Boston Marathon a case study in lessons learnedfollowing l.docx

Boston Marathon a case study in lessons learned
following last year's bombing tragedy
Lasky, Steve . SecurityInfoWatch.com ; Fort Atkinson (Apr 21,
2014).
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT
[Bonnie Michelman]'s comments certainly seem to reflect the
report released last week by the Department of
Homeland Security titled "Boston One Year Later: DHS's
Lessons Learned," detailing three topics which were a
focus of attention in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon
bombing. The report discussed the "importance of
partnerships," the "need for effective and reliable
communications," and the need to further boost anti-
radicalization efforts.
He added that another big development has seen federal, state
and local communities have become even more
engaged in learning how to improve working in "relationship

preparedness" to be able to better respond and be
more resilient in a future emergency. [Chuck Brooks] also cited
the just released report commissioned by then DHS
Secretary Janet Napolitano, noting "that funds were used to
"equip and train tactical and specialized response
teams specifically in in IED (improvised Explosive Device)
detection, prevention, response, and recovery, including
SWAT teams and Explosive Ordinance Disposal canine
detection teams among other law enforcement units."
"From the defense draw-down overseas, a great deal of
equipment is being made available to state and local public
safety professionals. In most states the governor operates a
homeland security committee to evaluate and
prioritize needs in various state municipalities. There is a lot of
paperwork involved in grant making applications,
but and DHS officials are accessible and willing to help,"
Brooks pointed out. "My recommendation for state and
local officials is to also look to private firms that specialize in
securing grants under the Urban Areas Security
Initiative (UASI), and DHS's National Protection and Programs
Directorates' Federal Protective Service (FPS). Each
program has their own requirements, processes and timing."
When a review of DHS's "name-matching capabilities" was
completed, it discovered a misspelling of "Tamerlan

Tsarnaev," the older suspect of the two accused Boston
bombers. This mistake apparently allowed him to return
unnoticed to the United States after a trip to Russia, despite
previous alerts from Russian intelligence. DHS has
now improved its ability to detect variations of names derived
from a wide range of languages.
FULL TEXT
Tighter security and attention to intelligence gathering
strengthens prepardedness for storied event
Boston Marathon a case study in lessons learned following last
year's bombing tragedy
Things were different at the Boston Marathon this year. Meb
Keflezighi became the first American man to win the
Boston Marathon since 1983 and the second oldest runner to
ever take the crown. And unlike past races where it
was a virtually open venue for both spectators and participants
alike, strict physical security measures and a
robust police presence made for long security lines, barricaded
race routes, random searches, bans on backpacks
and a zero tolerance for rogue runners who used to be part of
the Marathon's charm - remember Rosie Ruiz? The
Marathon also accommodated more than 9,000 additional
runners who failed to cross the finish line in 2013

because of the horrific terrorist bombing at the finish line of
last April's Marathon.
This year's race also figured to be a lot different for Bonnie
Michelman, the Director of Police, Security and Outside
Services at Mass General Hospital. The devastating attack put
Michelman and her entire facility on the frontline in
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1517946881?accountid=35
812
812
2013, as Mass General was the designated primary hospital for
the race. Her facility wound up treating close to
300 casualties as a result of the bomb attacks.
"The preparations for last year's event were prudent and
appropriate for both the city and my facility. No one could
have ever anticipated the unforeseeable nature and horror of this
event. You can never plan for every contingency,
for every event, and this was by far a startling example of that,"
said Michelman, who pointed out that the situation
was made even more difficult due to the longitudinal nature of
the event.
"This was an extremely disruptive disaster for many
organizations, including mine. It wasn't a four or five hour

