[Brad Treadwell]

Don -

I agree that in a perfect, utopian world, that is how things would be run, and some clubs are blessed to operate that way.  Unfortunately many (possibly most?) are not.  So isn't the lesser of two evils to have a committee with educated members, there to support the Superintendent and the GCA? 

The other option is to have no one educated and then you end up in a situation like my club where individuals that have never read a book, played anywhere worthwhile (or frankly anywhere else), etc continue to dictate (as they have for decades) what should and more importantly shouldn't be done....and this is with IMO an excellent Superintendent and an equally excellent GCA involved.  These people have such a high level of invincible ignorance that they've attacked and gone after the credibility of the GCA, because after all, as long time members they know better. 

So is it not fair to say that in the absence of the perfectly run club as you suggest that having an educated Green Committee is a good thing?

Brad

[Don Mahaffey]

Brad,
I realize one's club is a very personal thing and it is sort of like telling a parent best how to raise their kids...not going to go over well.


I don't know your club and I have no idea how it operates other than what you've shared here.


I simply pass along what I've seen work.


It is of course, only my opinion, but I think it easier to build a committee structure based on governance and oversight than it is to train and educate a constantly rotating group of members in finance, house operations, agronomy, construction,...etc....


And I am in no way being critical of your distribution of information, just offering a different POV.


Best of luck

[Jason Topp]

While I understand Don's sentiment, I do not think it works that neatly, particularly when a problem arises.  We had four greens die one winter.  It was a big help to understand some agronomy to be able to describe to the membership (1) why it happened; (2) what we were doing to address the issue and (3) why these issues did not result from a big screw up by our new superintendent.

I also do not think you can neatly draw a line between policy and agronomy practices.  If the policy is "green speed of 12" I don't see how you can debate that policy without having some understanding of the impact that such a policy might have on maintenance practices.  If the policy is to remove trees, it is difficult to defend that policy to the membership without an understanding of the agronomic benefits of such a change.  I do not see how you defend a maintenance budget without understanding how the club's maintenance standards make that budget appropriate and what labor tradeoffs exist at different budget levels.  It is also pretty much impossible to evaluate whether or not a superintendent is doing a great job without some idea of what the job entails.

I found the more exposure I got to our superintendent the more respect I gained for his work. 

To me the ideal committee sets maintenance expectations, obtains an adequate budget to meet them, obtains resources when a problem arises and protects the club member's money.  The Committee also defends the budget and the superintendent to the membership.  If the superintendent is not meeting expectations, the committee makes a change.     

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()