[Carl Johnson]

When clubs make changes related to the architecture of their courses, do they usually explain to their membership the nature of the changes and the reasons behind them?  Should they do that?  Alternatively, should they just make the changes and let the membership figure it out?

[Rob Marshall]

Major changes need to be voted on at my club. When we did the bunker renovation and made some other changes there was a presentation made to the membership.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Welcome to the latest edition of "Club Politics Suck"...;-)


The short answer: It all depends.


Maybe add some more color here:


1. Is it a golf club or a country club?
2. Do you have a high level of pedigree with the original architect?
3. When was the last time you "tinkered" with the course?
4. When asked, do your members know who designed their course?
5. Is their a planned assessment for the work or is it already budgeted?
6. How much work are you planning to do?


Without hearing the responses, it is always "better", assuming you have one person who knows what they are doing and a reputable GCA/consultantant, to make the changes without querying the membership.

[David Cronan]

Carl,


When I was Greens Chair at the Country Club I was a member, I took a step back and identified members who were influential in their different groups, and asked them to be a part of the committee. They were good cross-sections of different demographics within the golfing community of the club: a woman who was the reigning club champion for something like 2 decades in a row, a woman who was a 36 handicapper but played upwards of 4-5 times a week and loved the game and involved with several different playing groups, an older, well-respected former President of the club who played with a group of 20 or 30 older gentlemen, a younger member who was a good player, etc.as well as our Head Pro, who had been at the Club for over 25 years.


This group was put together for a couple reasons: to get their input (as a group, we went around the course a couple dozen times with the GC Architect I hired, the Superintendent, as well as our USGA rep), but also to help promote the changes to their respective groups/club and golf demographics. It worked. In fact, the very first changes we made were building several "Forward" tees. Women only represented 15% of the golfers, but "Super Seniors" comprised 35% of golfers at the Club. The changes were universally lauded, which made the subsequent changes to bunkers, fairways and greens that much easier to implement. I am not a good politician but this went even better than expected.


The Club benefited by me realizing that, despite my enthusiasm and interest in golf architecture, the Golf Course Architect and our Superintendent, were the ones to lead the way on the project and I was, mostly, the vessel to try to get approval and excitement from the members.


Good luck

[Carl Johnson]

Thanks, Ian and David.  At my club, such decisions are made by the Green Committee and (I assume) o.k.'d by the Board.  Members are never consulted unless an assessment is needed to do the work, and then a vote is required.  I accept that, of course.  My main question is: What comes next?  Should the Committee give the members a detailed explanation of what was done and why it was done?  For example: "We've added a second fairway bunker on the left side of number 6.  You have seen that.  Here's why we did it . . . [explain rationale in terms of strategy in playing the hole, or whatever, even just aesthetics, etc., etc.].  Alternatively, the Committee could just let the members try to understand the reasons for the change themselves, if they care about such things, which of course more do not than do.

Fleshing out a little on Ian's points/questions, in my case:

1. Is it a golf club or a country club? A golf club.
2. Do you have a high level of pedigree with the original architect? D. Ross.

3. When was the last time you "tinkered" with the course? After very major renovations ending in 2008: First tinkering was in 2018 and second tinkering now, ongoing in early 2024.

4. When asked, do your members know who designed their course?  Yes, except for those who are blind and deaf.
6. How much work are you planning to do?  Both in 2018 and currently changes are being made to the fairways, mostly narrowing and shaping via mowing patterns.  No assessment and no vote in either case.  There were no material explanations of the 2018 changes.  They were made at the recommendation of the USGA for a major USGA tournament and thereafter retained by the club.

My opinion is that given the nature of our club and course it would be useful for the Committee to provide a detailed explanation of what they have done, why they have done it, and how that affects the nature of the course as a Ross course, how it should affect strategies going forward, and any other relevant thinking.  If you purport to be a golf club, shouldn't you want to encourage the members to think about the golf? The Committee may well provide a detailed explanation.  The work is in process so I don't know what the Committee will do when it is finished.  Given our experience with the 2018 changes, I'd say they won't do much, but the Committee is made of members who change from time to time, and the membership of the Committee now is different from what it was in 2018, so who knows?

