GCSAA taken hostage (Advancing the game)

This column should be read in conjunction with my September and October 2005 GCN columns.

The first internal relocation battle within the GCSAA took place during the 1981-1983 era. As happens within almost every societal group, those opposing a measure tend to argue more vigorously than those with a “take it for granted” attitude who support a measure even though the supporting group often will represent the majority opinion.

Such was the political environment within the GCSAA through the early 1980s. While the anti-relocation lobby prevailed at the time after troublesome debate, the anti-relocation base took its success too far when it amended the association’s governing documents (bylaws and articles of incorporation) at the 1983 annual meeting to require all future amendments throughout these documents to obtain a supermajority two-thirds voting approval. The misguided purpose of this then newly imposed supermajority voting requirement was to prevent any future headquarters relocation possibility – indefinitely.

If the two-thirds approval format had been limited to relocation issues and not spread across all provisions within the governing documents, that would have been one thing. But, by requiring a mandatory two-thirds supermajority voting approval for all amendments, the membership vote at the 1983 annual meeting implicitly took the GCSAA and its members hostage by locking them in time and place, a situation that still prevails. I dare say that the GCSAA might be the only one of about 40,000 not-for-profit associations throughout the country requiring a universal two-thirds vote to amend its governing documents.

Despite being an advocate for relocating the GCSAA out of Lawrence, Kan., I would be comfortable with requiring a supermajority voting approval to relocate the association. However, I would limit this voting requirement to 60 percent that would apply only to the relocation issue. I say this because no organization wants to implement a major policy change without a decisive mandate from its membership.

To help acquire a feel for how difficult it is to obtain supermajority votes, consider the following: (i) How infrequently the U.S. Senate is able to obtain a 60 percent vote to overcome a filibuster; and (ii) How infrequently Congress and state legislatures are able to obtain the two-thirds votes needed to overcome presidential and gubernatorial vetoes. Each enjoys a less than a 5-percent success rate across the board. The GCSAA amendment success rate would fare no better if the present governing documents remain as written.

The consequences. The price the GCSAA would pay should it allow its present amendment process to remain in place would be far more counterproductive to the association and its members than it has been to date. For example, how can the GCSAA keep pace with an ambitiously changing 21st century golf industry with its governing structure frozen in place as of 1983? How can the association continue to evolve as a respected industry leader when its future boards of directors will be out-manned because its companion organizations in golf will have upgraded their board structures and effectiveness when the GCSAA can’t? How can members expect to smell the roses as they and their families pass through life when their profession is represented by an association that will always be trying to do its best, but will be trying with one hand tied behind its back?

The answer to all of the above is that no consistent good can come from maintaining the present governance format. The GCSAA will be committing itself to long-term mediocrity should it fail to take the following initiatives:

Specific changes. The document changes needed are easy to identify: (i) the articles of incorporation should be amended to allow for relocation with a 60 percent supermajority vote; (ii) the bylaws should be amended to eliminate proxy voting and to allow for a simple majority vote to generally amend its provisions; and (iii) the standing rules should be amended to eliminate the provision whereby members’ votes will be assigned automatically to their respective chapters whenever such members fail to vote on a GCSAA sponsored matter.

The problem with proxy voting and defaulting individual members’ votes to chapters is that these processes encourage an uninformed membership, disconnect the individual member from his/her representative association and too often allow self-serving politically motivated chapters to set association policy and to define the character of the GCSAA leadership by trading blocks of votes among chapters. The role of chapters isn’t to shape GCSAA electoral policy, that’s the responsibility of the board of directors as supported by each individual member. (My February 2005 GCN column defines a chapter’s role.) The GCSAA will never become what it should be to its members until it adopts a basic “one man one vote” policy. Interestingly, it should be noted that federal, state and local election laws don’t allow for proxy or block voting.

The amendment process. History consistently shows the primary reason why  meritorious proposals fail is because voting constituencies aren’t properly educated about the issues. An uninformed electorate can be spun and misdirected. Accordingly, the first responsibility when attempting to amend GCSAA policy would be to educate the membership fully via a thorough Web site presentation of each proposed amendment. When this is done effectively, a 60-percent voting approval requirement to relocate would be obtainable.

Members then would vote electronically directly to the GCSAA (“one man one vote”) using their unique membership ID numbers as an access code that could be used only once per voting issue. In addition to obtaining the designated voting approval percentage, no amendment should be adopted unless at least 50 percent of voting eligible members participates in the voting process. Voter apathy always should shut down the amendment process. This same process would be used for all future amendment considerations – including the amendments suggested in my recent two columns.

Should the GCSAA amend its governing documents to eliminate the mandatory two-thirds voting requirements first, or wait to amend them in conjunction with a substantive amendment proposal? After watching how extensive discussions about this issue distracted the 2002-2004 relocation debate, I favor amending the governing documents first and alone primarily because success would be better assured when mobilizing for one amendment campaign at a time vis-à-vis two simultaneously where the negatives from one could be expected to cross-contaminate the other.

The gauntlet has been laid down. The question is what generation of GCSAA members will pick it up. GCN

Jim McLoughlin is the founder of TMG Golf (www.TMGgolfcounsel.com), a golf course development and consulting firm, and is a former executive director of the GCSAA. He can be reached at golfguide@adelphia.net or 760-804-7339. His previous columns can be found on www.golfcoursenews.com.