THE TEN MOST COMMONGREEN COMMITTEE MISTAKESGreen Committees serve a vital role in the management of a golf course,but there is a great disparity in their relative effectiveness.BY DAVID A. OATIS

Green Section agronomists make nearly2,000 Turf Advisory Service visits tomore than 1,500 different golf courses

during the course of each season.Visits are madeto every type of course imaginable, from elitechampionship sites to public and municipalcourses, to low-budget nine-hole facilities, andthe structure and relative effectiveness of thevarious committees that oversee the operation ofthese courses vary nearly as much as the facilitiesthemselves. N everthe1ess, most of these variedcourses have a few things in common. They alltake pride in their facility and have a strong desireto improve it. And yes, most of the committeesthat guide them have the propensity to makemistakes. Just as each course has its strengths andweaknesses, so do their committees. Some areremarkably effective, while others squander fundsand/or are ineffective.You might be surprised tolearn that the mistakes made by Green Com-mittees often are quite similar, both from course

to course and decade to decade. World-renownedarchitect Alister Mackenzie apparently had littleregard for committees. In his 1930s manuscript,The Spirit ifSt. Andrews, he wrote, "The history ofmost golf clubs is that a committee is appointed,

, they make mistakes, and just as they are beginningto learn from their mistakes, they resign office andare replaced by others who make still greatermistakes, and so it goes on."

So, Green Committee mistakes are not new,nor are the mistakes they make very original.Most have been made countless times before bycountless committees at countless golf courses.Upon surveying the Green Section staff (whoseresume includes a combined total of 250 years ofservice and approximately 30,000 Turf AdvisoryService visits), it became quite clear that there is adistinct pattern to the mistakes most commonlymade by Green Committees. Although it hasbeen said that" a wise man learns from hismistakes," the author prefers the adage "Only a

A Green Committeeshould have a workablenumber of members(7-1 I) to promotediscussion and to reachtimely decisions.Committees should becomprised of golfers ofall playing abilities andboth genders to takeinto account differentperspectives andto keep lines ofcommunicationopen.

SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2003

fool learns from his own mistakes. A wise manlearns from the mistakes of others." It is hopedthat this effort to identify common Green Com-mittee mistakes will help your committee avoidthem.

THE ROLE OFTHEGREEN COMMITTEENo discussion of Green Committee mistakeswould be complete without first discussing therole of the committee. Much has been written onthis subject, and a good discussion is contained inA Guide for Green Committee Members by theUSGA Green Section, available from the USGAorder department (Publication #PG 1715, $2.00each, 800-336-4446).You can also contact yourregional Green Section office for a copy.

Green Committees have the responsibility ofoverseeing the management of the golf course,but they must not be involved in its day-to-daymanagement. Rather, they are an advisory boardwhose role should be to hire a golf course super-intendent and make broad-based decisions onbudget and policy. They need not have specificknowledge of turfgrass management, but theymust understand the game of golf, have a desire tolearn, and have time to devote to the process.Effective participation on a Green Committeerequires a significant commitment of time andenergy, and it is not a commitment to be takenlightly.

In charge of the committee is the green chair-man. His task is to organize and hold regularmeetings of the committee and to develop andmaintain a close relationship with the golf coursesuperintendent. At courses with problems or con-flicts, this can be a most unenviable role, yet it alsohas the potential to be extraordinarily rewarding.An effective chairman and committee workingwith a competent superintendent can develop andimplement plans to maintain and make improve-ments in a golf course that can be enjoyed bygolfers for generations. Conversely, when anineffectual committee and a superintendent can-not cultivate a constructive relationship, it candrag the course down, creating or adding toproblems, the effects of which will be suffered foryears. Perhaps the simplest description of thecommittee's role is that" ... they must protectthe golf course from the golfers!" If theaverage golfer had his way, the greens wouldnever be aerified, pesticides and fertilizers wouldnever be applied, and trees would only be planted

2 GREEN SECTION RECORD

and never removed. In truth, chaos would reign,turf would fail, and playability would be abysmal!

Being a chairman or member of the GreenCommittee is not a popularity contest. Toughdecisions frequently must be made regardingdisruptive and expensive programs and projects,and thick skin and an ample dose of convictionare required. Green Committees serve a vital rolein the operation of the golf course. In this role,committees have many opportunities to makemistakes, so now let us review what the GreenSection staffbelieves are the ten most commonones.