[Wayne_Kozun]

When my club made changes to our course, which was primarily design by Tillinghast, there were presentations to the members by the new architect.  The members had to vote to approve the measure as well since it involved a large capex that was paid for by an assessment to the members.  This was about 15 years ago.

[mike_malone]

We recently informed the members during the last phase of our upgrade. Educating members is very tough because everyone holds onto their own views as if they were gospel. So inform but don’t try to educate during the process. Educating the members over time is a good idea just not in the heat of work.


  More information was given to the green committee to disperse to their groups of golfers.


I have concluded showing what you are doing is good. Giving reasons is a bad idea. It often leads to arguments.

[Carl Johnson]

Mike Malone: "Giving reasons is a bad idea. It often leads to arguments."  No doubt that's an issue to be considered.  What I'd hope is that it would lead to discussions rather than arguments, and to a better understanding of the game.  My little experience is that most members don't seem to care one way or the other.  But it's risky, for sure.[/size][/color]

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm not a member so I can't speak to those fights, but are all reasons created equal? If the reason for something is to improve drainage, who's going to argue with that? Now I understand if the reason is to beautify or increase challenge, you're asking for some arguments. Maybe just stay away from those types of reasons.

[mike_malone]

I mean giving reasons for things like removing or adding bunkers or trees. My experience is that this doesn’t lead to much education because status quo bias is very strong.
  The reason given should be “ it will make the course better”.


It is true that most don’t care or defer to the experts but a vocal group does care and believes that their own view is better.

[Tommy Williamsen]

In my experience, the board kept the membership in the dark. My club outside DC sent out a questionnaire asking the members to vote on one of three options: enlarge the clubhouse, build a new practice area, or regress the golf course. The board decided to do all three and charge the members a hefty assessment.

[Ian Mackenzie]

This is where (IMO) having a "Master Plan" can be helpful.


If you have a retained GCA hired on to achieve an agreed to and stated goal for the club over a certain period of time, then all membership queries can be referred to the club's goal of continuing to pursue progress on course "per the master plan" agreed to by the BOD and/or membership already.


Your answers to members in this case about any new work becomes simple:


"It's on-going work and progress per the master plan".


However, if additional work mandates an incremental member assessment and thus a vote, then you have to build consensus and several responses here address that very well.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Educating members is very tough because everyone holds onto their own views as if they were gospel.

And in my experience, it is tough because a large percentage of members don't read any updates provided by the Green Committee or Board about golf course matters. 

[Mark_Fine]

Having now dealt with dozens and dozens of private clubs in some fashion regarding restoration/renovation work, I feel I could write a book about this    Education is probably 90% of my focus/effort on these projects.   Having said that generally it is best to inform members but only involve a select few.  The select few should represent a collective subset of the membership.  Also make sure you have an influential champion or two to lead the effort. 


Outside of a three hole reversible par three course and a half dozen or more practice ranges/areas, I have never yet been fortunate to design/build a brand new 18 hole course from scratch.  But my guess is doing a successful renovation/restortion at a private club with all their committees and club politics and architecture experts is a far harder challenge 


I have to add this one further comment.  I have a new project at a public course owned by a father and son.  They are the two decision makers.  If I want to add a bunker or take down a tree,… they are the only two I have to convince!  If only all projects were like this 

[Tom_Doak]

One of the reasons "The Anatomy of a Golf Course" has sold so many copies is that a lot of clubs have made it required reading for anyone on the green committee.


Apart from the fact that I make $1.50 for each copy sold, I like that approach.  When you "educate" the membership on changes you want to make, it usually comes across as a sales job, because it usually is.  Much better to educate them generally, and then see how they apply their education to the specific situation of their own course.

[mike_malone]

One of the reasons "The Anatomy of a Golf Course" has sold so many copies is that a lot of clubs have made it required reading for anyone on the green committee.


Apart from the fact that I make $1.50 for each copy sold, I like that approach.  When you "educate" the membership on changes you want to make, it usually comes across as a sales job, because it usually is.  Much better to educate them generally, and then see how they apply their education to the specific situation of their own course.

Agree.


Education for new members is done by some clubs and seems smart.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()