disaster - it was a multi-day disaster. We went into to Tuesday
still gathering evidence, looking for the suspects,
trying to reunite families, trying to identify comatose patients;
and then on Thursday we had to ramp up for a
Presidential visit," she continued. "So we had a huge emergency
preparedness response to those dignitary visits.
Then Friday, we had an unprecedented city lockdown that
created all sorts of issues for the entire Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. I have 8,500 employees here at Mass General
that takes public transportation to work, which
was completely shut down."
Michelman has been a long-time key player in the region's
disaster preparedness efforts. The city of Boston
regularly conducts disaster and emergency preparedness
exercises throughout the year, with a major training
event each May. There are also numerous table-top exercises
conducted among the public-private partners, MEMA
and FEMA.
"The endless drills and preparedness training took what was an
extremely bad event to a level that was
manageable in many aspects. The fact that we had 281 people
who were severely injured and they all survived,
showcased the fact that this city was extremely well prepared,"
Michelman added. "The response and result was a

tribute to all involved - from police and fire to our EMS and
medical teams that were at the race, plus the Boston
Athletic Association that coordinated the race, down to our
hospitals. Everyone was unbelievable in the level of
response."
Michelman's comments certainly seem to reflect the report
released last week by the Department of Homeland
Security titled "Boston One Year Later: DHS's Lessons
Learned," detailing three topics which were a focus of
attention in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. The
report discussed the "importance of
partnerships," the "need for effective and reliable
communications," and the need to further boost anti-
radicalization efforts.
Massachusetts has been the recipient of more than $1 billion
from 22 DHS grant programs since 2002, including
$370 million for the Boston urban area. DHS grants issued to
local law enforcement helped prepare for a quick
response to the bombing and identification of the suspects.
According to the report, "DHS grants, training and
workshops as well as drills and exercises throughout the
Northeast region, and specifically in Boston and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, built preparedness

capabilities to enhance responses to complex, catastrophic
attacks. Participants credited these investments for the
coordinated and effective response to the bombings by
law enforcement, medical, and other public safety personnel."
Learning from past mistakes and creating workable solutions
has been a couple of the key elements Chuck Brooks
thinks sets Boston and the surrounding area apart when it comes
to assessing its emergency management needs
and implementing strategic plans that work. Brooks, Vice
President, Client Executive for DHS at Xerox said the
most significant development has been the federal, sate, and
local first responder communities recognizing past
shortfalls in national emergencies and closely examining
successes and failures from Boston, especially in the
areas of planning, coordination and inter-operable
communications.
"One outcome of reviewing the incident discovered that the pre-
positioning of medical first responders for the
marathon greatly helped in the triage efforts for victims on the
scene. In the past as a matter of EMS (emergency
medical services) protocols, medical first responders waited for
law enforcement to clear arrival before they
responded. The pre-staged medical services on the scene may
become more standardized for security planning at

future public events," said Brooks.
He added that another big development has seen federal, state
and local communities have become even more
engaged in learning how to improve working in "relationship
preparedness" to be able to better respond and be
more resilient in a future emergency. Brooks also cited the just
released report commissioned by then DHS
Secretary Janet Napolitano, noting "that funds were used to
"equip and train tactical and specialized response
teams specifically in in IED (improvised Explosive Device)
detection, prevention, response, and recovery, including
SWAT teams and Explosive Ordinance Disposal canine
detection teams among other law enforcement units."
Knowing how to scramble through the federal funding maze and
asking the right questions is a crucial aspect of
properly ramping up emergency preparedness planning. Brooks
stressed that DHS, and particularly FEMA, have
been active in promoting the availability for training.
"From the defense draw-down overseas, a great deal of
equipment is being made available to state and local public
safety professionals. In most states the governor operates a
homeland security committee to evaluate and