TOP TENGREEN COMMITTEE MISTAKESNo. 10:Shopping for the Right Opinion"Their minds are made up and they do not wishto be confused by the facts," describes the com-mittee that falls into this trap. Some committeeslook for a superintendent or consultant who willgive them the answers and corresponding recom-mendations they desire. "Sure, we can keep thegreens in championship condition all season!" ..."Heck no, you don't need to aerify!" ... or "Wedon't need to close the course for maintenance!"might be some of them. Sadly, there are super-intendents and consultants who will give com-mittees the answers they are looking for. GreenSection agronomists occasionally have beenlabeled as "the superintendent's mouthpiece" bysuch committees. Realistically, however, if theopinions of the USGA agronomist happen to bein concert with the superintendent's, it just maybe because the superintendent has it right in thefirst place.

Turfgrass and golf course maladies often requirecomplex, expensive, and/or disruptive solutionsthat every golfer would choose to avoid if giventhe option. It is the mission of the USGA GreenSection to help courses devise the most reason-able and effective solutions to their problems, butcheap and easy are of little value if the solution isnot effective. Sometimes, courses need to take astep back in terms of conditioning in order totake several steps forward. For instance, coursesthat want top-notch putting greens usually needto put up with the disruption of aerification,verticutting, topdressing, and pest managementprograms. All of these programs are disruptive tothe golf schedule, but failure to follow throughwith sound management programs will produceturf problems that will be even more disruptive.

Medicine doesn't always taste very good, but westill have to take it!

Second opinions are valuable, but solutionsshould be selected based on whether or not theyare logical and will be effective as opposed towhether or not they will inconvenience thegolfers. Motives always should be consideredwhen reviewing the recommendations.

No.9: Not EnoughTime to Participate FullyAn effective Green Committee member mustput in the time! This means attending as many ofthe regular meetings as possible. It also meanseducating oneself on the subject of turf grassmanagement and learning specifically about issuesthat might be facing their individual course.Prospective committee members should notunderestimate the time commitment or the effortit takes to attend meetings, seminars, and TurfAdvisory Service visits, or the time it takes toeducate oneself. Reading textbooks, articles, tradepublications, and the Green Section Record are partof the process. It also is essential to spend timewith the superintendent, both on the course andat conferences and seminars. Chairmen and com-mittees also must take the time to develop open,honest relationships with the golf course super-intendent. The committee member who doesn'thave time to participate fully generally is notcapable of making informed decisions.

No.8: Figurehead ChairmanThe green chairman should be a duly electedcourse official and a voting member of the Boardof Directors. The green chairman in that capacityhas far more leverage and influence on theoutcome of controversial issues and is a muchmore persuasive advocate of the golf coursemanagement operation.

Conversely, the structure at some courses is forthe green chairman to serve "at the will (read'whim') of the president."While this arrangementcan function acceptably in some cases, it can failmiserably when personalities clash and/or difficultdecisions have to be made. It also sets the stage forthe green chairman to effectively become the"puppet" of the president. When personalities oragendas clash, the green chairman can easily beremoved from office and replaced with a moreagreeable candidate. Frequent turnover in'theleadership position of the Green Committee isnever a good idea, but it can be especiallydisastrous when it happens in mid-season!

Sometimes thecheapest route is notthe best decision.The Green Chairmanat this golf courseowned a sand supplybusiness and offeredthe course aninexpensive sandsource. Unfortunately,in less than two years,the sand had to beremoved in slabs dueto contaminants inthis riverbed sand.

No.7: MicromanagementGreen Committee members and chairmen musthave a basic understanding of and a strong interestin course management programs. It is a steeplearning curve indeed for Green Committeeofficials, and armed with plenty of newfoundknowledge, it is easy to become a backseat driver.It is uncomfortable and inhibiting to have one'severy move scrutinized, and that should not bethe role of the Green Committee. Rather, thecommittee should make broad-based policydecisions and should not be involved in the day-to-day maintenance of the golf course.

In some instances, strong-willed green chair-men have begun directing maintenance personnel,and this jump in the chain of command can onlycause chaos and confusion. If a course officialbelieves that additional direction is needed orpriorities should be shifted, he or she shoulddiscuss it with the superintendent face to faceand never in front of the maintenance staff.Thecommittee member also must realize that thecompetent superintendent has a better apprecia-tion of the "big picture" and may have othermaintenance issues to deal with that have higherpriorities.

