The private club where I’ve been superintendent the past sixteen years had a greens committee when I started. Eventually, the general manager became annoyed with it and through artful political manoeuvers managed to get it disbanded. At that point the GM answered to the general committee and was pretty much my sole channel of communication, I was never invited to the general committee meetings.
Three years ago the GM left for another position, and it created a storm of problems for me. The new GM was still finding his way around, so with no direct communication the membership and especially the general committee began to speculate on the cause of every problem, be it real or imagined, and some of them concluded that the only reason the golf course wasn’t better was due to the ignorance and/or apathy of the superintendent. I would get second hand reports of the meetings where I was mercilessly excoriated for the condition of the golf course, mainly because green speeds weren’t consistently in the 11-12 foot range. None of the critics had even spoken to me, let alone spent time with me in the maintenance facility or on the course to learn anything about the operation.
At my request, we reconstituted a greens committee, because I needed a way to speak to the members and hear their comments for myself, and so far I have not regretted it. Sure, it’s a pain in the ass going to meetings that always have to be on a weekend when it’s convenient for the members, but now they have at least a modicum of understanding what’s involved in the maintenance, and I believe it’s blunted the worst of the super-bashing.
"In my experience, too many committee members don't trouble themselves to become informed. That's the root of most of the mischief that one sees at private clubs." Terry Lavin
That is my biggest problem. I invite one and all to come to the maintenance building or ride the course with me for an exchange of ideas. They could tell me what they see as lacking and I could implement their ideas or explain why I couldn’t. I could also point out some of the myriad maintenance tasks that maybe aren’t noticeable to the golfer but nevertheless essential. So far, no one has taken me up on it.
"How many GCA's would be capable of helping formulate a maintenance plan? My answer would be if they aren't up to that, you wouldn't want to hire them. And to Niall's point of how much assistance their maintenance input would be as a club deals with ongoing circumstances, the maintenance part of the master plan should, in my opinion, have a set statement as to what maintenance standards should be (general principles). For example, do we favor green over firm and fast? Do we seek green speeds at a certain level? More general guidance to have in writing when the membership starts to voice an opinion that is inconsistent with the master plan's statements on those topics. The master plan would have been accepted by the board and would stand as policy until amended or changed by the board." Ted Sturges
My answer would be that if your superintendent can’t formulate the maintenance plan without an architect then you need to find one who can. Firm and fast, soft and green, neither is always possible. It’s nonsensical that a superintendent after years of intensive training and probably more years on the same golf course won’t know what to do without an architect who’s just arrived on site, no matter how skilled the latter might be. I have never met a GCA who laid out a maintenance plan, taking into account the characteristics of the soils, water, budget and climate and designing programs for fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation, cultural practices, staff organization and equipment purchases. That said, there are consulting agronomist who could be useful in such a situation. A knowledgable individual would either help the GCS to improve the program or support him if he already has an effective one.