 What I'd like to do for purposes of the meeting is just state an intro because obviously this is our very first meeting in which We are conducting it Virtually, so I just wanted to read a brief statement and then just make a couple just brief comments about The process that that will follow So given the unprecedented circumstances resulting from the global pandemic Governor Baker issued an order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law to protect the health safety And of individuals interested in attending public meetings and keeping with that order the committee will convene this meeting using remote collaboration technology There are free considerations that I'd like to note before we begin first of all All votes will have to be taken by roll call So I will ask each member To register their vote if any Individually for taking them today Secondly, I'll ask that everybody except the committee members To help keep the background noise down to a minimum Third just as a notice to everyone that this meeting is being recorded Is there anyone else that is present and online that is recording this meeting by other means? And if not, otherwise the meeting will proceed in its ordinary course And then for the members of the public who are listening in And participating. I just want to state that for purposes of today. We will not be taking public Public I believe is part of our discussion today There may be a date and time which we will state at a later date In which we will accept public comments Okay At this time what I'd like to do is just call upon each of the respective members to announce who is here and who they represent and then as well as the members of the Gaming Commission staff who are also present as well Mr. Savage, would you like to start? Yeah, hi, it's Joe Savage. I'm the representative of the thoroughbred horsemen and breeders I'll jump in next this is that gail Cameron commissioner with the gaming commission representing the gaming commission on this committee Okay, I'm Peter Goldberg and I represent the standard bird Industry the horsemen association as well as the breeders. Hi, and I'm like a tonic. I'm from the treasurer's office And I'm Brian Fitzgerald chair of the committee so the next item that is on the agenda, I'd like to Go over the approval of the minutes of our last meeting from February 19th 2020 And thank you. Sharra for sending those out to the committee members. I just asked the committee members if they've had an opportunity to review those minutes and if they have any Comments or changes that need to be made to the minutes. I Review them don't didn't see any changes Hi, I also reviewed and do not have changes Okay, yeah, I was gonna ask for a motion to accept the minutes second Okay And then so because we have to vote in a roll call vote. So what I'll do is I'll announce the name Ms. Katenak Yes Mr. Goldberg, yes Mr. Savage yes Commissioner Cameron. Yes And I vote yes as well. Okay. All right, so we'll accept the minutes and they're Accepted and voted upon All right, so moving on to the next item on the agenda, which is item number three as You recall at the last meeting there were two legal questions that were presented to us and one of them was involving I Believe in accordance with the what was stated in the minutes Mr. Goldberg had Proposed the idea of funds being distributed to One industry towards the standard breads And whether or not there would be an opportunity for any sort of side agreement with the Thoroughbreds in terms of a distribution So what I wanted to do is I know that our legal counsel has reviewed both of these issues And I wanted to start with that one at first Mr. Grossman is here and I'd ask that He at least Provides some comments in terms of what he's found out with respect to that particular issue Thank you. Good morning. Good morning everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chair I have had a chance to look at that question And I've also had a chance to consider it in the context of the open meeting law There was some question as to whether the open meeting law was At play here too. So I thought I would just provide an overview of that question In the grand context of the law as well So there's certainly no reason two members of the committee can't discuss the split or anything else for that matter Outside of a public meeting the open meeting law is in chapter 30a and simply prohibits a quorum of a from deliberating over a matter within its jurisdiction outside of a public meeting In the case of the committee the quorum of course means three members So any agreements in principle or what have you reached between two members? privately would have to be presented to the other committee members in a public meeting and approved by a Majority in order to actually be adopted It would also be important that in that type of scenario that those two members not just go out and discuss any such agreement with other committee members Outside of the public meeting in that that could be considered What is known as a serial communication? Which is essentially just an effort to make an end run around the quorum provisions of the open meeting law So I know there was a specific question as to whether one Association could essentially agree to give the other breeds certain monies received from the fund via a privately negotiated agreement between the two In my opinion such an agreement would be impermissible section 60 of chapter 23k which we'll get into in a little more detail momentarily is Clear as to how monies from the fund have to be distributed and spent and will again go through that momentarily as well any effort to subvert that those distribution percentages the associated intended use of the funds and or the role of the committee in making the Recommendations and ultimately the commission's determination as to where the monies should be spent is impermissible in my opinion There is however nothing generally preventing one association from giving Private monies it received in some other way other than from the horse Race development fund to another association as long as it's not fund monies that are being used and as long as it's not related To some agreement to vote in a certain way that members had reached Privately so as a general matter those are those are my thoughts as to the use of private agreements In this context I would generally suggest that it's not permitted here I'm that that's a broad overview. I'm happy to take any questions if there are specific provisions of the law or other details that we'd like to Discuss Mr. Grossman and I thank you for doing that research on our behalf Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grossman. Are there any other questions? Are there any questions further related to that particular? Issue Okay, all right So Well kind of start to now discuss the other legal Question that was presented And if the members will recall There was some discussion at the last meeting as to Whether or not It would be legally permissible or possible to Address the issue of the respective splits between the categories for which the horse race development funds are allocated and As you know with the three categories with 80 percent of the fund going towards purses 16 percent going towards breeding programs and Four percent of those funds going towards health and welfare benefits You know the current split as of today is a 65 35 split between the standard breads and the thoroughbreds and so The proposed legal question was whether or not each of those three individual categories could be Broken down with respect to a Different distribution or different percentages that could be distributed within each of those separate categories So I know that Mr. Grossman has had an opportunity to review that and I know that So Mr. Grossman, I guess I would just say you know Do you want to just kind of elaborate a little bit more on what you found with respect to that? Proposed type of Potential To see if there's any flexibility with respect to the distribution between those