[BHoover]

Brian,

The nay sayers always seem more vocal, and the older members may or may not be the source of defeat.
Their golfing future is often behind them and they may not see the benefit of spending money on a diminished return.

But, it's doubtful that the oldest members comprise 51 % of the membership.

One thing I've learned about club votes is that talk is really cheap when it comes to anything requiring a significant assessment.

While your board may have wanted a 75 % approval, if the by-laws indicated that a majority vote wins, they'd have been happy with 51 %.

I suspect that the vote "for" may have been less than 51 %, and if so, why wasn't there a plan"B" ?

I don't know why there was no Plan B at the time of the vote. I believe they want to study the results and comments and then come back for another vote. But I'm not optimistic.

All of your points are good ones.

[Powell Arms]

    You might look into how Philly Cricket turned the tide.  It's my understanding the the membership first turned down an expensive Foster renovation.  The project was presented again a couple of years later and it passed.  I don't know how they pulled it off, but they did.  At least that's how I hear it went down.

Good memory.  We did go through exactly that path with a Foster renovation at Philly Cricket.  Basically the project came back the second time with much better supporting information; all permits, full plans and competitive bids, financing, etc. And it was approved.  Between the first vote and second vote our grounds team performed some tree work consistent with the master plan.  That improved turf health certainly helped on the "sell".

Brian, shoot me an email if you would like to discuss the details.

[JR Potts]

I've seen a lot of guys leave my club and others over the years as an attempt to make a statement to others as to the direction of the club, the latest vote, the most recent politics, etc......nobody ever misses them.

Don't be that guy. 

If you have passion for the cause and the club, fight for it....or just shut up and enjoy the club.....or quit.   But nobody will really miss you.  And that's not an indictment of you, that's the way it always is.

There are people at my club who likely want me dead for what I did regarding our Course #1 project - but I  and others had passion for the plan.  And I'm sure our Club will be better off for it....but there were certainly some hurt feelings and pissed off people along the way.

[Phil McDade]

Brian:

This piece from the GCA archives -- from Flossmoor member Greg Oehlendorf -- describes in some detail the renovation work at the club, and some of the efforts to achieve some of what I think you're trying to get at:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/flossmoor-country-club/

Several other Chicago-area clubs have also ventured down this road, successfully, and one of the things I hear constantly is the improvments in turf management -- and arguably fewer expenses in the long run related to this -- with tree removal programs. When I played Flossmoor a few years ago, I was amazed a Midwestern course subject to the usual weather patterns and humidity and such of this area, could play as fast and firm as it did. Part of that, no doubt, was an expert superintendent, but it also doesn't happen without a membership committed to that and a renovation plan that allowed it to happen.

[BHoover]

@Phil, thanks for the link to the Flossmoor renovation.  I will spend some time studying it this morning (here at work because my boss is out today  ).

@JR, I don't take any offense at your comments.  You make a good point.  If I do leave, it's going to be due to frustration.  I'm certainly committed to architecture, but I also want to be able to enjoy golf.  And if I'm at a club where I fundamentally disagree with the direction the club is heading, I'm afraid that I would spend more time bitching and groaning than enjoying the game, and that's not what I want.

[David Davis]

I also think the difficulty what you faced is trying to convince everyone to open their wallets in a challenging financial times just before a Presidential election when leisure activities may be even less of a focus. Our club took literally years of prepping and planning and educating in order to get the members on board with regards to changes and guess what, we are cash positive to the point that we can finance all of it right out of our own bank accounts. Thus it won't cost the members a cent. Even then it was a challenge.

What other people have already mentioned about taking smaller steps seems the best option unless you are adept at organizing and pulling people onto your side so they see all the benefits and are able to identify the nay sayers and target them directly.

On the other side if you have the options and would receive more pleasure and most importantly less stress and more happiness from a change of club then there is no real discussion here.

[John Crowley]

Brian,
In a similar situation, through the process of master plan development and marketing, the true nature of  the opponents was revealed. I referred to them as the grumpy old men - many of whom were younger than myself. I decided that I did not want to continue associating with these types and resigned before the vote. The plan was voted down and then in two years a partial plan was adopted.

I am now very happy at my new club. The governance of this club is ideal in my mind. There is a sole owner who has a well informed golf ethos and it is managed by a GM/Pro with top class club experience and pragmatic business sense. There is no Board and there are no committees. The members just play golf.

