Meeting last night approves changes at klein

[el-jefe]

In a 3 to 2 vote to approve 13 holes to be deemed a green course last night ended with an all or nothing course change with Roy voting yes on both matters. I asked for a line by line discusion which turned into a reading of the changes without coming to a resolution on basically what amounts to 5 of the 18 hole changes.

My vote no to the changes does not mean that I am not open to changes but i disagree with some of the changes. Changes to a course should allow for open debate and at least a notice to players of changes through club player hearings.

[AveSatani]

I am currently debating on whether to have the club members vote before or after we install the green.

Any member who wishes to discuss may refer to the design previously posted and comment.

[dg]

if you plan to have the players vote or give their input or whatever, lets dont give them the "all or nothing" attitude that went down last night. Holes 2 and 4 are not better, and I doubt you'll get the players behind them. Without those two holes, shouldn't be a problem with the rest. I guess we'll see.

Oh, and if/when we change the island, a different approach should be taken. IMHO

[AveSatani]

I think we should move them and then get the opinion of the players if the holes need to be tweaked.

[dg]

I think we should move them and then get the opinion of the players if the holes need to be tweaked.

we'll play some of the changes on wednesday

[sturmgeist]

You know I seem to remember suggesting that the approval of the players be sought in the redesign of Klein way back, and you two summarily blew that off. How hypocritical, and somehow typical. :???:

You two agreed, with the rest of us, when this board system went into effect, to respect the decisions of the board. That is not to respect and abide by those decisions only when they suit you, or you see fit. You can't always have your way, and it's about time you both learned that, because you HAVE had it for too long.

[dg]

You know I seem to remember suggesting that the approval of the players be sought in the redesign of Klein way back, and you two summarily blew that off. How hypocritical, and somehow typical. :???:

You two agreed, with the rest of us, when this board system went into effect, to respect the decisions of the board. That is not to respect and abide by those decisions only when they suit you, or you see fit. You can't always have your way, and it's about time you both learned that, because you HAVE had it for too long.

you know will, that doesnt work because YOU and SCOTTY designed this green course and all of the changes are fine with me EXCEPT hole 2. That means 17 of the 18 holes ya'll picked out you get, just like that. But I've already said I'm backing the popular consensus for hole 2. We'll play it on wednesday.

as far as the rest of the changes, i didnt see how we could vote to do it unless we've seen it. BUT, me and scott looked at them today, and hole 5 doesnt even work, you can talk to scotty about that. hole 10 and 17's changes are minimal and me and jeff wouldn't have cared, but we hadnt seen it yet. and where is 4 going cause scotty thought it had switched back to the current long tee?

[el-jefe]

I will not respect the decision of the board because it was and uninformed decision that directly impacts players and there was no open debate and discussion of all the changes. If that is how this board will operate and make important decisions I want no part of it. I was called a bully for taking a firm stand on 1 hole imparticular and that is hole 2. Keep the challenging long hole and pin placement and adjust the short box would solve the problem.Where would the short box go? or would the long box become the short box? Changing the pin will make it a easy birdie after the first couple of rounds for most players. I don't want the hole made easier from the long position. These are some of the things that could have been discussed and ironed out. Now there is a definate split in opinion and a non consensus among board members. This has been a wedge driven between us that could have been prevented if only there was an open discussion. I also held out for holes 4 and the 5/6 change. I thought them to be changes just for the sake of it with no greater improvement to the course and since there was never a true discussion or a feet on the ground inspection of said changes Id like to see the decision rescended and the discussion to start again. I am not against change just not convinced of ALL of said changes. Also id like the club members invited to the meeting or an announcement of the meeting with an agenda in order for players to be involved on important dicisions we are making. Yes we are the elected representatives but that does not mean you should turn a deaf ear or not seek the opinions of the players.

[fuzzy]

There were reasons for each change and each change was so minor that this discussion really shouldnt even take place. Fact of the matter is that I have more experience in design then anyone in the area and I was elected to do these things for that reason. If you truly beleive that I am going to go out and do something that the majority of the players are going to be against and/or that I dont know what I am doing then I think it is time for you to put in a formal request to have me removed from the board.

[AveSatani]

I believe my decision was informed. I believe it was the same decision we had come to at the last meeting. We did not scope out the hole because I do not think there is a need for exact coordinates. If something doesn't work out - we can make a slight alteration when installing. The design was agreed upon in principle. The changes were made to improve the course in three of the board member's opinion. I decided to vote as I did because I was of the opinion that we were at a stalemate because of at least two members. I felt there was plenty of "open discussion" that would have led to the issue being tabled and then we would be in the same position once again.
Now on to the name calling ( I chose not to make this public but now it is), I take full responsiblity for that and apologize. It is my job to keep things under control and I didn't. The next board meeting will not be like the last. It will be civil or ended abruptly.
This issue is only a difference in opinion. If this difference in opinion has become a personal - that is sad, but I cannot do anything about that.

[el-jefe]

I am sorry that because you felt that since it was a stalemate you would take the extreme measure of change rather than a no vote and then a continuation of the discussion. Our 2nd meeting and weve changed a course already!!!! I guess that if there is not an open discussion and INVOLVEMENT in this I m gonna raise hell!!!! I don't agree with what they have done so Im gonna do a black course and then make some changes for all my ideas, be damned everyone else. If this measure stands then I will resign in protest. I am sorry you let it get out of control and this is nothing personal it has to do with the whole decision and lack out discussion, there were shouts and names called and no honest debate.

