

"Was Swampy Bob fired," I asked.

"Nope, we got a new GM, and the GM is actually a scratch golfer. He finally got Bob to cut the damn tee boxes to a decent height!"

So there is a perfect example of why we shouldn't just "let the super do his job." Many of the non-golfer superintendents out there simply do not understand how the smallest things can be so important to those of us who love this game, and they need to be pushed into action by either a well-run greens committee, or a great GM.

[Matt Neff]

So there is a perfect example of why we shouldn't just "let the super do his job." Many of the non-golfer superintendents out there simply do not understand how the smallest things can be so important to those of us who love this game, and they need to be pushed into action by either a well-run greens committee, or a great GM.

In turn, I will respectfully and adamantly (actually fiercely would be more appropriate) disagree with you for so many reasons but I'll just stick with the most pressing:

1. There are very few "non-golfer superintendents".
2. Believe it or not the ones who don't regularly play do have an IQ above 7 and therefore are well aware of what conditions are expected generally speaking
3. The vast majority of superintendents will lose sleep at some point(s) during a season worrying about course conditions so believe me they are well aware of "how the smallest thing can be so important..." given that they can lose their jobs if things go sideways
4. I would bet that "well run green committees" and "great GM's" have caused far more conditioning problems throughout the history of this game than any "non golfer superintendent"

[David Ober]

So there is a perfect example of why we shouldn't just "let the super do his job." Many of the non-golfer superintendents out there simply do not understand how the smallest things can be so important to those of us who love this game, and they need to be pushed into action by either a well-run greens committee, or a great GM.

In turn, I will respectfully and adamantly (actually fiercely would be more appropriate) disagree with you for so many reasons but I'll just stick with the most pressing:

1. There are very few "non-golfer superintendents".
2. Believe it or not the ones who don't regularly play do have an IQ above 7 and therefore are well aware of what conditions are expected generally speaking
3. The vast majority of superintendents will lose sleep at some point(s) during a season worrying about course conditions so believe me they are well aware of "how the smallest thing can be so important..." given that they can lose their jobs if things go sideways
4. I would bet that "well run green committees" and "great GM's" have caused far more conditioning problems throughout the history of this game than any "non golfer superintendent"

Sorry, but I gave you a specific example of why that doesn't always work out. Your way of going about things can also work out, but there are times when just "letting the super do his job," just does not work out. What then? Are we still just supposed to "let him do his job" even though he's doing a crappy job of it?

That's a serious question. Say you belong to a club, you notice that there are several issues with the golf course, you talk to other members and they agree with you. What are you to do? If you're supposed to "let him do his job," then, in the case of my old club, the members would have had to just accept tee boxes that were like hitting out of light rough. You could actually catch flyers from the old tee boxes at Canyon Crest, and I'm not making that up.

And all it took to get that fixed was enough members finally getting upset enough and voicing it to management enough times (and then finally getting a GM that agreed with them and knew what the heck he was talking about) to get it fixed.

If your view were universally sound, and everyone just "let him do his job," the tee boxes would still be a joke.

Can busybody greens committees be a problem? Of course, no one would dispute that. But to say that all superintendents should just be left alone to do their own thing without input from the membership is not very realistic all the time, depending on the club.

[corey miller]

It is my experience that most Superintendents are not fool-proof and i often wonder what percent of the stuff they espouse and the conditions they promote are the result of lack of knowledge or appealing to the lowest common denominator in the golf community.

And since this site seems to favor the Superintendent side (and I will stipulate, anyone in that profession that takes the time to visit this site is not part of the problem) I would ask, with all this knowledge and all this insight into architecture,  q. How did greens shrink so much over the years?  

I can understand fairways shrinking as the result of cost savings, higher rough, toughening up the course, sprinklers, and all other ridiculous ideas that could be foisted upon a Superintendent but how did the greens shrink?

Do you really think that was from Greens committees, and GM's?  This is a major problem on most all classic era courses and it falls at the foot of the Super.

[Bill Brightly]

David,

What Terry probably meant to say is this: "Hire a good superintendent and let him do his job." If you are convinced you have a bad super, (and I think you need lots of evidence, including, perhaps, your USGA agronomist's advice) make a change.

[David Ober]

David,

What Terry will probably say is this: "Hire a good superintendent and let him do his job." If you are convinced you have a bad super, (and I think you need lots of evidence, including, perhaps, your USGA agronomist's advice) make a change.

I would agree with that line of thinking most of the time. Unfortunately, this is a "corporate-owned," private, non-equity club. Not very doable in that environment to just go the "fire him and replace him with a good one" route.

