Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hr100] Re: Changes to the Hardrock qualifications and lottery for 2013

Expand Messages
  • Scott Brockmeier
    There s been a lot of negative feedback in response to the new lottery and qualification rules and I just want to put in my two cents supporting the BOD of the
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      There's been a lot of negative feedback in response to the new lottery and qualification rules and I just want to put in my two cents supporting the BOD of the HRH.

      There is no other group of individuals who's integrity is less in question in my mind than the BOD of the HRH. I've been a part of this run for 8 years and have yet to see a single reason to question their integrity. The lottery and lottery rules have not always been kind to me but I've never taken that as a reason to question the BOD's decisions.

      I think that they have a difficult job trying to respond fairly to all of the varied pressures brought on them by all of the varied groups of individuals who wish to be a part of this event. It is all to easy to be critical, taking cheap shots because a decision doesn't go the way one would wish. I've seen comments, especially from a certain MM, that claim that the board members have acted in self interest. I resent those accusations and I would claim that we now have evidence that this is not true.

      With the new lottery rules it is now a very real possibility that Kirk Apt, Blake Wood, Randy Isler, as well as ANY other 5+ time finisher will not be selected to run a future HRH.

      I really don't want to get involved in a flame war or extended listserv debate. My main purpose in writing was to give public voice to my personal support of the board and belief in the integrity of the board members.