prioritize needs in various state municipalities. There is a lot of
paperwork involved in grant making applications,
but and DHS officials are accessible and willing to help,"
Brooks pointed out. "My recommendation for state and
local officials is to also look to private firms that specialize in
securing grants under the Urban Areas Security
Initiative (UASI), and DHS's National Protection and Programs
Directorates' Federal Protective Service (FPS). Each
program has their own requirements, processes and timing."
While most experts praised the preparation and the actions of
Boston's first responders and healthcare facilities in
the aftermath of last year's Marathon bombings, the most
glaring weakness proved to be the lack of shared
intelligence. Reports from ABC News immediately after the
bombing said U.S. Customs and Border Protection's
(CBP) National Targeting Center "re-vetted" all flights that
departed earlier in the day from Boston, New York, and
Newark airports to identify potential suspects.
When a review of DHS's "name-matching capabilities" was
completed, it discovered a misspelling of "Tamerlan
Tsarnaev," the older suspect of the two accused Boston
bombers. This mistake apparently allowed him to return
unnoticed to the United States after a trip to Russia, despite

previous alerts from Russian intelligence. DHS has
now improved its ability to detect variations of names derived
from a wide range of languages.
It was also reported that Boston Police Chief Ed Davis said he
was not notified about Tsarnaev before the attacks
despite previous FBI investigations of Tsarnaev, but now DHS
has improved its system of sharing information with
local officials about potential threats.
"Intelligence sharing has been also highlighted as an area of
focus for improvement. There was a revelation that
law enforcement had been warned about the threat of religious
extremist Tamerlan Tsarnaev and should have
been alerted. The problem is that it is difficult and involves
many resources to track and continually monitor every
potential threat, especially that of the Lone Wolf," said Brooks.
"We are a nation of soft targets and openness. New
technologies such as data analytics, license plate reading, and
facial recognition cameras can be employed for
intelligence and forensic purposes but there is always an issue
to consider regarding the balance of security with
freedom and privacy."
Perhaps no one is more seasoned at understanding the
challenges of large venue special events than William

Rathburn, who served as the Los Angeles Police Department's
Planning Coordinator for the 1984 Olympic Games
when he was LAPD's Deputy Chief; then as the Director of
Security for the Atlanta Olympic Games in 1996 - which
at the time was the largest Olympic security undertaking in the
Games' history, with budget of $100 million and
staff of 17,224 security personnel. Rathburn also was Chief of
Police for the City of Dallas, the seventh largest
police department in the nation.
Rathburn admitted that protecting Olympic venues may have
been a bit easier than open events like a Marathon
for the simple reason that defined security perimeters could be
established and protected. Putting in a secured
screening process and vetting the credentials of everyone
associated with an Olympics provided safeguards his
colleagues in Boston did not enjoy.
That being said, Rathburn firmly believed that a breakdown in
the intelligence gathering process contributed
greatly to the Boston tragedy.
"Intelligence is the one thing that is important in any event.
Intelligence is the key element in your pre-planning and
during the event. It takes on even more importance in an open

venue event like the Marathon. It is impossible to
provide security for a 26-mile course. If you harden portions of
it - the most vulnerable areas -- you can either
discourage them or move them further out. That magnifies the
importance of solid intelligence," said Rathburn.
Rathburn added that protocols have changed over the years with
a greater focus on inter-agency communication
than ever before. "I grew up in a professional environment
where you had an inter-agency coordination center
during a major event and that was a first responder's main point
of contact between agencies. We didn't really see
a need for direct communication from officer to officer unless it
was task force operation or something similar.
"I think, to some extent, when you try to provide everyone
immediate communication, it can lead to a slowdown in
the communication process because so many people are trying
to communicate. Unfortunately, that may have
happened during the Boston bombing incident. Having
immediate communication is a great thing until you
overload the system or fail to have a designate point of
contact," Rathburn surmised. "In my opinion it was not the
fact the backpacks were allowed into the Marathon venue that
caused the bombing. It was a failure to assess
credible information that potential threats were imminent."

