Matthew Dutkiewicz said: This topic has certainly taken off! Removing the requirement of a posted salary range is one of the symptoms of a potentially larger problem the GCSAA is heading towards. Quantity over quality. The GCSAA's reasoning for removing this requirement is to have more job postings. Ok, I understand the desire to have more postings, but if they are postings that are not informative, and not desirable to Members, it's something that should maybe be re-evaluated, right? For those of you who have heard what your Chapter Delegates have reported from the meeting back in October, there are more of these quantity over quality initiatives on the horizon. Membership drives to make almost anyone a member, which is again, somewhat understandable, as the GCSAA wants to grow and "brand" itself, and become a "player" with other organizations. But to what end? There were proposals of making a few groups who, clearly, have nothing to do with golf course turf, Members of a golf course turf association. I'm not sure what the benefit would be in an initiative like that. Additionally, it does certainly seem as though there has been a shift to focus on the high-end Members, whether its with awards, or publication articles, or Board members/candidates. This may be in an effort towards "branding", but it seems to have struck a chord with many Members who feel left out, ignored, or not appreciated. While these initiatives are certainly aimed at growing Membership numbers, they also seem to have the potential to dilute the quality of the overall association. I think there is an attempt to make the GCSAA a household name in the golf world, and that may or may not be a good thing, but I would hope that for the bulk of the Membership, their purpose for belonging to the association is not forgotten.
It was interesting to here some of the ideas proposed to help drive membership numbers and some of the reasons behind trying to drive numbers at the Chapter Delegates meeting and some of the debate amongst the delegates and in the candidate break out rooms (among many of the other topics discussed), but upon hearing feedback, I believe the board did not move any of those proposals forward?
I do have to somewhat disagree with the focus on high-end superintendents and some what quantity over quality. Yes most board members are from higher-end clubs, or for a while even municipal facilities. Why? probably because those facilities have either the staff to fill in while the board member serves, or have time, (like I seem to do, no I'm not announcing a candidacy "a collective sigh of relief is heard", because of their employers attendance/vacation/comp time policies) to volunteer for service. We all have heard of courses that don't have enough staff and it's understandable why we don't really see many of these people at these non "high-end" courses volunteering to serve on the GCSAA board, and even local boards, (although I give props to some of my fellow local board members who have stepped up) As for the awards, I think we see them go to high-end clubs where the superintendent has the time and/or staff to fill out the required paperwork to apply for the awards.
I actually think with technology the association has made great strides to allow for more involvement from anyone who wants to get involved. Most committee meetings take place from our homes or offices on-line. Education is readily available on-line, and some chapters are working hard to provide education to members, GCSAA checks and approves topics for our chapter all the time so we can try to provide our members the ability to earn and maintain Class A locally and affordably (our little chapter is I think is getting pretty close to achieving this), all parts of the original PDI mission.
I think it's easy to say things and paint stuff with a broad brush, but we need to look and examine things closer, nothing is ever a black and white issue. Just my opinion.
Mel