If we're talking about equity clubs, then I would agree with you both that, most often, it's probably best to hire a good one and let him do his job....

[Bill Brightly]

I have never been in a non-equity owned club, but have little doubt that there are effective ways to make positive changes, IF they are warranted. May take a little more "corporate politics" but it can be done.

[David Ober]

I have never been in a non-equity owned club, but have little doubt that there are effective ways to make positive changes, IF they are warranted. May take a little more "corporate politics" but it can be done.

Exactly, like maybe putting together a greens committe that is able to effectively communicate with the GM and superintendent?

[Matt Neff]

Sorry, but I gave you a specific example of why that doesn't always work out.

That's really the crux of the issue for me.  You gave an example of an isolated incident that in no way disproves Terry's statement and could be seen as somewhat insulting to the superintendent profession.  Without knowing the specifics of the situation at your club, it certainly sounds as though there were issues that needed to be discussed.  Any reputable superintendent will be completely dialed in to the thoughts and opinions of the membership.

[David Ober]

Sorry, but I gave you a specific example of why that doesn't always work out.

That's really the crux of the issue for me.  You gave an example of an isolated incident that in no way disproves Terry's statement and could be seen as somewhat insulting to the superintendent profession.  Without knowing the specifics of the situation at your club, it certainly sounds as though there were issues that needed to be discussed.  Any reputable superintendent will be completely dialed in to the thoughts and opinions of the membership.

See my above post regarding the ownership of the club. The super at this course answered to a "higher authority."

And it's not isolated. I've been around golf long enough to know that there are lots and lots of medicore superintendents out there, just like there are lots and lots of mediocre GM's and lawyers and accountants and auto mechanics and ....

There have been lots of sweeping, general statments made on this subject, and that's great, nothing wrong with that. It's just that sometimes things don't always go like you think they will. Hiring a superintendent and "letting him do his job" can work out sometimes and sometimes not.

My guess is that the low to mid-end private clubs sometimes struggle to find the right superintendent, which makes sense because they often can't afford a superintendent with years of experience and excellent references. Just like in every other professional field, we often get what we pay for.

Would you agree that not all superintendents are phenomenal? That, like any professional field, there are some that aren't as good as others? Like in all professional fields that sometimes they lose their passion for the job?

If you don't agree with that, then we have nothing to discuss.

If, however, you're sane, you'll admit that sometimes superintendents don't do a great job. In that case, what's a membership to do when they don't have the power to fire him?

They put together a group of members (a committee???) and go to the superintendent and/or GM and ask that changes be made. Is "committee" really that bad of a word with you guys?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Ober,

I think Brian answered your question/issue in his reply, post # 8.
The prior Superintendent failed.


The old super was fired/resigned over the Summer when there was a serious issue with the greens


That's proof positive that your position is correct.

[Matt Neff]

In that case, what's a membership to do when they don't have the power to fire him?

They put together a group of members (a committee???) and go to the superintendent and/or GM and ask that changes be made. Is "committee" really that bad of a word with you guys?

There absolutely needs to be a hierarchy and accountability - be it to a GM, committee, BOD, owner(s), etc..  No organization can run effectively otherwise.  I am in no way debating that.  And no - not all superintendents are great. The issues surronding having an employee being held accountable by a person/committee with no training in the employee's field have been thoroughly discussed previously in this thread so I'll not continue other than to echo the thoughts of many in that hiring a solid professional, giving him his marching orders, and letting him do his job is the best way to go.

[Jim_Coleman]

    The Super should only be deferred to on questions of growing grass.  Course set up, the preferred "meld," architectural preferences, etc. are just as much the province of the membership as the super.  Yes, his advice should be sought on all issues, but only on issues of growing grass should his word be final.  And, if you feel you should direct him on grass growing issues (when to aerate, chemicals, etc.) then he should be fired.

[Rich Goodale]

Haven't come across one yet....  Raving, incompetent, self-absorbed lunatics rings a bell with me.  All current/ex-GCC's posting on this site excepted, of course.......

[James Bennett]

Rich

I like to think I was a raving, competent, self-absorbed lunatic.

A few members disagreed.  They thought I was incompetent.

James B

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill & David,

Rarely does a Green Chairman have the authority to fire or hire anyone

[Thomas Dai]

Brian,

Firstly, well done for being brave enough to air your aspirations prior to seeking the office, secondly, congratulations for winning the election for office, and thirdly, can I wish you good luck and every success in taking on a demanding role.

Perhaps after you've been in the role for say, 12 months, you could write us a little summary and tell us how things have gone.

All the best.