Despite all the planning and cooperative partnerships among
agencies in the Boston area, even Michelman
admitted the process could have been refined when it came to
intelligence and communications in previous year.
She said everyone learned a painful lesson.
"From the perspective of public-private partnerships and
synergies, we in Boston have been in a very different
place compared to other cities around the country. We have
worked very hard in making relationships between
public, private and government agencies -- and the intelligence
gathering process -- better. We learned a lot from
the Democratic National Convention several years ago, when we
set up a Multi-Agency Command Center (the
MAC) that had representatives from every public agency, and
also from large private organizations like mine," said
Michelman.
"There has been a lot of talk resulting from last year's horrific
event surrounding command and control and unity of
command. There is no secret that law enforcement said there
was no one person in charge. And maybe that's okay
in some events because there just couldn't be, but that didn't
lessen the scrutiny around that issue. We have all
worked diligently to rectify any shortcomings in that area," she

concluded.
.Secured Cities Note:
Both Chuck Brooks and Bonnie Michaelman will be featured
speakers at the 2014 Secured Cities Conference in
Baltimore, November 4-6. For more information on the program
and how to register, please go to
www.securedcities..com.
Credit: By Steve Lasky
DETAILS
Publication title: SecurityInfoWatch.com; Fort Atkinson
Publication year: 2014
Publication date: Apr 21, 2014
Publisher: SouthComm Business Media LLC
Place of publication: Fort Atkinson
Country of publication: United States, Fort Atkinson
Publication subject: Criminology And Law Enforcement

Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest
Source type: Trade Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: News
ProQuest document ID: 1517946881
Document URL:
812
Copyright: Copyright 2014 Cygnus Business Media Inc.
Last updated: 2014-04-28
Database: ProQuest Central
812
https://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/pqissupportcontactBoston
Marathon a case study in lessons learned following last year's
bombing tragedy
Your Name: Peer Review Document
Before you begin, read the full Peer Review Assignment
Guidelines, posted on BB, for information not included in this
document.
This document contains the materials you will need to complete
the peer review assignment:
1. Instructions

2. Sample message for review
3. The rubric to use in your review.
Instructions:
1) Insert your name in the header above (to access, double click
on the space).
2) Read the sample provided, carefully considering its strengths
and weaknesses. Don’t insert comments on the sample, except
as directed in the Assignment Guidelines.
3) Complete the rubric and calculate the number of major
sentence errors by type, following the instructions in the
Assignment Guidelines.
4) Below the rubric, provide two to three pieces of substantive
feedback, following instructions in the Assignment Guidelines.
5) When complete, save this document as a PDF file, labeled
“yoursurname_PR” (e.g., jones_PR.pdf) and submit it on
Blackboard.
Your assignment will be graded using the marking guidelines
described in the Peer Review Assignment Guidelines.
The Message for Review
To: BE Employees
From: Ted Mills
Subject: Backyard Escapes Warranty Protocol *IMPORTANT
Hello team,
Upon receiving an email from a displeased home owner with
regards to our warranty policies, I wanted to clarify my
expectations on our protocols. Below is a list of the exceptions
and precautions that must be verbally communicated to each
customer upon completion of a project.
1. There is a five-year warranty on wood products, conditional
to regular maintenance.
2. Homeowners must provide invoices that the deck has been
maintained every two years.

3. Invoices must be from a reputable company, if Backyard
Escapes was not used for maintenance.
4. Required maintenance includes resealing wood with
WeatherTec Sealant.
5. Homeowners must present documented receipts for the
purchase of WeatherTec Sealant to have valid warranty of the
claim.
6. If a homeowner sells the house, receipts and documentation
should be provided to the new homeowner for continued
warranty.
7. All clients receive 20% off annual maintenance up to 10
years after installation.
8. All invoices clearly state the above information after
installation, but must be reiterated when providing clients the
final bill.
As the season winds down, this is a kindly reminder to inform
clients of our landscaping services such as, fall cleanup.
Maintenance discounts are essential for establishing long-
lasting business relationships. Be sure to inform clients of our
warranty policy for all BE greenery. Please note October 10th is
the final day to book clients in for maintenance.
Thank you for taking the time to read this email, I am very
proud of each employee as we strive to uphold Backyard
Escapes incredible reputation. If you or our clients have any
questions regarding the above information please do not hesitate
ask.
Warmest regards,
Ted
Ted Mills
Owner, Backyard Escapes
(403) 993-9586
[email protected]

