GAO Committee Evaluation

GAOCommittee Evaluation December 2012

Process • Late 2010 – Governance and Nominating Committee develops Governance Model in conjunction with facilitator. • 2011 – Governance Model introduced • Board and Committee Charters developed and implemented • 2012: Governance and Nominating Committee develops surveys for both Board and Committees to solicit feedback on how we are progressing under our new Model. • Committee Evaluation released late October • Aggregate results follow

Committee Survey

Committee Charter and Priorities

Comments • SD Com: Scope is being reworked to better align with staff re-organization so should be a good scope when finished. • Marketing and Fundraising Com: The timing of the meetings is problematic with respect to the core functions of the committee. By the time the committee meets, the marketing staff is well into the implementation of their plans and it is generally too late to make any impact on the years activities. It would be much better to have a meeting in late October. • Marketing and Fundraising Com: As the chair of this committee I have found myself and other members somewhat at odds with the purpose of the committee and the priorities as established. This is has been evident to me since the addition of "fundraising" to the committee responsibilities. Fundraising has become the focus of the meetings. The marketing aspect is left to staff with meeting updates. This is Ok, but I think we either need to change the committee name / priorities completely of form one function as a separate sub-committee. One might observe that we have already done so in effect, by the way we have operated. This may come out further as we mold the committee structure to be consistent with new Strategic Plan. • Sport Development Com: Operational operating policies are being followed as set out by the Board. • Finance and Risk Com: I think the policies and procedures are complete and are followed by the committee • Rules and Competitions Com: The committee is very dictatorial • Governance and Nominating Com: Mandate of the committee is very well explained • District Coordinator’s Com: Districts are very dissimilar in staffing, participation and club makeup, therefore Districts have much different agendas. • District Coordinator’s Com: Although I agreed with the last question, we haven't been briefed with the plan, but will assume we will act in accordance with it.

Meeting Effectiveness

Comments • Marketing and Fundraising Com: As per above section, this committee needs a meeting in early December to review plans for the upcoming year. • Membership Com: a single meeting - could have been more to deal with items such as OVGA, and under reporting • Finance and Risk Com: appropriate number of meetings in advance of Board meetings • Rules and Competitions Com: Meetings are open and constructive with all members encouraged to participate. • Marketing and Fundraising Com: We have had only one face to face in 2012. The meeting was too long, and some committee members dominated the discussion, often spending time on less important issues. As Chair I accept the responsibility for this, and should have played a stronger role in keeping things on point. Having said this, as a result of the FTF meeting a framework was developed by staff for tracking and follow-up of marketing issues. Fundraising discussion has centered around the 2013 Jr Golf Drive. • Sport Development Com: the current Chair does an excellent job ... nothing to add

Comments continued… • Finance and Risk Com: There is a good open dialogue and all the information gets a complete review and approvals • Governance and Nominating Com: Very good meetings and to the point. • Sport Development Com: Discussions encouraged, but meetings kept moving forward. Chair sees that we stay on topic. • Rules and Competitions Com: Feel perspectives are not listened to in meetings • District Coordinator’s Com: Lately, the fall meetings have been via "Go To Meeting" software and conference calls. It's to bad that we don't all have headsets and microphones to do it totally online instead of tying up the home phone for the duration. • District Coordinator’s Com: Two meetings a year, one teleconference and one in person is adequate. • Handicap and Course Rating Com: I feel this committee is very successful at meeting its objectives and fulfilling its GAO mandate largely because of the quality of volunteers that agree to serve. Whenever someone retires, we are always able to find a top-notch replacement who always seems to be able to work cooperatively with the other committee members. Everyone seems to be able check their ego at the door and work for the betterment of the organization. • Membership Com: Membership is very staff driven & committee input is somewhat questionable • Governance and Nominating Com: No complaints.