I encourage you shop for an other club. But keep in mind that most member governed clubs have similar issues of competing factions. The degree of devisivness varies.
Enjoy your golf no matter what your decision.
John

[JMEvensky]

Tom Doak,

You're right, no matter how people couch their objections to a project, in 99 % of the cases it's about the money.

You're off by 1%.

The members voted their pocketbooks. They don't care about trees,cart paths,or turfgrass--they care about writing a $10,000 check.

[Terry Lavin]

It's surely true that the 10K issue was likely the predominant factor, but I would also suspect a lack of persuasive leadership.  In my experience, the leaders of this kind of effort really have to go all out to educate the membership before putting something this significant up for a vote.  In the successful efforts that I'm familiar with, guest speakers were brought in to talk about the important issues, like tree management programs, bunker improvements, green expansion or contraction and the like.  With photo-shop techniques available, a persuasive case can be made with a good slide presentation showing a before and after.  Another technique one might attempt is to get authorization to "fix" one hole in the manner that the remainder of the work would be done.  Pick a hole that is likely to acquire a "wow" out of reluctant members after the work is done.  Then try to sell the rest of the work.  I've seen this done successfully on several occasions with difficult memberships.

[jim_lewis]

I find it amusing that younger members usually think the older members are the problem. Most clubs would not survive without the old guys.
Remember, by the time the old members are gone, you will probably be old too.

[JMEvensky]

It's surely true that the 10K issue was likely the predominant factor, but I would also suspect a lack of persuasive leadership.  In my experience, the leaders of this kind of effort really have to go all out to educate the membership before putting something this significant up for a vote.  In the successful efforts that I'm familiar with, guest speakers were brought in to talk about the important issues, like tree management programs, bunker improvements, green expansion or contraction and the like.  With photo-shop techniques available, a persuasive case can be made with a good slide presentation showing a before and after.  Another technique one might attempt is to get authorization to "fix" one hole in the manner that the remainder of the work would be done.  Pick a hole that is likely to acquire a "wow" out of reluctant members after the work is done.  Then try to sell the rest of the work.  I've seen this done successfully on several occasions with difficult memberships.

Agree--a well respected member, who's prepared to spend the time convincing other members one on one, can trump peoples' unwillingness to spend.

[BHoover]

I find it amusing that younger members usually think the older members are the problem. Most clubs would not survive without the old guys.
Remember, by the time the old members are gone, you will probably be old too.

Yes, the club needs the old guys.  But if a club wants to survive, does it not also need younger members?  Seems like a simple question of math.  

I shouldn't have singled out the older members.  For that I apologize.

[Brent Hutto]

I sure wish our club hadn't mortgaged its future and lost a substantial portion of its membership to renovate the course a few years before I joined. No doubt the course is a better place to play golf now than before the re-do but more than a decade later we still have not recovered either membership-wise or finance-wise.

In today's economic climate I can't imagine any club undertaking a comprehensive, high-$$$ master plan unless it is one of the minority of clubs with a very financially secure and well-heeled membership. Not offering a budget conscious fallback option of doing the most important work in stages was surely the main tactical error for those in favor of renovation.

P.S. For what it's worth, I detest the use of "educate" as a spin word for "persuade" to make it sound more high-minded.

[BHoover]

I sure wish our club hadn't mortgaged its future and lost a substantial portion of its membership to renovate the course a few years before I joined. No doubt the course is a better place to play golf now than before the re-do but more than a decade later we still have not recovered either membership-wise or finance-wise.

In today's economic climate I can't imagine any club undertaking a comprehensive, high-$$$ master plan unless it is one of the minority of clubs with a very financially secure and well-heeled membership. Not offering a budget conscious fallback option of doing the most important work in stages was surely the main tactical error for those in favor of renovation.

P.S. For what it's worth, I detest the use of "educate" as a spin word for "persuade" to make it sound more high-minded.

Excellent points, Brent.  I guess my problem is that the Board did not do enough to communicate (I won't say educate) the need for something to be done, and the Board did not offer a Plan B.  Look, I understand that times are tough and money is the determining factor.  I think many, if not most, of our members recognize that something needs to be done.  But they aren't willing to pull the trigger or offer up a viable solution.  Anyway, I've said my two cents.  My reaction was somewhat rash and off-the-cuff.  I understand the concerns and constraints.  It's not a perfect world.  I get it.

[corey miller]

I know someone who left Royal Greenwich Country Club when some in the membership thought they would attempt to modify the plans presented by Gil Hanse and George Bahto.  Would have made the course a Doak 7 instead of the 5 (perhaps lower with the in house modifications).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()