BSIM Governance Board Meeting
September 22, 2016
Carmel Mission Inn offices - 5:30 PM
Attendees:
Governance Board
Hank Armstrong
Doug Stickler
Joe Vargo
Buddy Sharp
Hugo Ferlito
Tom Rolander
Jon Russell
Alice Crawford
John Mutty
Winli McAnally
Dave Randall (absent)
Dino Pick
Andrew Creeley
John Thibeau
Rosa Lopez
Wasserman:
Jason Bump
Kelsey Malmberg
Quorum Met
Staff
Doug Thurston, Chris Balog, Julie Armstrong, Susan Love, Thompson Lange
The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:40 PM by John Mutty
AGENDA ITEMS:
Brief self-intro of Rosa Lopez
- Election of Board members
- Treasurer's Report and Audit Committee Report
- Marketing Presentation by Wasserman
- Opportunity for the candidates for Vice Chair to give a brief presentation
- Election of Officers
- Approval of Grant Committee proposal for the April events
- Staff Reports (Will be provided next week, prior to the meeting
- Green Team Presentation (Cost to apply for Gold Certification for both the Half and the Full) (Summary Report
will be provided prior to the meeting)
- Possible Capital Expenditure (Water Monsters)
- Strategic Plan Update
- Salinas Valley Half Marathon
- Half Marathon on Monterey Bay Update
For the Election of Board Members:
Three Board Members: Alice Crawford, Andrew Creely, and Doug Stickler will be running for a second three
year term. Rosa Lopez has been recommended as a new board member.
For the Election of officers, the slate is as follows:
Chair: Tom Rolander
Vice Chair: Hugo Ferlito and Jon Russell
Treasurer: John Thibeau
Secretary: Buddy Sharp
STAFF REPORTS:
BSIM Staff summary
reports for 9-22-2016 Board.docx
Copy of Reg Path
CRS PLAN (1)
Why certify.docx
Merchandise Sales vs Costs 2017.docx
estimation 4-1-16 9-14-16.xlsx
Meeting Minutes:
BSIM Audit Report
The report was presented by Robert Lee of Hayashi and Wayland:
Introduced himself as a partner with Hayashi and Wayland. Discussed the audits for 2 years 2013 and 2014. Two years at
a time.
First Document: Letter for audit committee and Board
Rob noted the description of our responsibility and being clear about audit information.
He also noted the more important items:

Audit adjustments

Any Uncorrected statements
Rob noted that he and his staff have gone over the Audit report in detail with committee already but wanted to ensure
that the Governance Board and Audit committee knew everything involved.
The second document Rob reviewed is a typical Accounting Disclosure