No.6: Unrealistic DemandsJust about every committee wants more in termsof turf quality and playing conditions than theycan afford, and some want more than is humanlypossible. Perhaps it is just basic human nature, butplacing unrealistic demands on the golf coursesuperintendent, maintenance personnel, and turf-

SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2003

This golf course allowsthe club president toselect and plant a treeof his choice in thelocation of hischoosing! Planting thewrong type of tree inthe wrong locationcreates a problemthat can last forgenerations.

grass is an all too common pitfall. Examples in-clude trying to maintain championship conditionsevery day of the year or requiring that the greensbe a specific speed every day.These are problemsoften fueled by televised golf coverage. Most ofthe courses portrayed each week on television arein nearly flawless condition, and this one-sidedview of course conditioning gives golfers every-where the unrealistic notion that the courses aremaintained in this condition every day of theyear.

The extraordinary playing conditions achievedfor the United States Open Championship fre-quently are cited by golfers who never realize thatthe courses hosting national championships areselected years ahead of time and then may gothrough a lengthy (and often very expensive anddisruptive) period of intense conditioning toachieve those remarkable conditions, which, bythe way, are maintained for a single week in June.Rarely do normal courses have access to thehundreds of volunteers U.S. Open course super-intendents have. Let there be no mistake, extraor-dinary conditions are achieved during the UnitedStates Open Championship and other televisedevents. However, these conditions cannot bemaintained on a regular basis throughout the year.Turfgrass has its limits, even if the budget doesnot, and golfers everywhere need to keep in mindthat there usually is a direct relationship betweenfast putting green speeds and dead grass.

Interestingly, noted architect Dr. AlisterMackenzie also had something to say aboutperfection: "It is possible to have too high adegree of perfection. If we have never had a badlie, we are not likely to appreciate a good one,and moreover, the ability to play from a bad lie

differentiates between a good player and a badone."

No.5: The LegacyAccording to Freud, all humans have egos. Basedon personal experience, some egos are muchlarger than others, and a committee or chairmanwith a large ego can be easily transformed intosomeone who wants to "leave their mark on thecourse."To that end, peculiar and impracticaldesigns are sometimes contrived and perpetratedon the course, squandering labor and funds andwreaking havoc on the course. Low priority, petprojects are sometimes funded, even when thereare not enough funds to purchase much-neededsupplies or equipment, and this freqently occursto the detriment of the golf course and the main-tenance budget. It may also hurt the superinten-dent's credibility if he is forced to "go along" withan inappropriate project.

Green Committees can avoid this pitfall byutilizing and listening to competent consultantsand by developing master plans for long-rangeimprovemeht. Such plans often address proposedarchitectural changes for the golf course, but alsoshould include the more mundane infrastructurenecessities such as irrigation and drainage systems,maintenance facilities, cart paths, tree managementprograms, etc. The plans should be updated andre-prioritized regularly and adhered to as closelyas possible. This is the way to keep focused and ontrack.

No.4: The Inability to Make Tough DecisionsThe duties of a green chairman and Green Com-mittee are not for the fainthearted. Issues oftenarise that require tough decisions that may raisethe ire of an entire golfmg membership. It shouldalways be the goal of the superintendent and thecourse officials to avoid disruption of the golfcourse and golf schedule, but the solutions tosome problems require just that. Severe soil prob-lems may require aggressive cultivation programs.Badly deteriorated bunkers may require total re-construction. An antiquated irrigation system mayrequire an expensive replacement project, andplayability problems and poor turf performancemay require tree removal programs. Issues suchas these can be emotionally charged, and thedecisions will have far-reaching impacts on theviability of the course.

There are many undesirable consequences ofnot following through with the necessary cor-

-4 GREEN SECTION RECORD

No. I: Poor Communication SkillsMaintaining an open and direct line of communi-cation between the superintendent and the GreenCommittee is essential, and it can be difficult toachieve. After all, committee personnel usuallychange on a regular basis, so the committee that

No.2: Short TenureIndividual committee members spend a tremen-dous amount of time learning about the scienceof golf course management, and the experiencedcommittee member becomes an extremely valu-able resource. Superintendents typically spend atremendous amount of time helping to educatecommittee members, as this is an important partof their duty. Frequent turnover in Green Com-mittee members produces duplication of thiseffort, is wasteful of the superintendent's valuabletime, and can be extremely frustrating. Frequentturnover also wastes the time and expense in-curred in each committee member's educationalprocess, and it greatly increases the odds ofmaking those rookie mistakes. Frequent turnovermakes continuity an impossibility.