Committee Effectiveness

Comments • Rules and Competitions Com: Better follow up on some of the items agreed to be changed/done is needed. • Marketing and Fundraising Com: There have been good discussions and input. My earlier comments were intended to indicate that I think we need to re-focus further. Fundraising is key, and perhaps there should be a stronger link between marketing / Membership. • Handicap and Course Rating Com: I have only attended one meeting in 2012. It is not possible to answer fairly all the questions in the survey. The questions I have marked N/A is only because I have no basis for a fair answer. • Sport Development Com: This cttee has robust discussions which is augmented by the enthusiastic leadership of Mike Kelly. Since Sport Development is a key to the growth of the game clearly this cttee has large role to play The passion is there so I am confident this cttee will be a catalyst for positive change. • Finance and Risk Com: This committee is effective in monitoring financial polices and controls. • Governance and Nominating Com: Materials could be distributed earlier. • Sport Development Com: Mike, Mallory and MaryAnn have a very good handle on all aspects of the program. The material can be at times overwhelming, and they are to be commended. • Rules and Competitions Com: Feel this committee is a "rubber stamp" committee. Staff are not receptive of committee input in my opinion. • Handicap and Course Rating Com: Comments above seem applicable to these statements as well

Comments • Membership Com: Don't really think as a Committee we actually have input into decisions, however "think tank" aspect of opinions has to be useful. • Governance and Nominating Com: Respect for sub-committee most appreciated. Great working committee. • District Coordinator’s Com: Since every District is different, we should be sharing more of our issues and successes with each other.

Communication and Reporting

Comments • Sport Development Com: Yes, minutes are accurate but do not come out soon enough. • Marketing and Fundraising Com: Minutes of our live meeting were great. No minutes from our phone meeting. • Rules and Competitions Com: Committee meets semi annually. Minutes are not distributed until preparing for the next meeting. This will be discussed with the staff department manager. • Sport Development Com: GAO staff do a fantastic job in this regard • Finance and Risk Com: The communication between Ctte and staff is excellent. The staff are well prepared and furnish the ctte with all the necessary information for members to exercise their due diligence. • Sport Development Com: Suggest closer alignment with Rules and Competitions committee. • Rules and Competitions Com: Think this committee should always meet face to face • Membership Com: Committee members have been helpful in sharing suggestions. • Governance and Nominating Com: All good

Implementation of Committee Input

Comments • Rules and Competitions Com: In general committee decisions are implemented in a timely manner. There is one area that this has not happened and it is being addressed. • Governance and Nominating Com: I thought the work of this committee was productive and very effective. We are making good progress. Where I struggle a little on this committee is transparency of decision making. As a nominating sub committee we had to make some difficult decisions which were made at the sub committee level but not discussed at the full committee level or at the Board. This is not a criticism - there are good and valid reasons for not wanting to bring forward that discussion. Just a level of discomfort that we have not been as transparent as might be expected. • Sport Development Com: Mike works very well with this cttee - review and implementation is being followed. • Rules and Competitions Com: Really feel decisions are made before committee meets

What is your general perception of the work of this Committee? • Sport Development Com: Extremely strong. Detailed reports, great discussions, significant amount of time devoted to appropriate issues. • Marketing and Fundraising Com: Currently it is good at reviewing what has happened but due to timing does not have enough input into what is going to happen. • Membership Com: This committee has an important role in as much as it is a new committee in 2012 - a little time and patience is needed for the role of this committee to stabilize in 2013 • Finance and Risk Com: Role of this committee is an important cornerstone of GAO - to review the numbers for each Board report - some dynamics (OVGA, sponsors, under reporting) but focus is conservative • Rules and Competitions Com: The committee operates effectively and helps staff come up with new/improved ideas to meet the department goals/objectives. This is a critical part of the GAO meeting its goals and objectives and giving our members (customers) more value, success and enjoyment through their golf experience with the GAO. • Governance and Nominating Com: Very positive. • Finance and Risk Com: It seemed like we met less that prior years and I am not sure we met face to face ( the budget meeting was going to be face to face but had to be rescheduled as a conf. call) Being otherwise actively involved, this was not an issue for me but I wonder if others felt they were sufficiently involved. Conference calls are a great way to get things done and being out of town myself for parts of the year, they allow me to participate when otherwise I would be unable to attend. However, I would recommend a couple of face to face meetings for Finance. I believe the work of the committee was productive and effective. • Human Resource and Compensation Com: Accomplished goals. Reasonable amount of time / input required. • Membership Com: As there has only been one meeting of this committee this year (that I can remember), I do not feel it appropriate for me to fill out this survey this year. This is not a complaint about the frequency of meetings but rather my lack of experience with this committee.