Your Assessment of the Message
Use this rubric to assess the message, and write your comments
in the space at the bottom.
Content: The content of the message meets the expectations of
the audience.
Strong
OK
Weak
· Message shows evidence of an in-depth analysis of the
elements of communication (PAIBOC).
· All essential information is included (feedback loops are
avoided); message will meet audience information needs.
· Unnecessary information has been removed, and important
information is easy to access and interpret.
Language Use and Organization: Language use and
organization support the message.
Strong
OK
Weak
· Writing demonstrates ‘you attitude’ when appropriate,
modified to ‘we attitude’ or ‘subject focus’ as appropriate.

· Tone is appropriate to the purpose and audience.
· Sentences are clear and concise, demonstrating strong word
choice.
· Within and between paragraphs, ideas flow smoothly.
· Writer has chosen an appropriate level of directness.
· Organization of ideas is logical, following suggestions made
in class and in the textbook.
Format and Visual Design: Document is professionally designed
and correctly formatted.
Strong
OK
Weak
· Message is formatted following business standards (1.15
spacing, standard fonts, with all required components –

including front and end matter). Brief and appropriately
descriptive subject lines are included in all letters and emails.
In other documents (e.g., blogs), format meets the standards
discussed in class.
· Visual elements (lists, boldface font, etc.) help the reader to
move easily through the message, when appropriate.
· Text and visual elements are balanced (heavy blocks of text
are avoided, as are list-like documents).
Estimate the number of grade increments (A to A-, for example)
that would be deducted for major language use errors if this
piece of writing was to be formally graded. Consider only the
four major errors tested in quizzes this term (comma splices,
fragments, run-on sentences, and lack of parallel structure).
Deduct one error for each error type noticed, not for each error.
For example, if the piece has three comma splices and one
fragment, there are only two error types, resulting in a two-
increment deduction.
Your comments for the writer (2-3 comments, 300-400 words in
total):

2
Weight: 15% of your final grade
During the first half of the semester, you will write four or five
short writing assignments as part of the writing workshops
(WWs). Each time you write, you will also review a peer’s
writing, following the standards for feedback described in class
and posted on Blackboard. These peer reviews give you practice
in 1) identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of
writing, and 2) providing constructive feedback to a peer.
In this assignment, you will demonstrate these skills by
reviewing and commenting on a WW sample written by a peer.
Your Task:
On or before October 4, your instructor will upload the Peer
Review Assignment Document on BB, which will include the
sample message and the rubric for use in your review. You will
analyze the sample and provide feedback, in two steps.
1. Critically Analyze the Writing Sample:
Before you write anything, read the sample globally, simply as
a message. Consider a few questions: How easy would it be for
the intended audience to find this message, and understand what
the writer wants them to do or learn? In the context of the
guiding case and the prompt, how well does the sample stand up
to a PAIBOC analysis? How does it compare to the objectives
set out in the prompt (also posted on BB)?
Once you have reviewed the sample globally, review it for the
writing principles we have been discussing this term. Decide on
the feedback you will provide, by asking yourself, “What two to
three pieces of advice would be the most useful to this writer if
he/she were to rewrite this message?”
2. Provide Feedback to the Writer:
You’ll provide feedback to the writer by completing the rubric
included in the assignment document and supporting your
assessment with two or three substantive comments.
Rubric-based assessment: The rubric closely resembles the

