CGSA Consultation Feedback Presented by the WCTA Board of Directors
After the 2015 CITCTS conference in Calgary, the Canadian Golf Superintendents Association Board of Directors announced that a re-design of their association was necessary to remain viable
To assist, a consultation process was initiated, intending to solicit feedback from individual CGSA members, suppliers and from the eight provincial / regional golf superintendent organizations that exist across Canada: WCTA, BCGSA, Alberta GSA, STA, MGSA, OGSA, QGSA and Atlantic GSA.
A RFP was distributed and at the end of April, it was announced that Don Barclay, from the Ivey School of Business at Western University, was contracted to assist with the consultation process while Executive Director, Ken Cousineau, was assigned lead role in project coordination. Tasked with interviewing each regional association’s Board, Provincial CGSA representatives were provided a list of questions to ask prefaced by the following statement:
“Being a membership-driven organization, the CGSA needs to hear from their members and other groups such as industry sponsors and provincial associations to be able to plot a successful future for the association.”
In a June 9 press release, the CGSA stated they would share findings at the Fall Field Day (September 22) and then develop a go-forward strategy best suited to the expressed needs of the stakeholders.
Prologue to the Interview held August 14 with the WCTA Board
Mr. Greg Austin, CGSA representative to BC, explained that after consecutive years of financial losses, the CGSA Board has determined the business model is not sustainable. The basic question is, “Who does the CGSA need to be to better serve its membership?” Other statements included (the CGSA):
• doesn’t want to ‘step on other association’s toes.
• wants to support the superintendent profession.
• wants to be able to take input back to incorporate into overall strategy
Mr. Austin also stated that no subject was off limits and that a consolidated Board response could be submitted if desired. Before beginning, it was thought that looking at member demographics within British Columbia and nationally, would be a good exercise to provide insight into how the different organizations are represented noting that BC is unique in Canada with two superintendent representative associations operating within the province.
Some notes about the WCTA:
• established in the late 1950’s, the WCTA represents over 700 members from throughout western Canada spanning several different sectors of the turfgrass management profession, similar to the New England Regional Turfgrass Foundation and South African Greenkeepers Association.
• BC is the primary area of WCTA membership followed by Alberta.
• historically, golf course personnel represent approximately 45% of the WCTA membership.
• In BC, the WCTA’s reach is 185 of 316 golf courses or 59%.
• The WCTA and CGSA partnered on turf conferences in 1981, 1989, 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2014.
The CGSA in BC:
• 109 total golf members
• 79% of all CGSA members in BC are also WCTA members.
• the CGSA’s reach is 83 of 316 golf courses or 26%.
• nationally, the CGSA’s reach is approximately 30% of all golf courses (source, Ken Cousineau).
• the western provinces make-up 50% of the CGSA’s membership (source, Greg Austin).
• 68% of WCTA golf members are not CGSA members.
The BCGSA in BC:
• The BCGSA’s reach is 133 of 316 golf courses or 42%.
• 60% of BCGSA golf members are also WCTA members.
Of interest:
• 111 or 35% or BC golf courses are not affiliated with any superintendent association
• number of BC golf courses with both a WCTA and BCGSA member = 114
• number of BC golf courses with a member of all three associations = 56
• number of tri CGSA/WCTA/BCGSA members is 66
Interview Questions and Responses
▪ Are there any specific areas that you believe the CGSA could provide your organization or the golf industry with leadership or where the CGSA should assume a leadership role?
We agree there is a need for a national organization to exist, however, it should not automatically assume it needs to lead especially when it’s not representative of the industry, ie. <30% reach. Perhaps leadership can come from the strong provincial groups providing direction and the national executes on behalf of the regionals. How can we create a situation where the provincials support the national using the cumulative strength of the provinces?
A good example of how this can work is the Canadian Turf Research Foundation. The CTRF is steered by the provincial funding groups via a representative from each who sits on a national Board tasked with providing direction for the foundation. This is fundamentally different from the current CGSA model whereby an individual from each province is a Director however they are mandated to represent the association itself rather than the needs of those members in the respective provinces.
This structure seriously undermines the CGSA’s ability to lead and represent superintendents because it’s forced to put its own needs ahead of those it serves. The result is a perception that the CGSA is more dictatorial than it is supportive. If the CGSA maintains this approach, it will continue to ostracize a large number of its potential members.
▪ If you were asked to suggest one thing that the CGSA should do to enhance its relationship with your organization, what would you say?
Take steps to improve strained relationships with regional groups. Be more inclusive, understanding, collaborative and honest. Try looking at things from a perspective other than the high-end club mentality. If there is another conference held in the west, there needs to be a negotiation process underpinned by mutual cooperation with the regional associations.
▪ If you were asked to suggest one thing that the CGSA should stop doing or not do in the future which would enhance its relationship with your organization, what would you say?
Lighten up! Take a deep look at the traditions, are they still relevant, required or do they turn people off? What is professionalism? How does it look?
Resist the urge to take the lead role on provincial matters. Take steps to stop competing with other organizations. Stop looking outward to correct financial issues with the CGSA. Recognize there are two superintendent organizations in BC and speak to both, not just one, as the atmosphere becomes increasingly divisive by doing so.