Adjustments at the end of two years

Biggest Adjustments were to in-kind revenue, noted in the document schedule
The third document is a Letter to the Management and Audit Committee providing details about the issues found
concerning in-kind donations and the audit finding. In-kind Contributions were not recorded in the books and is very
significant number. Rob noted that these donations must have them recorded and reported to the Audit Committee.
Buddy Sharp noted that we did not distribute those with this particular package but do have them for others to look
through if they want to see them.
Robert Lee: Next finding relates to fixed assets but that all entries were now essentially correct.
Chris Balog and Hugo Ferlito both asked to confirm that the audit was conducted using more than just spot checks?
Rob noted that we would need to address how we entered in-kind donations in the future, how their value was
established. Rob also noted that the entries were effectively a wash - nothing has changed with that.
The next document is a copy of the reconciled Financial Statements for Sept 30 for the Governance Board’s
reference.
In reference to the Management Letter and Recommendations, Rob noted that pages 1-2 independent auditor’s
report unmodified opinion. Rob noted that on the whole this is a clean opinion but we cannot say it that way. He
also noted that BSIM is addressing all open issues in these statements. The only pertinent issue is if BSIM could
not come up with the In-kind contribution valuation.
Doug Thurston asked if our current financial data result in a different looking audit for the next two years following?
Robert Lee responded that we will still have your categorical stages in here and it will be comparable with previous year.
Buddy Sharp fuirther explained that the reports are comparable but there will be a level of complication for the first year
when addressing the differently formatted budget documents.
Hugo Ferlito asked if the next time for an audit is 2016? Rob noted that we would need an a 2016 audit. Robert Lee
noted that for audit we can do a stub period and year. We have to do a similar treatment for tax purposes at 15 months.
Doug Thurston qualified that we would need a Full year audit and stub budget audit also. There were no further
questions.
Buddy Sharp moved to accept the audit. Dino Pick seconded. Unanimously agreed
Discussion: Rosa Lopez nominated for new Board member
Rosa: Brief Introduction
My professional: 20 year employee ATT 16 years in Monterey area Engineering Mid Level Manager in construction and
engineering. Project Management. Experience with large organizations. Over 400 people. Also on wireless 13 states and
Capitol infrastructure. Noted that she was a Big Sur participant and member of our Athletic Community- Walked the 21
mile walk then started running and did marathon last year. Triathlon and volunteered with Big Sur before.
Sally Smith noted that Rosa will be in charge of packet pickup
John Mutty- Paper Ballot asked if we needed a paper ballot. We elected to vote by acclamation. John asked for an
approval of the Rosa Lopez.. Approved unanimously.
Treasurer's reportJohn Thibeau noted that we may need a Board action to move fiscal deadline. Going forward: different set of accounts
but will look similar. There was no discussion.
Stub BSIM Budget: John Thibeau gave a quick presentation of the budget. He noted that each Board Member and staff
have a copy and email. For the stub budget for remaining months of 2016, we will ook at anything with a variance of
anything over $1000. There was limited discussion on line items.
Wasserman contract: John noted that Board members could find in depth detail in the email for the explanations.
Tom Rolander noted that there would not be a vote on the budget yet in order to give everyone a chance to look it over.
He referred Board Members to ask Doug Thurston for General Questions or Tom Rolander for follow up.
Tom Rolander asked the Board to please look over before next Thursday and will look for consensus after that.
Email Consent for Governance Board: Sally Smith noted that we will enable the Governance Board’s ability for limited
approvals of actions via Email consent and that forms will be sent to us for approval by Monday.
Executive Committee Election: Tom Rolander move to the Last Election of the evening. Single Slate Vote for the
Executive Committee. Propose that the Vice, Chair, Treasurer, Secretary
One candidate for each office
Tom Rolander - Chair
John Russell - Vice Chair
John Thibeau - Treasurer
Buddy Sharp - Secretary.
Vote In Favor: Term- one year- Passed Unanimously.
Green Team proposal for CRI certification – Offset Project
Kristen’s provided a resentation on continuing or stepping up our level of “green” certification. The presentation is
attached to the meeting minutes.
Highlights:

2009 we were one of the first...Zero Waste Stations, Terra-Cycle Programs were this group as the standard.
Ahead of the game

This group was ahead of the certification teams...now the certification team is the standard so Kristen
recommends evolving with the new standards for sustainability.

Can be used to compare to other events

Financial structure of the program is that the Offset Project does charge fees for the services

Certification for a year. Last two years and after two years certification paid again….splits costs over 7 years. It
becomes $2000 per event. Noted that BSIM had to purchase Carbon offsets

