Let’s ditch green committees

Golf course superintendents have a very defined job to do, years of training and practice in doing it, and the most advanced tools and technology ever available to do it with.

So, why do we need green committees?

The history of the green committee is rooted in the early 1920s when the USGA formed its Green Section. It was formed to promote scientific turfgrass research and offer advisory services, which led to the development of improved methods of course maintenance and playing conditions.

From that humble, yet necessary, beginning came the idea of forming “advisory” committees, usually comprised of members, at individual clubs. Their responsibilities have varied over the years, but typically include overseeing management of the course, hiring the superintendent, and making broad budget and policy decisions.

They usually do not — and, I argue, should not — be involved in day-to-day operations. Nor should they deal with line-by-line budget decisions, staffing or long-range planning. Because what does a layperson know about what it takes to care for a living, breathing golf course? Little to nothing. They are more than welcome to advise, to bring members’ concerns to management, to help explain agronomic practices to the rank and file, and to otherwise make life easier for those with the expertise to care for the club’s most valuable asset.

Would you step into an operating room, look over the shoulder of a surgeon, and tell them to move the scalpel a little to the right? It’s a fair comparison: Just like doctors, we know the science and have the experience.

And yet, to assuage club politics and members’ egos, high handicaps (male and female), insurance salesmen, maybe a commercial real estate agent or dentist are appointed to green committees and think they: 1) know what’s best for “their” golf course, and 2) know how to achieve it.

They sit in on meetings, think they understand the science, then make suggestions totally ignoring or misconstruing what they heard. Or they relay false information to others, trying to look important at cocktail parties because they have the “inside scoop” on what’s really going on. Too often, their idle chatter becomes ignorant rumor-mongering that makes it harder for the maintenance crew to execute its job properly.

If I don’t like green committees as a whole, I’m no more enamored of the various character types that tend to populate them. I’m sure you’ve dealt with these, too:

Internet Agronomist. He googles everything, writes it down verbatim, then spouts it back to anyone who will listen. Meanwhile, he neglects to read the fine print — geographic region, budget, grass types, etc. He’s probably also the guy who goes to WebMD before seeing his doctor.

Captain Obvious. Yes, we know there’s a drainage problem by the eighth tee. Everyone knows it. We all have eyes. Instead of pointing out what we all see, ask why it’s happening and what we need to solve the problem.

Master of Minutiae. Can’t see the forest through the trees — let alone the grass, the greens, bunkers, and other things of more importance. Getting too granular means missing the big picture and taking care of unessential items instead of real priorities.

John J. Audubon Jr. Golf courses are already the best friend to all God’s creatures. We don’t need to overly enhance every native area. Leave some room for the players to play, please.

There’s another problem with green committees. Every two years, a new crop of know-nothings comes along and has its own wrong ideas. Two steps forward and one step back. Consistency is key, but hey, that’s what the superintendent is there for, right?

If there has to be a green committee, put one person in charge who stays in that position for more than two years. Make sure that person has the time and interest to serve for five years at least, devote him or herself to learning what really goes on in the maintenance arena and on the course, and provide continuity while gaining a real understanding of the land, the personnel and the issues.

Here’s my suggestion: Dump the green committee in favor of a group comprised of the superintendent, the general manager, the golf professional and one member — in a purely advisory role — who also reports to the board. That way the direction of the club’s long-term agronomic care can be consistent, correct and properly communicated.