Good questions, Jay, Mark. It seems to me the core issue here may be characterized as the difference between what we officially sanction and what RDs do in practice. Of "course" we shouldn't condone moving the course and using the cert # and logo. As to your question about who can stop the RD from doing this, Mark, your guess is as good as mine. If we have no enforcement authority other than denying a record performance on any course thus modified, I would say we have little if any leverage over what most RDs do with their course maps and names.
In Jay's example, he could re-do the map with a new name, pay the $10.00 fee, pay $3.00 to Jane and $2.00 to his Regional Vice Chair, and have a new cert # with a 2025 expiration. He can then charge the Turkey Trot whatever for this work. If the client says "No, I don't see the need", who can stop him?
Mark, do you have some ideas about how we can prevent races from using existing certified course maps with a different event name? As long as I have been measuring, over 35 years now, I have seen numerous instances of "co-opting" certified courses for events other than for the original. I for one have no interest in telling anyone that, say, the popular 5K course in Fairfax Corner, VA, home to several annual events, is the intellectual property of only one event organizer, and anyone wanting to re-brand the certification map for their own event must step through a procedure to get their own certification number. If the course is one that can feasibly be expected to produce a record performance, this becomes a different kettle of fish. In this particular instance, the property management company paid for the certification, and they encourage the various events to re-brand the certification map to suit their preferences.
Recently, I have been retained by Loudoun County Parks in Virginia to measure and certify 5Ks in their parks, for which the parks intend to host several annual races, including some conducted by "outside" entities. To my knowledge, Loudoun Parks imposes no restrictions on re-branding their course maps.
This thought brings me to another instance in the region in which I measure where this "unique certification #" policy doesn't seem to work well. In Washington, D.C., only a handful of running events are permitted on city streets. All but the largest events are then forced to apply for permits in the National Park Service properties. There are only a few 5K and 10K courses that are allowed by the authorities for the dozens of annual events here. For decades, events have readily used Bob Thurston's and my certified courses while branding the course with their own race name. I know of no imperative any of these event organizers have experienced to apply for their own certification.
USATF can deny records and/or sanctions for events that flaunt our policy. That would be effective for, say, a race like the Cherry Blossom 10 Mile, which regularly produces record performances. The nearby Purple Stride 5K, with 200 runners and 1500 walkers? Not so much.
With theory and practice being historically this far apart, I question what we really want to accomplish here. Personally, I am in favor of requiring a totally separate measurement/certification for each event. But I see no way to enforce this. I also know of events that had their course certified over 10 years ago that perceive no need to re-certify it. They decline to pay for a re-certification and they just keep using the same old map. No one complains.
I don't have any bright ideas on how to control our policy. Other than denying validation of record performances, which affects a tiny percentage of events on certified courses, what kinds of leverage might we pose for consideration?