      Scott Brockmeier

      Sent from my iPad

      On Jul 1, 2012, at 2:32 PM, "bvstablemail" <bvstablemail@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > "then make it [entry fee] $2000 and give half of the money to
      > charity."
      >
      > Now Matt THAT'S FUNNY!
      >
      > Matt, keep in mind however, that maybe some of the readers of this forum don't know that you're being sarcastic and that Hardrock IS A CHARITY in the first place. From time to time I myself wonder if some members of this board even understand the responsibilities they accepted upon becoming board members. This includes a duty to serve the volunteers, donors, and the general public good and maintaining a degree of transparency when dealing with all three.
      >
      > A year and a half ago, I requested Hardrock's financial statements from Blake Wood, President. Most other non-profits for whom I donate time and/or money, furnish these automatically as a matter of their regular course of business.
      >
      > Blake's initial response was:
      >
      > "I'm not familiar with the requirements for publicizing financial statements, etc., for a non-profit." (2/8/2011)
      >
      > One of the most basic tenets of nonprofit management and the President isn't even aware???
      >
      > Then, the following day I received this email:
      >
      > "We will get you the financial forms. It will take a few days to put them in a format suitable for transmission. Just as a matter of interest, why do you want to see them?"
      >
      > Why? Why? Isn't that a bit impertinent? Why? Sort of like a waiter saying, "Sir, why do you want a glass of water?"
      >
      > Anyway, here we are a year and a half later....just a few days later, if you call 528 a few...and Blake still hasn't done what he said he was going to do. Sure, I can go to the IRS and request the information, but if the Board doesn't feel as if disclosing its financial statement voluntarily would be beneficial to its mission, that pretty much tells me what I wanted to know.
      >
      > Moving along, given some events that have transpired during the past year, I wonder if the Board members would mind giving me their interpretations of how the duty of obedience and duty on loyalty affect their actions. A simple multiple choice....which of the following statements best describes your understanding of the ethical and moral codes which govern your conduct as it pertains to Hardrock:
      >
      > A) As long as I contribute positively every now and then, I can also take actions which might be perceived as threatening the goals and well-being of the organization.
      >
      > B) It's sort of like a scale...as long as my positive contributions outweigh my negative actions, I'm good.
      >
      > C) As long as I don't act against the best interests of Hardrock more than once or twice a year and contribute significantly to Hardrock's well being otherwise, I meet the requirements for being a nonprofit board member.
      >
      > D) One strike and I'm out. If I ever act against the best interests of Hardrock, I should resign my position. If not, the Board should kick me out.
      >
      > Important questions for the Board, particularly the officers to understand, but really this is NonProfit 101...the beginner course.
      >
      > Hopefully all Board members will take this little quiz (Blake can forward it to them if they aren't on this email list). And then maybe all Board members can tell the Hardrock community if they feel they have met the standard of conduct they have chosen. Then perhaps, they can opine if they feel every other Board member has conducted himself/herself accordingly. Just a bit of transparency...
      >
      > And I think it would be great if the Board members could share with us what other nonprofit board experience they might have.
      >
      > Finally, there's been a lot of talk about fire risk this year. I presume this Board follows a fundamental nonprofit theory by selecting candidates based on a diverse set of qualifications and abilities that members can bring to the organization. So who on the Board has training or background in Risk Management? At the risk of sounding a bit critical, I'm not sure last year's 'high water' risk was handled appropriately. For weeks ahead of time, the risk of high water levels, particularly at Mineral Creek, was known. At the mandatory meeting, when asked about provisions made to handle the situation, the Board's response was "be prepared to wait six hours for the water to go down." Fine perhaps, but the Board didn't put any emergency supplies at the other side of the creek, space blanket, hot beverages...I guess the runner had to be prepared for that. And what was the result. An emergency call to 911 for a rescue, but before the emergency personnel arrived, the runner and pacer left the scene. I could be wrong, but that strikes me as bad wilderness protocol; a poor reflection on Hardrock in the local community. Furthermore, this policy resulted in two runners not finishing the last 2 1/2 miles of the course yet, being declared "finishers." That doesn't send a consistent message to other participants who are told in the rules that it's a 'closed course.'