Kristen estimated that the organization will take several days for Big Sur Marathon to finding details of
paperwork and cost more. $10,000 increase
●
●
●
Acknowledged previous ahead-of-the-game green behaviors in 2010 of the Big Sur marathon
BSIM does not have to change any of the credits
For future increased certification, there is a triple bottom line now involved○ Environmental (ecological)
○ Economic
○ Social (social growth available to all, donations to community etc;)
No need for changes in overview
Kristen: Total costs for 7 years? $14,500. (Back of green sheet)
The organization has done the hard work already
Doug Thurston noted that there hould be $10,000 fees, trucks and other costs
Kristen explained that they bring their own crew to pay out of the budget price quote.
Doug Thurston said that CRS fee is $3500 for each event.
●
●
●
●
●
●
Rosa Lopez asked, “Since you are a vendor, we pay $10,000 for each race and you handle the paperwork? Is there an
additional fee? For the certification work to be done? Are there differences in points earned? Silver? Gold? Evergreen?”
Kristen explained that the $10,000 was to manage the people, events, recycle programs, etc; and yes $4000 is the fee.
Recommends the Gold Standard.
Julie Armstrong asked if there were benefits to us? And if they have changed since 2009 when we were ahead of the
standards.
Kristen pointed out the Council for Responsible Sports is more active now
●
●
●
Social Media campaign-templates
Much more support for an event
Gives Doug Thurston and Chris Balog more information for their presentations and also about joining other
organization
John Mutty noted that some venues had opted in and out of events. He wanted to know why. Perhaps there is a reason
some organizations faded in and out of green certifications from year to year. Kristen responded that the listed year is
the year it is certified but that she will check on it and confirm.
Rosa Lopez: Any claims or data about any increase in new members due to certification? Kristen responded that this
Certification makes our brand “hip and cool.”
Tom Rolander pointed out that this was exceeding the time restraints for the discussion regarding this matter. The
decision should be made at a further date. Doug Thurston answered that the decision had to be made soon to be in use
by the December race. Tom Rolander will look for a consensus via email.
Julie Armstrong introduced the creative team for Wasserman duo, Jason Bump and Kelsey Malmberg
Wasserman Presentation:
Kelsey and Jason met with people over the past days and we're still in gathering info/research process
Agenda
Explanation of Wasserman’s role and who they are
Culture-Centered Agency-works with talent and brands, for properties many nonprofits.
We bring ideas (Branding) logos, sports, graphic designers etc;
●
●
●
●
Social content
Video production
Photographer
Copy Write
Market Research-put together for actionable insight
●
●
●
Interviews
Similar brands
Competition
Tweaking Mission Statement
●
●
●
Concept development
Mood boards
“More than a marathon now”
Will give Big Sur Marathon something to take to sponsors about the events
●
●
●
●
Redesigning website
Adding ideas for race days
Advertising Plan- Promoting ideas
New content sites for mobile
Tom Rolander asked if it would be a Mobile first strategy?
Kelsey:

