25 June 2002

David Dobrzyhski

RRCA Executive Director

510 North Washington Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Dear Mr. Dobrzynski:

Given your position at the 2002 RRCA National Convention as well as in your article in the latest issue of Footnotes, we are concerned about the path the organization is taking and the impact your direction is having on the RRCA.

At the National Convention you posed the question, “If we were to start an organization from scratch today that would represent the sport of distance running in America, what would it look like and what would it offer?” The statement “from scratch today” is problematic. Why reinvent the wheel? The RRCA has over 40 years of history, both positive and counterproductive, but all of it contributes to what the RRCA has become.

At the convention you presented three charts you had created. The first was a partial list of major associations, organizations, and programs related to distance running in the United States. You noted that this chart was intended to show that the RRCA is one of many organizations that promotes running and that the sport of distance running in this country is split into many separate entities. Just because there are many organizations does not mean that the running community is fragmented. An umbrella group cannot be designed to develop a blueprint that works for every club in the country. Each club that the RRCA serves is unique in location, demographics, etc. What works in Atlanta very often will not work in Minneapolis, Seattle, etc.

Another of your charts outlined what a member could expect from a distance running organization. The organization could potentially offer various memberships, financial support, events, information, training & programs, and products & services. You noted that memberships and products & services were the main revenue streams for the RRCA while the other categories were ones that could be funded by additional revenue generating ventures. We believe that you’re underestimating the grass roots structure of the RRCA. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being the organization that supports its member clubs through low cost insurance and select programs. There’s also nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, but when the box doesn’t have the structural integrity to financially support new ideas… management needs to step back and reevaluate operating procedures.

Several times during the convention you noted that the biggest challenge facing the RRCA was one of funding. You proposed that the RRCA focus on creating revenue “streams” rather than revenue “drips/drops.” You also proposed that the organization create new ways of generating revenues that would make the organization less reliant upon members’ dues and transient corporate sponsorships/funding. Again, your article in Footnotes refers to the dire financial status of the RRCA. If our organization has operated at a deficit for three years running one would think that revenue is revenue. Whether it be springing from a fire hydrant or dripping from the kitchen sink. We agree that the RRCA needs sponsors willing to participate in long-term financial commitments. But, we see no problem with transient sponsorships. If that is what a company is able to commit to, then accept it. Is it the best scenario? No, but it is revenue. It provides income to keep the RRCA viable while other more stable sources are pursued. In your article you refer to a team that you have put together to develop a corporate sponsorship plan. You also state that until this committee reports at the July board meeting, the RRCA has put on hold any attempt to contact potential corporate sponsors. It doesn’t make business sense for an organization that is operating in the red to postpone the solicitation of sponsors until a committee can propose a detailed plan. We need to cauterize the financial bloodletting that the RRCA has been experiencing the last three years. Sponsors should have been approached and deals put in place to generate much needed income. If, at a later date, your team develops a plan that improves the working relationship between the RRCA and a corporate sponsor, then the details can be adapted. The RRCA received an unfavorable audit a year ago. And the executive director has yet to implement a revenue-generating plan.

At the convention you repeatedly asked the clubs to put our confidence in you. But your performance does not inspire the confidence that you have the vision or the ability to lead the RRCA to solid ground. You have done a great deal of planning and information gathering but have done nothing with that information. And now the viability of the organization is in jeopardy. We would ask that you render a plan to the clubs immediately following the July board meeting. A copy of this letter is being sent to each RRCA board member. Additionally, we are requesting that the board evaluate your plan/performance and determine your qualifications to continue as executive director.

Sincerely,

David C. Purinton

Huntsville Track Club President, Huntsville, Alabama

Julia Emmons

Atlanta Track Club Executive Director, Atlanta, Georgia

Trish Portuese

Birmingham Track Club President, Birmingham, Alabama

Brian Tresp

Montgomery County Road Runners President, Rockville, Maryland

Dennis Steinauer

Cherry Blossom Incorporated President, Silver Spring, Maryland

Jerry Kokesh

Gateway Athletics – St. Louis President, Chesterfield, Missouri