rubrics that will be used to grade your Writing Test and your
Reflective Revision. Complete each row in the rubric, assessing
the sample in terms of the skill described. In the final row of
the rubric, indicate the number of major sentence error types.
Consider only these four errors (emphasized in class and part of
in-class assessments #1 and #2): comma splices, fragments, run-
ons, and lack of parallelism. Count each error type noticed, not
each error. For example, if the piece has three comma splices
and one fragment, there are only two types of errors.
If you claim that there is a major sentence error in the message,
use the comment feature in Word (found on the Review menu)
to point out the location of the error in the message and to
identify its exact nature (e.g., comma splice). If an error is
repeated, you do not need to identify the second (or third)
instance. If you are using a word processing package that does
not support commenting, devise another system to identify and
label errors (colour coding, for example) – be sure to include a
“key” that indicates what each colour represents. Do not make
any other edits or comments directly on the writing sample.
Ignore small errors.
Comments: At the base of the rubric, provide two to three well-
developed comments. Together, these comments should be 300
to 400 words in length. Format the comments as follows:
· Introduce your comment section briefly (in one or two
sentences), setting the tone and preparing the reader for the
comments to follow.
· Provide a descriptive title for each, as shown in the sample
assignment.
· Insert a word count at the bottom of the comment section.
Each comment should meet the standards for tone and content
established in WWs 1-5. Keep in mind that the writer is your
primary audience, and he/she will receive a selection of the
comments. To help you establish your tone, you should review
the advice in the slides for WW1 and in Module 11,
Communicating with Positive Emphasis.
When choosing topics for commenting, look for substantive

issues (e.g., quality and clarity of information, awareness of
audience, choice of organization pattern, page design...) rather
than surface issues (spelling, grammar, or mechanics). As was
the case in the writing workshops, feel free to also point out
strengths, using them to lower reader resistance when
appropriate.
Assessment
Your grade on this assignment will be determined by the quality
of your feedback, as outlined below. Your grade will also
reflect any deductions earned in WAs 1 - 5. These deductions
are assessed when peer reviews are not submitted or do not meet
the standards described in class and posted on Blackboard. The
rubric is below.
Assessment of Your Peer Review Assignment
A
Rubric assessment is accurate, on most items, including the
assessment of grammatical errors. Written feedback is clear,
precise, and accurate. Suggested improvements are accurately
explained, and supported with examples. The reviewer has not
simply focused on surface errors but has also addressed the
more complex writing principles discussed in class. Reviewer’s
tone is professional, and writing is tight and bright. Major word
usage/agreement, punctuation, and sentence structure errors
have been accurately identified.
B
Assessment is generally accurate and readable, but may be weak
in one or two of the following ways: 1) Rubric assessment may
be inaccurate in one of the three categories (visual design,
content, writing); 2) Reviewer may have missed or misidentified
one or two major grammatical errors; 3) Tone of written
comments might be negative or unprofessional in up to two
instances; 4) Written comments might focus on superficial
issues or provide less feedback than requested; 5) Written
comments might be inaccurate in up to two instances; 6) Advice

might not be supported with useful examples (or textbook
connections) in up to two instances; 7) Visual design might be
weak (not following the instructions on the assignment); 8) The
reviewer’s use of language might be inefficient in up to two
instances; 9) Other:
C
Assessment is adequate, but may be weak in two or three of the
following ways: 1) Rubric assessment may be inaccurate in
more than one category (visual design, content, writing); 2)
Reviewer may have missed or misidentified more than two
major grammatical errors; 3) Tone of written comments is
generally negative or unprofessional; 4) Written comments
might focus on superficial issues, or provide less feedback than
requested; 5) Written comments might be inaccurate in more
than two instances; 6) Advice might not be supported with
useful examples (or textbook connections); 7) Visual design
might be weak (not following the instructions on the
assignment); 8) The reviewer’s use of language might interfere
with communication in more than two instances; 9) Other:
D
Assessment is weak in most of the points identified above
F
Assessment does not meet assignment standards.
Grade increment deducted (e.g., A to A-) for WW peer review
not completed or not meeting the standards discussed in class
(one increment for each instance)
Fragment, runons, comma, parallel structure (1 of each to look
for in the piece of writing).
Your Name: J.R. Student