What is your general perception of the work of this Committee? • Rules and Competitions Com: My perception is that Mr. Colling would be happier if this committee did not exist. Over the past three years, in the rules area of responsibility there have been several issues decided by the committee that were not subsequently communicated to all of the rules officials; either not at all or on a timely basis, thus negating the decisions made by the committee. There are only two meetings a year, one of which is poorly scheduled each April to coincide with the Spring Rules Meeting. There is no rationale for this and it has the effect of trying to cram too much into a single day. Furthermore, action items emanating from this meeting that involve tournament staff suffer due to the busy time of the year. This meeting should be in early March and could readily be done utilizing GoToMeeting instead if insisting on face-to-face. • Handicap and Course Rating Com: My observations of this committee indicates that they do an excellent job. You have experienced and totally committed members. • Hall of Fame Com: A Hall of Fame Committee is necessary to draw on industry experience that might not otherwise be available from staff or Board members. The current members of this Committee have a great deal of experience & history in their respective field, ie. amateur golf, professional golf, media. This is essential for the effectiveness of the Committee. The Committee works well together to make the required recommendations to the Board. • Rules and Competitions Com: Valuable discussion of pertinent issues. • Sport Development Com: This committee is very pro active and has a clear understanding of it's direction. The GAO staff do a tremendous job in keeping the committee informed. Their enthusiasm is terrific and much appreciated. • Finance and Risk Com: Excellent - this ctte is well structured to do the job that has been set out by the Board. All financial controls, results, investment and expense policies are reviewed and approved on a timely basis. • Handicap and Course Rating Com: Very good! • Governance and Nominating Com: Effective and to the point! • Sport Development Com: Very organized and doing the betterment of the game a real service!

What is your general perception of the work of this Committee? • Scholarship Com: Effective & Rewarding • Scholarship Com: We only meet once a year to review applications and determine who gets what scholarships. I believe that it is important to have some members with a background in education as the level of difficulty with some of the courses taken can vary, and a non-educator could not be expected to be aware of these differences. • Sport Development Com: In order to grow the game of golf, and to allow tournament level players to excel in their sport, the groundwork done by the committee, and in particular the staff, is invaluable. Long term athlete development is becoming more and more relevant, especially in light of golf's inclusion in the Summer Games and the upcoming Olympics. • Rules and Competitions Com: Staff is not generally receptive to committee input. Board leadership is good...chair works very hard at making sure input is heard • Handicap and Course Rating Com: The work of the committee is narrow in scope but important to the effective implementation of the RCGA Handicap System. • Membership Com: Tough one! Committee members need to be informed & keep informed of all aspects of membership throughout our great province of Ontario. • Governance and Nominating Com: Think this committee worked well as we continue to adapt the GAO's new governance model. Great input & feedback from the committee as a whole. All members were not afraid to evaluate info & share new info for the benefit of the whole committee. • Handicap and Course Rating Com: Excellent direction and cooperation amongst the members and staff. • Scholarship Com: I think the work done is valuable, however as a first year member I felt that instructions were rather vague. • District Coordinator’s Com: Our work is different from other committees, but I feel it is appreciated by staff.

