The GCSAA board (Advancing the game column)

My last GCN column (September) presented the concept that because the current not-for-profit governing formats, with their corresponding lack of discipline, position golf’s associations at a constant disadvantage - corrective measures are needed. The suggested remedy offered was to bring private and academic sector professionals to golf associations’ boards of directors, using the GCSAA as a model for golf’s n-f-p organizations collectively.

Recognizing how easy it would be, with the best intentions, to misfire when looking to implement this concept, my purpose now is to frame the issues that will require scrutiny when the time comes to consider the board privatization process for the GCSAA and other n-f-p golf associations.

GCSAA board profile. Assuming an expanded 11-person board would be preferred to the current nine-person board because it would make more expertise available within a still manageable board size, the following guidelines are suggested: First, that GCSAA members occupy six of the 11 board positions that would be elected with geographical balance across the country; second, that only GCSAA members would be eligible to become officers; and third, that all board members would serve three-year terms - with a one-year presidency.

A more sensitive issue to address is whether the five private-sector board members would serve voluntarily and pay their own travel expenses like the U.S. Golf Association private-sector board members. This issue is complicated because what might be done in this regard for the private-sector people wouldn’t necessarily be done for GCSAA board members. Recognizing that the USGA’s position is unique within golf and can’t be readily duplicated, I’d favor paying an annual courtesy stipend of $10,000 to the private-sector board members, as many Fortune 500 companies do, but not to the GCSAA board members; and then have the association pay all travel expenses for all board members.

Committee profile. The board privatization process would serve the committee structure well, i.e., putting the presidency aside, the five remaining GCSAA board members would chair five to-be-identified standing committees, while the five private-sector board members would be appointed as vice chairmen of these same standing committees. The inherent benefit that would result from coupling a GCSAA member with a private-sector professional within each standing committee is that each individual would be exposed to the culture of the other, thereby forging the best possible leadership teams throughout the association.

Care will have to be taken not to overschedule board and committee meetings throughout a year because this would wear board and committee members thin and discourage future board participation. The objective would be to insure that no board member would attend more than four or five board and committee meetings combined each year. This goal can be comfortably realized by scheduling many committee meetings at the same site immediately prior to board meetings.

The nominating process. Because all the best planning will ultimately fail unless appropriately qualified people are continuously fed on to the GCSAA board, the nominating process becomes the cornerstone on which the privatization process must be built. Logic suggests the best way to determine what caliber nominating process will be needed is to look first at what quality of person the GCSAA will require on its board of directors.

Clearly, the revised GCSAA board should consist of people who possess the skill sets that need to be passed on to the GCSAA for the benefit of its members. These individuals abound across the country. The challenge is to determine who is best qualified to identify board candidates? As experienced players and coaches are judged to be the better evaluators of athletic talent, so too in golf should those people with these same proven skill sets be best equipped to judge who is best qualified to serve on the GCSAA board.

Accordingly, the GCSAA nominating committee should consist of two categories of people. The first category should be superintendents and golf-course-management-oriented people (including sales and management personnel from service and equipment manufacturing companies) with the appropriate experience to identify the six rotating GCSAA board members. The second category should be selected from: academics; entrepreneurs; the media; and those who’ve successfully served on the boards and/or nominating committees of organizations such as the National Club Association, the National Golf Course Owners Association, the USGA, the National Golf Foundation, the First Tee Program, the regional/state golf communities and leading American corporations, including experienced human resource personnel, to identify the five rotating non-GCSAA board members.

Finally, the makeup of the nominating committee might include an equal number of members from each of the two categories mentioned above. This would require each category to interact with the other to the degree necessary to earn the one additional vote needed for a majority opinion – a welcomed educational opportunity. To help tie all this together, the nominating committee might be guided by an appropriate mission statement - a draft of which is below.

There’s no doubt this mission statement can be implemented effectively because there would be no expense involved, only a commitment to the pursuit of excellence. However, there’s a deal-breaking roadblock threatening to stall every initiative, i.e., GCSAA bylaw changes (as would be necessary here) require a difficult to obtain two-thirds vote to pass. My next column will suggest how to constructively address this paralyzing circumstance. GCN