Dear Nick, Tom,

Concerns regarding parkrun SA - an implosion of parkrun SA is looming!

My name is Keith Levenstein, full details below. I am one of just over 1 million registered South African
parkrunners, and one of 40 000 to 60 000 parkrunners each week.

There are lots of concerns about parkrun SA. The remainder of this document will justify the use of the
word “lots” and indicate how you can identify how prevalent the problems really are.

You are probably aware of the Naval Hill issue. It is not an individual event issue, or a personal issue, but
it became the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Many of the problems revolve around communication from parkrun SA and how the issues are handled.
The lack of definitive communication leads to rumours which build onto each other as I will explain
further.

The t-shirt issue

The problem of t-shirts in South Africa started in early 2017. Let me point out that parkrun
promises t-shirts. Had you not promised t-shirts it would not have been an issue. parkrun
promised milestone t-shirts, so as an ethical organization, has to make good on its promises. I
use the word ethical, because parkrun SA are using the word “ethos” in its complaints about
Leon Engelbrecht of Naval Hill.

The first official communication around the t-shirts was issued a year after they became a
problem, in May 2018. Since then there has been one further communication near the end of
2018. Discussion/queries on the Facebook pages are ignored or deleted. This is not a discourse
on free speech and censorship, but “lots” of parkrunners get incensed when comments are
deleted off official parkrun pages. These are not abusive comments, but comments that are not
100% praise singers. Two sets of communications in two years is not sufficient and a refusal to
discuss the issue with the people who were given a promise is unacceptable.

SA parkrunners are wondering why parkrun insists on uniformity in methodology, policies and
procedures (as per the event charter). UK parkrunners can get their t-shirt within 2 weeks while
some SA parkrunners have waited for 2 years. I understand SA is a unique country and parkrun
HO will say it has unique issues in dealing with this unique country. Hold that thought until we
get to the issue to pre-runs and commercialism!

Due to poor communication rumours are spreading. The way to stop rumours is to give the facts
and answer all the polite questions, even if they are difficult or critical.
 One rumour is all money collected in SA from our sponsors, Discovery Vitality and Mr Price
Sports and previous sponsors is sent to the UK for disbursement throughout the world. Whether
this is true or not, it is necessary to give complete answers. Please remember parkrun is not
about the organization, but about the parkrunners, the communities benefitting from parkrun.
They deserve answers.

A second rumour is t-shirts were ordered and produced by Mr Price Sports, but too many small
sizes were ordered so there is stock of t-shirts, but of unpopular sizes.

Another rumour is parkrun SA did not take into account the number of runners who would
qualify for t-shirts and in terms of the agreement with Mr Price Sports they have provided all
they was agreed upon. This seems to be somewhat corroborated by the first of the only two
official communications by parkrun SA on this issue. SA parkrunners are asking why Mr Price
Sports only provided t-shirts up until 2016, but remains a sponsor in 2019. Those questions are
routinely deleted. The community is denied the right to ask questions.

Another rumour is t-shirts will be posted from the UK to South African parkrunners.

Pre-runs

The pre-run issue has caused enormous hardship to parkrun SA, to volunteers, to events. I
understand that parkrun SA initiated the concept of pre-runs to allow volunteers to run, get
their result, to get their 300 Discovery points and to volunteer. It is said that parkrun HO never
officially sanctioned pre-runs. However you well know that this had been happening and times
and runs were recorded and also suppled to Discovery for our points. By precedent this has
been accepted. In the early days of SA parkrun I would volunteer and not run because that was
the norm. Somehow it became the norm to do pre-runs to allow volunteers to pre-run and still
get their official run. Many people liked this, and typically there were no difficulties to get
volunteers.

This changed sometime in late 2018. I wish to point out that there has never been a
communication from parkrun about this change. Various private whatsapp groups started
talking about it. Event and run directors started talking and trying to implement this. It was
never discussed on any official parkrun site or Facebook page.

Questions and criticism were routinely ignored and deleted. To date there is still no official
document explaining this new rule.

The parkrun wiki only talks of a pre-run briefing. The event charter states that run directors have
control over the run. This includes postponing, adjusting the course and safety at the event.
In the absence of any communications rumours are spreading.

One rumour is that a parkrunner was attacked at Athol parkrun and HO said pre-runs must stop
due to insurance issues. The instant point raised by many parkrunners is “maybe that venue is
not safe for anyone”. Also, how does a run director do a course inspection? Also, how does
safety and standing while marshalling at a remote mark 3.5km into the run differ from a pre-
run? How does the marshal get to the marshalling spot if they cannot leave early? This rumour
may be untrue but in the absence of official communication it is all we can go on.

