It should almost always be up to the Superintendent.
When we hosted the Washington State Am last year, I was out there working on the 18th green as the WSGA guy was walking around the green looking for the two hole locations for the final two rounds (the first round was on a different course). He found one of the usuals in the back left corner on the top of a shelf. Then he was looking around on this tiny shelf on the right side of the green.
As he starts to walk off the steps, I shout over to him, "That's a bold move!"
He says back, "Oh really? Why's that."
"Cause with as fast as these are going to be rolling, if the wind comes up... and it usually does... you are gonna have a problem there with as much slope as that part has."
"You sure?"
"I'm positive."
"So where would you put it?"
"Well, I'm assuming you want a hard one. Back right looks tough, but any ball that doesn't find the massive bowl in the front/front left seems to finish there. It plays easier than it looks. You already have back left. So, we have one place left.
"In the massive bowl? How?"
"Stick it 4 or 5 paces from the left. The giant bowl does funnel balls down the front middle, but if you stick it just over there, they still have to make a 10-15 footer that no one ever reads correctly. Trust me."
And that's where it went. Now, I'm not the Superintendent, but I think he would have suggested the same thing, unless he was dumb enough to give the go-ahead on the hole location on the right, which I don't think he is.
Best part: The hole location I recommended in the bowl played 0.16 strokes harder than the tough one in the back left on the shelf (though it was before the cut). There were more eagles made, but many people didn't read the putt correctly, and got up and down less. My recommendation made a larger dispersion in scores.
People who work on the course, know the course more. Sounds stupidly simple, but greens committees should absolutely not be cutting holes.