[dg]

theres nothing wrong with changing the course, thats what i said the first meeting. We were just not ready to decide if 5 should change to the hill without proper information gathering and discussion. Nothing will be different with the premature vote, but it caused more chaos than necessary, thats all I'm saying.

[AveSatani]

Dustin, so now you are saying you are cool with all of the changes except #5?

[sturmgeist]

Jeff, I still recall a bit of role reversal a bit over a year ago between the two of us. If you remember, I had gotten the opinions of the regulars on the design of the park and was screaming at you and Dustin to take heed. As the presiding Presidente of the time, you blew it off, mocked me, etc. Now, in regards to the history there, I don't think the voice of the players should go unheeded, but I do think that you retroactively gave up any rights you may have ever had to play that card.

[dg]

Dustin, so now you are saying you are cool with all of the changes except #5?

i was just using 5 as an example because its not even going to happen, even though we voted to do it, showing that we were not as prepared as we needed to be to make that kind of decision

[fuzzy]

That shows a complete lack of faith in me. Do you really think I would still do something just for the sake of doing it when I am the most vocal about hating when people do that.

[sturmgeist]

Boy it would be nice to be able to just put everything down on paper and then have it work out the exact way you wrote it...

That's more Bizarro world stuff though.

[el-jefe]

I have to give up a right to play a card?? You cant be involved in course design because you have no course experiences. You want to get personal Will? Decisions made by me as president is exactly what it is. Most of those decisions were conservative (like making no drastic changes!!!) I am no longer pres, just a board member who should be involved like all board members with the same rights. Remember I asked to have it tabled for further discussion and more info and was ignored. And now we have a plan that because of the changes in what was voted on is null and void as far as Im concerned.


Will you were not the only one coming to me with suggestions for changes that I had to hear from, But with DG as course rep and me as pres, those suggestions werediscussed and some actiuon taken but not for all. Sorry you couldn't get everything you wanted.

[sturmgeist]

Yes, in my opinion, the way you acted when you were president precludes you from displaying such righteous indignation. It wasn't about me coming to you with ideas for CHANGES, Jeff, it was about me begging you and Dustin to listen to what the regulars had to say about the idea of a redesign, MANY of which are gone now as a result of that redesign. It was YOUR way or the highway back then.

So as far as I'm concerned, any attempt YOU make to speak up as some sort of half baked "people's champion" is just comedic irony. Conservative? Against radical changes? So you don't consider the gutting and redesign of the most popular course in the area without the consent of the area players/club a radical change? You want to play both sides of the fence, to go from the iron fisted, git'r'done decider, to the voice of the liberation, without skipping a beat? Last person I saw try and make that same transition was Saddam Hussein, after he was captured, and evidently it wasn't too convincing a performance. I don't think you'll be hung, but likewise I don't think you'll fool anyone who was around to see your previous character either.

I wonder, would you still be so concerned about the people's opinion, if we were to just give up and concede your points to you? I think it's only of importance to you because it's convenient for you at the moment. On the other hand, were you and Dustin to give in to all of our changes without prolonging this fight, I would still want the players' thoughts on the contended holes.

You say I shouldn't be involved in course design matters because of my inexperience at playing other courses. Well I could say that you shouldn't have a say in course design because you lack the proper thought processes required for such an undertaking - analytical thinking, creative impulse, and the ability to at once examine the part and the whole, and their effects on one another. You're the guy who, as a virtue of having watched an inordinate amount of football, has deemed himself better suited to the task of running a team than the guy who has spent his time studying playbooks and stratagems.

I've been designing things - golf courses, video games, cartography, etc. since I was 7 or 8 years old. I've known for years the right ways to balance difficulty across a wide range of player skill levels in such a way that it neither detracts from the overall challenge, or daunts the newcomer. On top of this, I have read all the literature on the subject that I could find, from John Houck's design articles to the lengthy discussions on the PDGA Course Design forum - AND I've had the opportunity to talk to Andi Lehman and correspond with David McCormack on the subject. None of that makes me an expert, but it gives me a lot stronger foundation, I think, than if I'd just gone and played some out of state courses.

[el-jefe]

what sanctimonious bs. I wonder if the goal is to make the course easier to improve that rating of yours? What is done is done and I gave Dustin all the room he needed for his design, as you will notice, there are 0 holes that were my suggestion on the course. The way the club was set up was that DG was in charge of that course and to the dictator refrences you are totally off base. I was pres of the club, he was the course rep. Now that you have this new found power, take a look in the mirror at the self rightousness and the idea that your changes are flawless. Hell some of your changes didn't work out when they were physically looked at. I am sorry that you felt somehow victamized by me and have adopted that victomized mentallity, and sorry for not putting a stop to that damn hurricane. I am also sorry I am not willing to sell out and make #2 long easier, but would have no problem adjusting the short box for your version of the green course.

[el-jefe]

I can prove you have no course experience. I doubt you could prove my lack of analytical thought and creative impulse blah blah blah. If you would analyze this, you are taking a good challenging long hole and making it an ok birdie hole for the sake of teeing off on the nice box. Why not adjust the short box? There is plenty of room both to the left and right to improve the luck of players to hit the gap while maintaining the excellent long tee. Why sacrafice a great long hole when the short box can be improved? After a lot a critical analysis and deductive reasoning the only answer is to modify the short box and leave the longtee and pin placement as is.

[sturmgeist]

You're completely ignoring the reasons for making any changes and assigning your own reasons to them. We're not doing it to tee off from a better box, or to make the hole easier. We are fixing a problem with the hole, and in doing so making it part of the green course as one of the best holes the course has to offer.

[el-jefe]

it must be in the eye of the beholder because I think you are full of self rightousness. I am not convinced.