      >
      > What was learned from that sequence of events that we can transfer to this year and the fire situation? Has the Board modified its Fire Contingency Plan for the increased risk this year or has the standard plan been deemed sufficient for this year's added risk?
      >
      > Regrettably I am committed to other travels this year and won't be able to attend this year's public Board meeting in Silverton during Hardrock week. But I do hope other volunteers and donors will take time out of their schedules to do so. I guarantee you, you'll learn a lot!
      >
      > Steve Kral
      >
      > --- In hr100@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew V" <mattmahoneyfl@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Blake Wood wrote:
      > > > Modeling suggests that giving applicants 2^N tickets, where N is the number of previous DNSs,
      > >
      > > I think you mean (N)x(N+1)/2 (N tries with N tickets on the N'th try).
      > >
      > > > The previous year's winners will continue to bypass the lottery, but they will count against the lottery pool they would have been in.
      > >
      > > I think that is an improvement, but I would still like to see more
      > > provision for elite runners, like maybe top 3 or top 10 at one of the
      > > qualifying races. It is too bad that Krupicka had to withdraw due to a
      > > shin injury. He probably won't get another chance to run if he is in
      > > the first timer's lottery with everyone else.
      > >
      > > I say this, even though it decreases my odds of getting in. (I have 4
      > > finishes, missed a 5'th by 28 seconds and a 6'th by 6 minutes). I
      > > would not be happy if the USOC selected the 3 athletes they were
      > > allowed to send to the Olympic marathon by lottery, even though it
      > > would increase my chances of getting to run it at the expense of Ryan
      > > Hall and Meb Keflezighi.
      > >
      > > I know people will disagree. Maybe you don't care who is crossing the
      > > finish line while you are still trudging over Engineer. Maybe to you,
      > > it is not about racing and winning. But that is a disservice to the
      > > people up front. It makes the results meaningless, as if Olympic
      > > medals were awarded by coin flip. If Hardrock is not a race, then why
      > > publish finish times? Why not run the course on your own, for free,
      > > whenever you want?
      > >
      > > > We will establish a service requirement
      > >
      > > I know this is the latest fad, but as a race director (Wickham Park),
      > > my experience with conscripted volunteers has not been positive. I
      > > normally put on the race with no volunteers, but one year I had a guy
      > > who wanted to run Vermont ask me and I said he could time the runners
      > > (who normally would write down their lap splits themselves). When his
      > > 8 hour service requirement was up, he left the clipboard on the
      > > ground, even though the race was not over, and I did not hear from him
      > > again except the next day to remind me to please remember to sign his
      > > form and mail it. Personally, I would rather have volunteers that
      > > wanted to be there to help than those that saw it as a necessary evil.
      > > I know this is a small sample, so maybe other race directors can post
      > > their experiences.
      > >
      > > Also, I realize that no matter how you do it, 700 people are going to
      > > be unhappy each year. But I think the lottery is way too complicated
      > > and arbitrary. What about:
      > >
      > > 1. Maintain a multi-year waiting list. Put your name on the back at
      > > any time. Each year, take 140 names from the front.
      > >
      > > 2. Raise the entry fee to $1000. Maybe 85% will refuse to pay that
      > > much, but you will still get 140 runners. If you are concerned about
      > > appearing greedy, then make it $2000 and give half of the money to
      > > charity, like they do for most of the 40,000 runners at the London
      > > marathon.
      > >
      > > -- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@...
      > >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Deb
      Nicely said Scott. I personally have the utmost confidence in both the integrity and dedication of the hardrock Board. Steve, your continual spewing of
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Nicely said Scott. I personally have the utmost confidence in both the integrity and dedication of the hardrock Board.
        Steve, your continual spewing of bitterness and vague insinuations in this public forum, whatever the reason, is most unattractive and really only serves to create a poor impression of YOU, not the BOD. You obviously have some issues with the way things are done. You are entitled to your opinions . But i do believe that honest questions, presented with respect and openness, and a readiness for dialogue would probably go much further in your communications with the Board than these rantings. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
        Perhaps consider a different approach.
        Respectfully,
        Deb Pero