What is your general perception of the work of this Committee? • Marketing and Fundraising Com: More meetings at the right time to properly perform our core functions. • Membership Com: This committee is a new one and its role should continue to evolve • Finance and Risk Com: Need continued focus on gathering and analyzing data - then reporting to stay on top of issues • Rules and Competitions Com: Some organizational changes are necessary with the changing environment and mandate of the GAO. These have started to take place. • Finance and Risk Com: Management has improved monthly reporting over the years. Consistent with feedback at the recent Board meeting, we might consider going the next step to focusing our management reporting on key performance indicators. We need to agree on the KPIs and then put in place monthly reporting. I don't think we are far away from doing this. Much of the information is already reported. • Marketing and Fundraising Com: 1. Re-focus the efforts of committee 2. Realign?? marketing and membership 3. Re-structure consistent with Strat plan 4. Fundraising as a separate entity?? • Rules and Competitions Com: This committee should be separated into its component parts. There are too few people on the committee with appropriate rules training to undertake the work involved, and in any case, two of the three people with rules training are not involved in any of the work that goes on outside of the committee meetings. The Level 3 and 4 education is delivered by just three people, two of whom were removed from the committee and replaced with others who are not involved. The same is true of the planning and delivery of the Spring Officials meeting, in that the same three people do all of the work. There are equally too few people on the committee who have the background and expertise to deal with all of the issues relating to competitions. I am one that does not, and my place at the table when discussing these matters would be better filled by someone else. The Golf Canada model is three separate committees, Rules, Amateur Competitions and Professional Competitions. The Rules Chair is automatically included on the two Competitions committees but the two Competitions Chairs are not necessarily on the Rules Committee. With only two meetings per year, draft minutes should be circulated within a maximum of two weeks of the meeting. This would eliminate a lot of the errors that occur when minutes are only written up several months after the fact.

What areas could be improved as they relate to this Committee? • Handicap and Course Rating Com: As a new member I would like to see more information given to an incoming member. I would like to become more involved in future issues, but at this time have little or no information as to what is required. • Rules and Competitions Com: Consider separating Rules, and then making Competitions part of Sport Development. • Sport Development Com: I am a proponent of streamlining the programs available to the public to make it clear how one enters and proceeds through the various levels of the learning process. Currently it is to confusing, not only to the public, but to the industry itself. This cttee must follow through to ensure this happens. • Sport Development Com: Have only been on the committee for ~6 months....a little early to evaluate. • Scholarship Com: This committee has continued to hone the processes and parameters from year to year. This is important as there is a degree of subjectivity in the process. • Sport Development Com: Would like to see more information on follow up as it pertains to Golf in Schools. I know we are adding new schools, but are levels of participation where we want/need them to be. This is a key component, and we need to see that we are doing everything we can to not only add new schools, and therefore potential new golfers, but to support existing programs at all schools within our jurisdictions. • Rules and Competitions Com: Reorganization with Sport/player development will be very well received. • Handicap and Course Rating Com: Very little...works fine as is. • Governance and Nominating Com: perhaps a face to face meeting would have been useful for committee dynamics.

What areas could be improved as they relate to this Committee? • District Coordinator’s Com: I am not totally sure that the Districts fully understand their function in the GAO. For example, support the various programs directed by HO is a simple task, except that these appear to run very well with or without the District's involvement. Recruitment of volunteers is another task for the Districts and that works ok (even though it is very difficult) although most volunteers are directed by HO in their duties. District events vary greatly from District to District. Peterborough runs a massive Intersectional program and other districts do not for various reasons. It appears to me that the Districts function is to put the GAO name and brand out into the golfing community as much as possible to aid in recruitment and to pass on the information about the various programs. • Handicap and Course Rating Com: Handicap training and certification is now online and should reduce the need for staff travel and expenses while increasing the number of trained Handicap Specialists in the province., Well Done! The whole process of Course Rating training needs to be addressed next. Course Rating certification should be at Levels (similar to Rules) with the lower levels done online and only the higher level(s) in on-course seminars with periodic calibration excercisesto maintain commonality of results. • Scholarship Com: I would much rather have made the final decisions at a meeting so more appropriate discussions could have taken place. I feel the GAO in their effort to cut down expenses is losing the human factor. Conference calls may work when all the participants either know each other or have had the opportunity to meet. Conference calls are too impersonal.

In Closing What we have learned: • On the whole, our committee members are engaged and working hard to achieve the Committee Goals and Targets developed by the Association. We have some areas to work on and we have begun to address some of them already with other changes and modifications in progress. • Not all participants in our survey process completed separate evaluations for each committee. In 2013, we will insure that instructions are clear and that individuals receive separate evaluation forms for each committee they are a member of. Moving ahead: • In 2013, we will continue to evolve our Governance Model, revising Committee Charters as needed to fit with any internal organizational changes. • We will include Management staff in our evaluation process for 2013. • We were pleased with the participation by committee members for our first ever in depth survey. Responses were open and provide us with valuable input and observations to help us to improve.

GAO Committee Evaluation