We are looking at this majority mobile first

Malleable for event page to be easily accessible

Next event featured on the first page
Jason:
Word Press is where we are building from
3 month Plan
Moving target
General Plan
●
●
●
●
●
Now we are engaged in the site visit as part of researching Big Sur Marathon
Current marketing plan
Refine mission statement
Style guide and Logo
Need to extract key parts of brand
Kelsey:
Website●
●
●
●
Bare bones functionality first mock up
Will be in Presentations for Big Sur Marathon
Then beautify the site with appealing additions
Social digital plan
Jason: sponsorship research will be layered into the project
Buddy Sharp asked what information areas are they researching:
Jason responded that there are 3 blocks under research
●
●
●
Demographics (Big Sur is different-more rural than rest of the world)
Enough information
We will discuss with runners too
Hank Armstrong asked if they could describe the overall plan.
Kelsey:
●
●
Jason:
We will do all these in more detail.
Will be added in with new research in process right now.
●
●
●
●
●
Logo mock ups will include area beauty like Bixby Bridge
Adding other iconic elements
Branding for races
And one liners for each race
What can we re-skin? And re-use? To keep costs down?
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Creating an overall image
Put together for pamphlets, etc;
Also bring into websites on all platforms
All have to have individual race feel
But also seem like they are in the same family
An analysis of the website
Bucket items in sections for ease of consumer
Aggregate social media onto site to feature different photos and stories
○ First time runners vs long time runners
○ Training regiments etc;
Updating content
Constantly refreshed
Once a week check-in
Kelsey:
●
●
●
Doug Thurston asked several questions of the Wasserman team
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
What do you need from us?
We want to cut down on the volume of language on the pages of the website
The website is cluttered with words
Approval mechanism?
email consent
Perhaps create a sub-committee?
Formal approval process
Hank Armstrong:
●
●
●
Boards and Staff do not always align
Can the staff make recommendation to the Board?
To move it along faster/smoother?
●
Smaller is easier and smoother for working together with Wasserman
Jason:
Kelsey:
●
We want to do whatever is convenient for you the client though
Hugo Ferlito asked if we must we change the BSIM logo?
Jason and Kelsey responded in unison: Not necessarily. We understand that the old logo is important and has a story
with it, including a local artist donating their effort to it. We will be analyzing many factors; such as, is it relevant to
Millennials? They are an important demographic to the sports world, and future races
Buddy Sharp noted that we sell out the main event and that the other events- not so much. Also noted the issue of the
underlying demographic is shifting but not known at what rate.
Kelsey:
●
●
●
●
We can carry so much forward
Demographic is older
We are shooting for timeless and forward thinking
Our strategy:
○ Focus on scenery to be the ‘hero”
Grant Committee (White and Yellow Sheet)
Thompson Lange discussed the Grant Committee’s progress. He highlighted that there will be a period of transition time
with added direction based upon group feedback:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Wanted to make like grants more equitable
Old ways vs New
We are under budget
5 groups are on hiatus but will be back
Expansion of DLI and other teams as well
Big Sur $260,00- total
½ goes to Big Sur
Non Big Sur will be lower
Invitation to come to Grant Committee closer to actual event
I will reach out to Grant. groups so committee will be on it while fresh too.
John Mutty moved for approval of the Grant Committee recommendations as is. Seconded by Dino Pick. Approved
Unanimously.
Staff Reports: Please refer to attached documents for staff report details.
Water Monster Cost Comparison discussion
Doug Thurston described the Water Monster proposal. Please refer to the attached document for details:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Our normal water supplier promised to not leave water open for the evening before events
Tri-California of Pacific Grove has rental fleet
○ Renting? Or
○ Buying
1 unit = 3,000 cups
30 units for April
Half Marathon uses 20 units
Salinas uses 5 units
Board unanimously supported that we pursue rental
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Larger bids but this is more accurate (5 yrs old)
Includes a trailer for sale
Rent vs. Buy
Payoff 2 yrs
Or 2 1/2 yrs if we own a trailer
$10,000 water
Original Option is no longer available
After Board discussion, Tom Rolander asked if there were any objections to renting for now to see how it works? All in
Agreement for upcoming BSHM race.
Pink Sheet- Priority List- Annual Work Plan
Doug Thurston opened discussion for the Governance Board to comment on recommendations for the staff to focus their
efforts on for the next 12 months. Please refer to the handout provided at the meeting for details.
Other Discussion
Doug Thurston provided his report and noted the following items:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Looking to the Governance Board for details of how to use the money for Salinas Marathon…
He noted that BSIM had not gotten significant response to the BSHM waiver even though we sent out
bilingual post cards after the race cancellation
Only 5 people asked for money back.
We gave money to the November event.
Cancellation had to happen because of the Big Sur Fire and that most participants seemed to be aware of
the fire’s effect on air quality.
For the Big Sur Half Marathon Race: not anticipating any issues with reaching the revised 8,000 cap.
Measure P
Hank Armstrong discussed obtaining support from BSIM in opposition to Measure P in Pacific Grove and for the
Governance Board’s approval to participate
●
●
He propose that the Board make a contribution towards the prevention of Measure P in Pacific Grove.
Noted that it will effect 10-11 nonprofits opposing the Measure this November because of the tax on
tickets. A lot of nonprofits are choosing to eat the cost instead of passing it along to the customers.
● Hank noted that he was proposing this with a bias as an employee to the Aquarium.
● Covers Campaign Cost, Survey, papers.
● Total anticipated cost $100,000- $150,000.
Hank Armstrong made a Motion to Contribute to Coalition Against Measure P to make a statement. Tom Rolander
seconded. Governance Board approved unanimously
Tom Rolander has several questions of the Board and asked about our next Board meeting.
●
●
●
●
Propose we have another meeting on the 29th of November to avoid Thanksgiving. Date will be sent out
shortly. The next meeting will be primarily for Budget Approval
He asked that all Board Members please fill out the Skill Set Matrix and return to Staff
He also asked for Board Members to respond to his email on interest in standing Committee Meetings
membership
Tom asked if there was any immediate interest in participating in Board Development. Hank Armstrong
and Dino Pick expressed interest.
Tom Rolander adjourned the meeting.
Submitted by Buddy Sharp, Secretary of the Board
Reviewed and approved by Tom Rolander, Chairman of the Board