Stop dictating conference terms. CGSA plans to return to BC in 2017 because Vancouver is a money-maker but did not allow any negotiation of this timing with the WCTA. Does the CGSA take this approach with the OGSA also? 2014 Vancouver attendance was down 30% versus 2011. Maybe going back to the well too often isn’t such a great idea! Local exhibitors and delegates are telling us the national show is too expensive but the CGSA doesn’t seem to want to hear this. No, they don’t need our permission but coming to BC without partnering would mean having two shows in BC in one year and would force a competitive situation. How does this help superintendents?
▪ What would attract/retain members for the CGSA?
Get credibility back. The current issue for the CGSA is that there is more value in the regional bodies but it has failed to recognize that and adapt. Cut (admin) costs, create value, implement a realistic dues pricing structure that is inclusive of all golf course superintendents is essential. An education program relevant to the west would be helpful.
▪ What should the CGSA do versus provincial associations?
Really, the question here is, “What should the national model look like?” The CGSA should stick to being responsible for higher level, federal issues and programs like a nationally recognized certification program or federal lobbying. It should liaise with other national organizations and represent the industry internationally. It should create and support resources that can be used nationally. It should ask, “Is there a need for a national conference?”
Regionals better understand and should respond to regional issues. The National should stay out of provincial issues unless it’s asked to assist. How can it afford to lobby each provincial government? Creating unenforceable policies is useless.
CGSA has something no one else does, the certification program. Partner with schools and think about making this an industry standard.
▪ Would you support some form of combined provincial / national structure?
The original question, listed above, was modified to the following: Is there a potential for a dual dues structure with the CGSA/WCTA and perhaps the BCGSA???
Some logistics would need to be worked out but the WCTA is supportive of such a system because of the potential for gaining efficiencies. It also opens the door to better communication and collaboration between the groups keeping in mind there are many ways to work together without losing identity. Note that moving to a model like the CTRF would likely mean individual national dues would be collected by the provinces who would then fund the national.
It is certainly possible and there is strength in numbers. Precedent exists, ie. the WCTA signed an agreement in 2012 whereby we collect and transfer national dues to Sports Turf Canada. It’s unfortunate that only when the CGSA is failing that it begins looking at these types of options.
Who would collect the money? The WCTA had great difficulty receiving transfer payments for the 2014 conference without explanation resulting in low confidence of the CGSA’s financial capabilities.
▪ If the CGSA stages events in the future, is it important to you that those events always take place in Canada? Mr. Austin offered some further insight into this question. He explained that the CGSA has been talking with the GCSAA about potential collaborative efforts, ie. website, conference, administration.
The WCTA Board feels it’s important for the CGSA to represent the industry internationally by sending a representative to the GCSAA show but partnering on an international event or hosting an event on its own outside of Canada does not serve the majority of Canadian superintendents. If an event outside of Canada can be less costly, then perhaps it should be considered.
Final Thoughts
The WCTA Board of Directors is glad the CGSA is undertaking a feedback survey, feels it’s important to reach out to the local associations for feedback and appreciates being included as a stakeholder.
Consensus amongst Directors was that more time and information was needed to complete the interview properly, survey questions were somewhat duplicative and ambiguous and for better transparency, regional reps should not be conducting the interviews and CGSA staff should not be involved in the consultation process.
We encourage the CGSA to do everything it can to ensure the consultation process is meaningful and effective. Comments and ideas are provided in the spirit of cooperation, are made openly and honestly and we sincerely hope our input will be helpful.
Appendix – The Rest of the Questions
Note that not all of the following section 2 interview questions were completed initially due to time constraints and a feeling that more information was needed to provide practical feedback. Further deliberation did take place after the interview in hopes of providing as thorough a response as possible.
What role has the CGSA played within the Canadian golf industry in the past and how has it performed in that role? This could refer to people, environmental matters, grow the game initiatives, research and, in terms of performance, how has it performed on a scale of 1 – 10 and why?
In the past, CGSA has been a fantastic way for superintendents to network, learn from each other, play a role in the changes in the game, good or bad and represent Canadian supers as a whole. Environmental advocacy efforts have been strong.
Looking ahead, what opportunities do you see for the CGSA to play in the industry in the future? How can it improve its overall impact?
Elevating the profession through lobbying efforts, certification and making sure that high level decisions are made with input from superintendents is critical.
With respect to the CGSA … Are you concerned about the design and operation of the association or would you support whatever best addresses the important needs identified in the previous discussions?
How is just as important as why. Yes, we are concerned that actions taken as a result of these discussions are consistent with the spirit of what is being suggested and would imagine the majority of CGSA members want assurance their association is being managed in their long-term best interest. For example, if the goal is to achieve financial stability a potential action is to increase member dues however this contradicts the need to make dues more affordable. Given a choice, perhaps CGSA members would rather look at cutting costs instead of increasing fees.
Other Comments:
Although this consultation was motivated by poor financial performance, the interview questions seem to avoid this critical component in determining the CGSA’s future viability.
The CGSA needs to become more effective and efficient. Evict the CGSA head office and abandon thoughts of a physical location. Station staff in home offices, working effectively by remote location circumventing associated costs of "clocking in" each day. As well as eliminating the high costs of city center office space rental, employees working from home office report a much preferred work environment and employers benefit from increased productivity. Recovered fees of head office will greatly improve the currently unsustainable administrative costs of the CGSA and redirect expenses to better support the proposed goals of the national association.