Another rumour is since no other country supports pre-runs, SA cannot do it either because we
must be uniform and consistent - in which case I’d ask you to deliver t-shirts within two weeks
to the SA parkrunners some of whom have been waiting for two years, just like you do to the UK
runners.

Yes, I know this is a ridiculous request, but so is the rumour that we have to be uniform in all
aspects. So is the rule that run directors and/or volunteers cannot do or allow pre-runs. South
Africa is a unique country. Getting volunteers is difficult and pre-runs solved our unique
problem.

The obvious consequence of abolishing pre-runs is SA parkrun is battling to get volunteers for
their events. Many event and run directors have told me how upset and annoyed they are that
volunteers, who HO says are the lifeblood of parkrun, are being discriminated against and
punished. Getting an official result and aiming for a milestone or Discovery points has been a
huge motivator to get many people running. Some lack the motivation to run on their own.
Discovery likes to get people exercising. Cancelling a person’s official result doesn’t serve their
purpose, or parkrun’s in getting people motivated.

The new Bronkhorstpruit parkrun cancelled its second event due to a lack of volunteers. This is a
source of embarrassment to us, the passionate parkrunners. Rumours are the third event on 2
March 2019 is also cancelled. Two other events, Sterkfontein and Ruimsig, coincidentally close
to the inaugural of Poplar are also cancelled on 2 March, all due to lack of volunteers.

Many event directors struggle to find run directors. There is a surplus of tail-walkers, and pacers.

Due to this rule event directors are finding innovative ways to bypass the rules. Some are
creating dummy parkrun accounts and using that name as the run director. Some are simply
ignoring the rules and doing pre-runs. Naval Hill was not the only event allowing this. Many run
directors who have approached me and people who are passionate about parkrun do not want
to see it damaged in any way. They are very angry at struggling to find volunteers. I wish to point
out that since there was no communication about the change in rules, many volunteers arrived
at events expecting to do a pre-run only to be told it was denied. They rightfully were also very
annoyed at losing a parkrun and not been given any warning. Some have vowed never to
volunteer again.
 Personally I dislike “gaming the system”. That is what is happening. That is not the ethos of
parkrun.

As a result some entire events teams have resigned. This is not what anyone wants. Also, as a
result many event directors have protested by not signing the event director contract. Please
note that it is NOT only Leon who refuses to sign. This is not because of disagreement with the
clauses – the agreement is not onerous. It is as a protest.

Commercialism and Naval Hill

A reason given by parkrun SA for its complaints about Leon is he brought/allowed/invited

someone to bring a coffee cart to the event and this is not allowed. In one of the press reports
parkrun SA is quoted as saying that Naval Hill, being a nature reserve does not allow this.
Assuming this to be true, parkrun SA should have let the council take action, not themselves.

In any event a senior manager at the council, who is also a Naval Hill parkrunner stated in the
same press report that the restaurant is owned by the council and has permission to bring a
coffee cart to this public nature reserve. Once again mixed messages and poor communication is
at fault. Also since parkrun is a community event nothing can stop someone from being “near
to” a parkrun and offering a commercial product to a community that may include parkrunners.

No one has a problem with parkrun requesting or demanding that a commercial entity refrain
from advertising or stating that they are part of parkrun. It is the standard ambush marketing
problem that hurts the official sponsors. South Africa has laws around this and had to
specifically handle this during the 2010 World Cup.

What worries so many people is the selective application of the rules. Many events are
organized or assisted by commercial interests or finish at or near a market, shopping centre.

Events invite parkrunners to coffee for example at “The Waffle Hut” for the Winterton parkrun,
which also starts and finishes at the Waffle Hut. I could name hundreds of similar parkruns,
including Exeter Riverside in the UK which finishes inside one of the club.

Apparently another issue was that Leon was involved in organizing other running events and
advertising them at parkrun. If that is the case I need to remind you of the parkrun event
charter:

We want more people to be active - to walk, jog and run and volunteer.

We create inclusive community events organised by local volunteers.

We want to break down barriers that prevent people from taking part in a parkrun.

We want more people to join clubs and to become part of the formal club structure.

We want more people to enter paid running events.
Point 3 may well be talking about who is not allowed to do an early run, ie volunteers.