No.3: Unbalanced Representationor Fails to Represent All GolfersCommittees can be too large; of that there can beno doubt. Large committees (more than 12-15members) often have difficulty staYing focusedand on track. They tend to have too much dis-cussion and have trouble reaching decisions.Some have suggested that the most effectivecommittee size is an odd number less than three,but there is risk involved in having such a com-mittee and it is not common. A workable com-mittee size usually is between seven and 11members.

Committees that are unbalanced often fail toconsider the effects their actions will have ongolfers of different abilities. It should be no sur-prise that many of the changes made in the nameof "toughening up the course" or "modernizing"

rective programs, and one of the most common it wind up penalizing shorter hitters and/oroutcomes is continued poor turf performance. higher handicappers. Green Committees shouldThe ever-popular band-aid approach rarely is ~mprised of golfers of both genders and alleffective, yet it continues to be selected in lieu of abilities. This helps to take different perspectivesmore expensive and/or more disruptive solutions. into account, and it helps to keep lines of com-While a band-aid approach might be needed on a munication open with other golfers.short-term basis, consistent reliance on this typeof approach winds up wasting money and per-petuating problems. At some courses, "it seemsthere is never enough money to do the projectright the first time, yet there always seems to beenough money to do it over!"

Some committeesexpect the world interms of conditioning,yet fail to provide thenecessary tools to getthe job done right.Apoor irrigation systemor worn-out mainte-nance equipment canprevent the turfmanagement programfrom achieving its fullpotential.

SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2003 5

Being a GreenChairman or GreenCommittee membercan be a tough job.Someone is alwaysout to get you!

hires the golf course superintendent is likely notto be the committee the superintendent answersto just a few years later. Taking into considerationthat individuals often volunteer for differentcommittees to effect change, it is to be expectedthat the goals of the committee will changeaccording to the personnel who make them up.When these changing goals are not df'arly com-municated to the superintendent, problems areguaranteed to arise.

One of the more effective means of keepingcommittees and superintendents on the samepage is specifying maintenance guidelines (see"When in Doubt, Spec It Out," March-April1997 Green Section Record).This should be manda-tory reading for all Green Committee members.Assuming effective communication is maintainedbetween committee and superintendent, the nextstep is to ensure that the committee communi-cates effectively with the Board of Directors andthe golfers.

The old adage" a little knowledge is a dangerousthing" certainly applies here. Frequently, com-mittee members try to answer complex agro-nomic questions and wind up giving inaccurateinformation that just confuses the process. Eventhe most experienced Green Committee membershould be quick to say,"I don't know the answer

to that question, but I'll check with our super-intendent and get back to you." Doing so can savea tremendous amount of embarrassment,confusion, and grief!

One could argue that many of the world'sproblems are the result of poor communication,and this is certainly true of the realm of turfgrassmanagement. Golf course superintendents rarelyconsider themselves salespeople, yet sales is a bigpart of their job. Successful superintendents mustsell their management programs and philosophiesto the golfers and to the various committees theyanswer to. The same can be said of Green Com-mittees. Together with the superintendent, theymust sell their programs to the golfers. Whilegood playing conditions alone help sell theprograms, an ample amount of written and oralcommunication must also be provided. Com-mittees need to communicate effectively with thegolf course superintendent and with the golfers,particularly when major projects or expendituresare being considered.

Some programs are hard to sell, but GreenCommittees that try to educate the golfers,schedule town meetings, and provide writtendocumentation and access to their consultants toexplain why the programs are needed, generallyfare the best. Conversely, committees that take anarrogant approach and assume the golfers willsimply take their word for it, frequently experiencevehement opposition and fail to gain the supportof the golfers.

CONCLUSIONUnderstanding some of the most common pitfallswill help committees and superintendents avoidthem, so the next step is to put all of these ideasto work. Discussing the many pitfalls at the boardand committee level is an excellent idea. Com-mittees might even give themselves a grade ineach category as a means of assessing their relativeeffectiveness. But the acid test is to get outsideinput, and this is only for Green Committeeswith extremely thick skin. The ultimate challengeis to have a few golfers give the Green Committeea grade in each of the categories. An unbiasedopinion from the outside will assuredly providesome useful information, and for less-effectivecommittees, it might just be an awakening.

DAVID OATIS joined the USGA Green Section in1988 as an agronomist in the Mid-Atlantic Region andhas been directoroj the Northeast Region since 1990.

6 GREEN SECTION RECORD