1
Sample PR Assignment with Notes
Look to page two for the sample, and pages three and four for
ideas on how it might be reviewed.
Before you begin, read the full Peer Review Assignment
Guidelines, posted on BB, for
information not included in this document.
This document contains the materials you will need to complete
the peer review assignment:
1. Instructions
2. Sample message for review
3. The rubric to use in your review.
Instructions:
1) Insert your name in the header above (to access, double click
on the space).
2) Read the sample provided, carefully considering its strengths
and weaknesses. Don’t insert
comments on the sample, except as directed in the Assignment
Guidelines.
3) Complete the rubric and calculate the number of major

sentence errors by type, following the
instructions in the Assignment Guidelines.
4) Below the rubric, provide two to three pieces of substantive
feedback, following instructions in
the Assignment Guidelines.
5) When complete, save this document as a PDF file, labeled
“yoursurname_PR” (e.g.,
jones_PR.pdf) and submit it on Blackboard.
Grading:
Your assignment will be graded using the marking guidelines
described in the Peer Review Assignment
Guidelines.
2
The Message for Review
To:
Dear Colleagues.

Dfdkjdl dfsdjfl fjdkfdroeuwre eirue sjeuf ewuf asi idf.
Teiruwi jsdjfliur dfjf owerm sdkweio. Dfkldf eor
skjdf erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer. Dfdkjdl dfsdjfl
fjdkfdroeuwre eirue sjeuf ewuf asi idf. Teiruwi jsdjfliur
dfjf owerm sdkweio. Dfkldf eor skjdf erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer.
Dfdkjdl dfsdjfl fjdkfdroeuwre eirue
sjeuf ewuf asi idf. Teiruwi jsdjfliur dfjf owerm sdkweio. Dfkldf
eor skjdf erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer.
• Dflkwpeork dkjfwo sdkwier kdf.
• Fdfkwerf jslfkweo irj.
• Dfsdwekjr ewrwer wefsdjw.
skjdf erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer.
skjdf erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer. Dfdkjdl dfsdjfl
fjdkfdroeuwre eirue sjeuf ewuf asi idf. Teiruwi jsdjfliur
dfjf owerm sdkweio. Dfkldf eor skjdf erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer.
Dfdkjdl dfsdjfl fjdkfdroeuwre eirue
sjeuf ewuf asi idf. Teiruwi jsdjfliur dfjf owerm sdkweio. Dfkldf
eor skjdf erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer. This is

a sentence error, two sentences have been joined incorrectly.
Dfdkjdl dfsdjfl fjdkfdroeuwre eirue sjeuf
ewuf asi idf. Teiruwi jsdjfliur dfjf owerm sdkweio. Dfkldf eor
skjdf erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer. Dfdkjdl
dfsdjfl fjdkfdroeuwre eirue sjeuf ewuf asi idf. Teiruwi
jsdjfliur dfjf owerm sdkweio. Dfkldf eor skjdf
erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer. Dfdkjdl dfsdjfl fjdkfdroeuwre
eirue sjeuf ewuf asi idf. Teiruwi jsdjfliur dfjf
owerm sdkweio. Dfkldf eor skjdf erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer.
Dfdkjdl dfsdjfl fjdkfdroeuwre eirue sjeuf
ewuf asi idf. Teiruwi jsdjfliur dfjf owerm sdkweio. Dfkldf eor
skjdf erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer. Dfdkjdl
dfsdjfl fjdkfdroeuwre eirue sjeuf ewuf asi idf. Teiruwi
jsdjfliur dfjf owerm sdkweio. Dfkldf eor skjdf
erulsj dfjkerjfsldfj ekwjer.
Sincerely,
Bob
Commented [AH1]: A comma splice (two sentences
incorrectly joined by a comma)
When looking for sentence errors, you need only consider
four major sentence errors: comma splices, run-on (fused)
sentences, sentence fragments, parallel structure. If an error
is repeated, you need only identify it once.