        Sent from my iPod

        On Jul 1, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Scott Brockmeier <scott.brockmeier@...> wrote:

        > There's been a lot of negative feedback in response to the new lottery and qualification rules and I just want to put in my two cents supporting the BOD of the HRH.
        >
        > There is no other group of individuals who's integrity is less in question in my mind than the BOD of the HRH. I've been a part of this run for 8 years and have yet to see a single reason to question their integrity. The lottery and lottery rules have not always been kind to me but I've never taken that as a reason to question the BOD's decisions.
        >
        > I think that they have a difficult job trying to respond fairly to all of the varied pressures brought on them by all of the varied groups of individuals who wish to be a part of this event. It is all to easy to be critical, taking cheap shots because a decision doesn't go the way one would wish. I've seen comments, especially from a certain MM, that claim that the board members have acted in self interest. I resent those accusations and I would claim that we now have evidence that this is not true.
        >
        > With the new lottery rules it is now a very real possibility that Kirk Apt, Blake Wood, Randy Isler, as well as ANY other 5+ time finisher will not be selected to run a future HRH.
        >
        > I really don't want to get involved in a flame war or extended listserv debate. My main purpose in writing was to give public voice to my personal support of the board and belief in the integrity of the board members.
        >
        > Scott Brockmeier
        >
        > Sent from my iPad
        >
        > On Jul 1, 2012, at 2:32 PM, "bvstablemail" <bvstablemail@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > "then make it [entry fee] $2000 and give half of the money to
        > > charity."
        > >
        > > Now Matt THAT'S FUNNY!
        > >
        > > Matt, keep in mind however, that maybe some of the readers of this forum don't know that you're being sarcastic and that Hardrock IS A CHARITY in the first place. From time to time I myself wonder if some members of this board even understand the responsibilities they accepted upon becoming board members. This includes a duty to serve the volunteers, donors, and the general public good and maintaining a degree of transparency when dealing with all three.
        > >
        > > A year and a half ago, I requested Hardrock's financial statements from Blake Wood, President. Most other non-profits for whom I donate time and/or money, furnish these automatically as a matter of their regular course of business.
        > >
        > > Blake's initial response was:
        > >
        > > "I'm not familiar with the requirements for publicizing financial statements, etc., for a non-profit." (2/8/2011)
        > >
        > > One of the most basic tenets of nonprofit management and the President isn't even aware???
        > >
        > > Then, the following day I received this email:
        > >
        > > "We will get you the financial forms. It will take a few days to put them in a format suitable for transmission. Just as a matter of interest, why do you want to see them?"
        > >
        > > Why? Why? Isn't that a bit impertinent? Why? Sort of like a waiter saying, "Sir, why do you want a glass of water?"
        > >
        > > Anyway, here we are a year and a half later....just a few days later, if you call 528 a few...and Blake still hasn't done what he said he was going to do. Sure, I can go to the IRS and request the information, but if the Board doesn't feel as if disclosing its financial statement voluntarily would be beneficial to its mission, that pretty much tells me what I wanted to know.
        > >
        > > Moving along, given some events that have transpired during the past year, I wonder if the Board members would mind giving me their interpretations of how the duty of obedience and duty on loyalty affect their actions. A simple multiple choice....which of the following statements best describes your understanding of the ethical and moral codes which govern your conduct as it pertains to Hardrock:
        > >
        > > A) As long as I contribute positively every now and then, I can also take actions which might be perceived as threatening the goals and well-being of the organization.
        > >
        > > B) It's sort of like a scale...as long as my positive contributions outweigh my negative actions, I'm good.
        > >
        > > C) As long as I don't act against the best interests of Hardrock more than once or twice a year and contribute significantly to Hardrock's well being otherwise, I meet the requirements for being a nonprofit board member.
        > >
        > > D) One strike and I'm out. If I ever act against the best interests of Hardrock, I should resign my position. If not, the Board should kick me out.
        > >
        > > Important questions for the Board, particularly the officers to understand, but really this is NonProfit 101...the beginner course.
        > >
        > > Hopefully all Board members will take this little quiz (Blake can forward it to them if they aren't on this email list). And then maybe all Board members can tell the Hardrock community if they feel they have met the standard of conduct they have chosen. Then perhaps, they can opine if they feel every other Board member has conducted himself/herself accordingly. Just a bit of transparency...
        > >
        > > And I think it would be great if the Board members could share with us what other nonprofit board experience they might have.
        > >
        > > Finally, there's been a lot of talk about fire risk this year. I presume this Board follows a fundamental nonprofit theory by selecting candidates based on a diverse set of qualifications and abilities that members can bring to the organization. So who on the Board has training or background in Risk Management? At the risk of sounding a bit critical, I'm not sure last year's 'high water' risk was handled appropriately. For weeks ahead of time, the risk of high water levels, particularly at Mineral Creek, was known. At the mandatory meeting, when asked about provisions made to handle the situation, the Board's response was "be prepared to wait six hours for the water to go down." Fine perhaps, but the Board didn't put any emergency supplies at the other side of the creek, space blanket, hot beverages...I guess the runner had to be prepared for that. And what was the result. An emergency call to 911 for a rescue, but before the emergency personnel arrived, the runner and pacer left the scene. I could be wrong, but that strikes me as bad wilderness protocol; a poor reflection on Hardrock in the local community. Furthermore, this policy resulted in two runners not finishing the last 2 1/2 miles of the course yet, being declared "finishers." That doesn't send a consistent message to other participants who are told in the rules that it's a 'closed course.'