Your social media policy states:

Feel free to promote local community events or local running club races.

If the rumour of his dismissal is true, Leon is guilty of doing his job.

Many parkrunners wonder why UK parkruns can have individual sponsors or donors, but SA
parkruns are denied that privilege. We are not allowed to ask why.

Lack of communication and consistency is at the heart of the problems. Naval Hill deleted all
“not-positive” comments, not necessarily negative from their Facebook page, which of course is
an official parkrun asset.

One comment they left on one of their posts was by a fake account (Mildred Labuschagne)
praising Naval Hill and saying how “she” and her family enjoyed scanning their barcodes at Naval
Hill. This fake account is owned by Jaco van Der Walt, who you do know and is intimately
involved with parkrun SA and these issues. I make the light-hearted comment that Trump was
elected and Brexit passed due to fake account praise singers. Why is parkrun supporting a fake
account praise singer?

General

I mentioned previously how you can judge whether this is an isolated instance or if it is more
prevalent to the extent that I suggested parkrun SA is about to implode.

The local Bloemfontein newspaper, the Volksblad has had as it headlines “Anger at Firing of
parkun Director” (translated from Afrikaans). There have been at least two high profile articles
in the newspaper and on the internet. On Saturday 23 February 2019 there was a high profile
demonstration at Naval Hill. Pictures of the protest are plastered all over the internet. 59% of all
runners protested by not scanning their barcodes. Naval Hill parkrun sanitized all photos and
deleted all comments. There is an embarrassing video circulating, made by the Volksblad
showing a volunteer involved in a shouting match with an 82 year old lady parkrunner. You have
to be concerned about reputational damage to parkrun and its sponsors.

One of the former ambassadors opened a Facegroup a couple of days ago “Passionate About
parkrun”. Read the comments and judge if this is important or not. Within an hour parkrun SA
had sent messages to event directors telling them not to make any comments on the group as
the information is inaccurate. However they refuse to give the “true” situation or debate any of
the issues.
 If you want to convince yourselves that there are serious problems in parkun SA, please start a
conversation on Facebook and ask SA parkrunners to contribute. Guarantee to listen and
respond to all polite requests and comments and see if we are over-reacting. Guarantee to find
ways to solve the issues. In fact doing that would largely diffuse the anger as well.

Be transparent, don’t delete posts, give answers to the people who desperately want answers.
This is hurting the very communities, the people who rely on and love parkrun. This will hurt the
sponsors.

I have tried to keep personalities out of this and not make ad hominem attacks.

I like to look for solutions. I sent the following message to Bruce on Friday 22 February 2019:

Hi Bruce,

I'm sorry you are having such a tough time. As I told you, I'd like to assist. The problem as I see it is not a
right or wrong, but how it is communicated. Email, social media and PR can be really harsh.

I would suggest the following strategy and ideally we should sit around a table to issue various
communications and press releases (I can help write them): In the rest of this document I'm using the
word "we" because I'm prepared to be included in the communications.

1) Put ourselves back onto the side of the parkrunners. It's better to argue with Nic Pearson, Tom
Williams and Paul Sinton-Hewitt than with our SA friends. We need to curb the aggression from both
management and the runners.

2) Inform our runners of what is happening. Tell them how sad and upset you are at the various issues
we are facing. If we disagree with HQ on some aspects, we tell the runners how hard we are working to
get HQ to understand our unique problems.

3) We apologise for previous indiscretions, like deleting posts and not responding and also for not
enough communications. We make ourselves the hard working victims of the hardships. We want our
runners to feel sorry for us (as they should be for the hard work you have done).

4) In all communications we be transparent and give the good as well as the bad.

5) In particular we explain the volunteer situation from the viewpoint of the runners and volunteers as
well as the t-shirts.

6) We explain the situation around Leon, without defamation or making derogatory remarks.

Finally I recently listened to a podcast (http://www.freeweeklytimed.com/uncategorised/no-barcode-no-

result-no-exceptions/) with Tom Williams and he said interesting things: parkrun takes a pragmatic
approach to issues, never mandatory. I think some of the people working at parkrun take things too
literally. We should tell our parkrunners this too.
Many passionate SA parkrunners are very sad and upset over this and many have pledged to
assist where they can.

Because I want to be transparent both this letter and your response will be made public.

Kind Regards

Keith Levenstein (A376520)

435 Rugby Avenue, Ferndale, Randburg, Gauteng

(27)10 007 4899

(27) 83 634 9393

26 February 2019