3
See below for commenting suggestions.
Your Assessment of the Message
Use this rubric to assess the message, and write your comments
in the space at the bottom.
Content: The content of the message meets the expectations of
the audience. Strong OK Weak
➢ Message shows evidence of an in-depth analysis of the
elements of
communication (PAIBOC).
x
➢ All essential information is included (feedback loops are
avoided); message
will meet audience expectations.
x
➢ Unnecessary information has been removed, and important

information is
easy to access and interpret.
x
Language Use and Organization: Language use and
organization support the
message.
Strong OK Weak
➢ Writing demonstrates ‘you attitude’ when appropriate,
modified to ‘we
attitude’ or ‘subject focus’ as appropriate.
x
➢ Tone is appropriate to the purpose and audience. x
➢ Sentences are clear and concise, demonstrating strong word
choice. x
➢ Within and between paragraphs, ideas flow smoothly. x
➢ Organization (order of ideas) is appropriate to the purpose
and audience. x
➢ Ideas are fully explained and supported by detail or example,
as needed. x
Format and Visual Design: Document is professionally designed
and correctly
formatted.
Strong OK Weak

➢ Message is formatted following business standards (1.15
spacing, standard
fonts, with all required components – including front and end
matter).
Brief and appropriately descriptive subject lines are included in
all letters
and emails. In other documents (e.g., blogs), format meets the
standards
discussed in class.
x
➢ Visual elements (lists, boldface font, etc.) help the reader to
move easily
through the message, when appropriate.
x
➢ Text and visual elements are balanced (heavy blocks of text
are avoided, as
are list-like documents).
x
Calculate the number of major sentence errors by type. Consider
only the four
major errors tested in quizzes this term (comma splices,
fragments, run-on
sentences, and parallel structure errors), and count each type
only once. For
example, if the piece has three comma splices and one fragment,
there are only two

error types.
-1
4
Comments:
The reviewer will begin with a brief introduction to the
comments (one or two sentences only), setting
the tone and preparing the reader for what will follow.
Order of ideas:
In the rubric, the reviewer has identified a significant problem
in order of ideas. Perhaps the writer has
written an unwelcome message very directly, or a routine
message indirectly. In this comment, the
reviewer should indicate the exact problem, support his or her
viewpoint with MGMT 3210 principles,
and offer a solution.
The comment (and the others that follow) should be appropriate
in tone for the audience (the writer),
perhaps balancing the negative news with a positive comment
about the strengths noted in the rubric

assessment – this reviewer noted appropriate tone and strong
you attitude, for example. Likely length
of this first comment → 150-200 words
Visual Design:
Here the reviewer would comment on visual design,
highlighting good practices. He or she would likely
compliment the writer on the use of the vertical list (as long as
it was used appropriately), before
commenting on the long final paragraph. Likely length of this
second comment → 100 - 150 words
Information:
In the rubric, the reviewer has identified a consistent weakness
in content, so it is reasonable that
he/she addresses the “I” in PAIBOC. The reviewer will identify
missing information or unnecessary
information and will make suggestions for improvement. Likely
length of this third comment → 100 -
150 words
Word Count: ____ must be 300-400 words in total (not
including the rubric)
Note: There may be additional issues in this piece. In your
review, you are only required to 1) complete

the rubric, 2) use the Word comment feature to identify major
sentence errors on the document (as has
been done on the sample above), and 3) comment on two to
three main concerns (these concerns should
also be reflected in your rubric assessment). You should not
comment beyond these 2-3 concerns, even if
there are additional problems. For example, the reviewer’s
rubric assessment has identified format
problems in this sample (a missing subject line, and an
incomplete signature block). These omissions
have been identified in the rubric, but the reviewer has chosen
not to comment on them, and instead
focuses on other significant concerns.

Boston Marathon a case study in lessons learnedfollowing l.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Boston Marathon a case study in lessons learnedfollowing l.docx

Similar to Boston Marathon a case study in lessons learnedfollowing l.docx (14)

More from jackiewalcutt

More from jackiewalcutt (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Boston Marathon a case study in lessons learnedfollowing l.docx