        > >
        > > What was learned from that sequence of events that we can transfer to this year and the fire situation? Has the Board modified its Fire Contingency Plan for the increased risk this year or has the standard plan been deemed sufficient for this year's added risk?
        > >
        > > Regrettably I am committed to other travels this year and won't be able to attend this year's public Board meeting in Silverton during Hardrock week. But I do hope other volunteers and donors will take time out of their schedules to do so. I guarantee you, you'll learn a lot!
        > >
        > > Steve Kral
        > >
        > > --- In hr100@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew V" <mattmahoneyfl@...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Blake Wood wrote:
        > > > > Modeling suggests that giving applicants 2^N tickets, where N is the number of previous DNSs,
        > > >
        > > > I think you mean (N)x(N+1)/2 (N tries with N tickets on the N'th try).
        > > >
        > > > > The previous year's winners will continue to bypass the lottery, but they will count against the lottery pool they would have been in.
        > > >
        > > > I think that is an improvement, but I would still like to see more
        > > > provision for elite runners, like maybe top 3 or top 10 at one of the
        > > > qualifying races. It is too bad that Krupicka had to withdraw due to a
        > > > shin injury. He probably won't get another chance to run if he is in
        > > > the first timer's lottery with everyone else.
        > > >
        > > > I say this, even though it decreases my odds of getting in. (I have 4
        > > > finishes, missed a 5'th by 28 seconds and a 6'th by 6 minutes). I
        > > > would not be happy if the USOC selected the 3 athletes they were
        > > > allowed to send to the Olympic marathon by lottery, even though it
        > > > would increase my chances of getting to run it at the expense of Ryan
        > > > Hall and Meb Keflezighi.
        > > >
        > > > I know people will disagree. Maybe you don't care who is crossing the
        > > > finish line while you are still trudging over Engineer. Maybe to you,
        > > > it is not about racing and winning. But that is a disservice to the
        > > > people up front. It makes the results meaningless, as if Olympic
        > > > medals were awarded by coin flip. If Hardrock is not a race, then why
        > > > publish finish times? Why not run the course on your own, for free,
        > > > whenever you want?
        > > >
        > > > > We will establish a service requirement
        > > >
        > > > I know this is the latest fad, but as a race director (Wickham Park),
        > > > my experience with conscripted volunteers has not been positive. I
        > > > normally put on the race with no volunteers, but one year I had a guy
        > > > who wanted to run Vermont ask me and I said he could time the runners
        > > > (who normally would write down their lap splits themselves). When his
        > > > 8 hour service requirement was up, he left the clipboard on the
        > > > ground, even though the race was not over, and I did not hear from him
        > > > again except the next day to remind me to please remember to sign his
        > > > form and mail it. Personally, I would rather have volunteers that
        > > > wanted to be there to help than those that saw it as a necessary evil.
        > > > I know this is a small sample, so maybe other race directors can post
        > > > their experiences.
        > > >
        > > > Also, I realize that no matter how you do it, 700 people are going to
        > > > be unhappy each year. But I think the lottery is way too complicated
        > > > and arbitrary. What about:
        > > >
        > > > 1. Maintain a multi-year waiting list. Put your name on the back at
        > > > any time. Each year, take 140 names from the front.
        > > >
        > > > 2. Raise the entry fee to $1000. Maybe 85% will refuse to pay that
        > > > much, but you will still get 140 runners. If you are concerned about
        > > > appearing greedy, then make it $2000 and give half of the money to
        > > > charity, like they do for most of the 40,000 runners at the London
        > > > marathon.
        > > >
        > > > -- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@...
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Olga King
        Hi, all First of, let me say that I am thrilled for the rules change and a hope of the better lottery for all involved with that. Well done! Also, thank you so
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi, all

          First of, let me say that I am thrilled for the rules change and a hope of
          the better lottery for all involved with that. Well done! Also, thank you
          so much goes to the board of Hardrock for all the work put into making it
          happen.

          Having said that, my only concern is that the change of rules came out in
          the summer rather than beginning of the year. For example, making Hardrock
          finish a qualifier only as a 3-year rule (full applause) is great and
          legit, but as some of us had already picked (and run) a 100 for this
          season, it cut off an opportunity to make that new cut of having a
          qualifying 100 done (due to various time and financial obligations, making
          2 100's a year may not be an option at such a late notice). Had I known my
          finish in 2009 is not going to make a cut, I potentially could have chosen
          a different 100 to run this year.

          But overall, the rule change is great, and the race will see fantastic many
          years in the future of so many folks loving it and joining the family as I
          did.

          Here is for another wonderful run, good luck everybody running and helping
          out, I'll be following you online.

          Olga, class of 2007 (getting acquainted), 2008 )marking the course/pacing),
          2009 (marking the course/finish), 2011 (marking the course/sweeping).


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.