three three categories Absolutely, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to do that. I did have a chance to take a look at the proposal And if everyone is clear as to what the proposal is We can move into whether it is legally permissible Obviously the the first place to start is by looking at chapter 23 K with section 60 Which is where the racehorse development fund was established and that section of course also established this committee And the statute provides there are two places in particular that I think it's important to take a look at when reviewing this proposal First there's language in paragraph B that says the horse racing committee shall make recommendations on how the funds received Shall be distributed between thoroughbred and standard-bred racing facilities to support the thoroughbred and standard-bred horse racing industries under this section and Then in paragraph C the statute provides that funds received from the racehorse development fund shall be Distributed between thoroughbred and standard-bred accounts as approved by the Commission as follows and then it goes into the three well-known percentages Notably, there's no language in section 60 that mandates the present process of determining the distribution percentage or the split Between the breeds first The proposal before the committee that the split be determined by each of the three categories is entirely lawful In my opinion and just as valid an approach as doing it the present way It just so happens that it was done the other way first But there's nothing in the language of the statute or otherwise that precludes Moving forward with the present proposal the only caveat to what I just said being that the gaming Commission has adopted Hello, I'm sorry. This is Tony. I'm taking minutes and could you just repeat that last thing you said about the proposal? I'm so sorry. The audio is kind of fuzzy. Sure. I Was just saying that there is nothing in the statute That prohibits the committee from moving forward with the present proposal And that it's just as lawful and valid an approach as the present way of doing it the only caveat as I was just saying to What to that being that the gaming Commission has adopted regulations that are located at 205 CMR? 149.04 that seem to mandate that the split be performed the way it is presently performed So if the committee elects to pursue this new process under the new proposal We would have to bring the matter before the gaming Commission To determine whether the Commission is amenable to amending the regulations and they do have the ability to do that But before we go and do that it seemed to me prudent to see whether the committee Is interested in pursuing that new approach, but otherwise there is nothing to Suggest that you can't move forward with the proposal So question mr. Grossman So what you're saying is rather than The 80 percent To purses the 16 percent and the 4 percent of reading 16 and the four to health and welfare being taken as one Split decision that we could if we choose to as a committee Decide each of those categories individually is I think that's what I'm hearing That's right Commissioner Cameron and as Brian said Maybe it would be helpful if I just kind of run through again what the proposal is So everyone is clear on that point Brian ran through it before and I know you talked about it a little bit But of course if you're going to move forward with something like this It's important that everyone be on the same page as to what the proposal actually is So if I may mr. Chair and committee members, I'll just quickly run through the proposal as I understand it And we can make sure we're all we're all talking about the same thing But essentially As everyone is aware of course section 60 requires that the fund be distributed between the breeds To the tune of 80 percent going to fund purses for live races 16 percent to breeding programs and 4 percent to fund health and pension benefits for members of the horsemen's organizations Instead of first determining the distribution percentage, which is what the statute calls it We call it the split, but the statute refers to it as the distribution percentage and Then breaking the moneys up into those three categories The proposal is that the moneys be split into the three categories first in accordance with the statutory percentages 80 16 and 4 and then have the committee determined by category the recommendations for the distributions to each breed from there So there could be a different split percentage for the purse moneys Then for the breeders moneys then for the health and pension Benefits there could be different percentages for each of those Ultimately though the same total amount of money would go from the fund to each of those three categories as the statute Initially envisioned and still says has to happen So it's the same amount of money that would go to purses into the breeders It would just perhaps be divvied up a little bit differently if adopted The the new proposal would in theory afford the committee and ultimately the gaming commission a greater ability To specifically direct the funds into the three categories with a bit more precision Depending upon need and other associated factors as determined by this committee So that's what we're talking about doing is essentially just determining the split for each of the three categories Instead of just determining one big split and letting the money flow according to the statutory categories I hope that offers some clarity Commissioner and committee members It does. I think that's what we're talking about Thank you. Thank you are there any Questions that the other committee members have regarding that proposed I guess I guess mainly my only question would be and I probably know the answer is Mr. Gross me you talk about obviously having to go to the gaming commission and getting the regulations changed And maybe this question is addressed to Commissioner Cameron as well as mr. Grossman That process would take approximately how long Assuming that it was, you know approved Assuming that it's approved the commission approved a change in and how the regulations that was applied to the statute What's the timing mechanism of a change like that? Well, Commissioner Cameron, I'd be happy to field that question Different ways and I right is an emergency reg and the normal process. So why don't you explain that mr. Grossman? That that's exactly what I was going to say as well It generally I tell people it takes between 60 to 90 days if we're running a real tight Filing program which we generally do through Ms. Bedard To get a regulation from Beginning to end of course it has to be there's to be public comment period It has to go through the Secretary of State's office and there are a number of filings It has to be published in a Document called the Massachusetts register So it does take two to three months to get it from beginning to end But as Commissioner Cameron mentioned depending upon the nature of the situation We do have the ability to request that the Commission take emergency action in which case changes can be made immediately So that is on the table depending upon how this all shakes out as well and how the Commission feels about the urgency of the situation Thank you. Thank you. All right. Do any other? Committee members have any other any other questions for their discussion? I'm wondering why it what or have we selected that the order is that? We would request this and then the Commission would change the law or should it be in the other order The Commission changes the law and then we decide what we wanted to Commissioner Cameron, I'd be happy to to field this one as well if that would be helpful. Yeah So The Commission has regulations that basically say that the split should be done the way it's presently done They were put in place. I think just as a reference But it's really at least up to in my opinion up to the committee in the first instance to figure out what the split should be It because there's a whole process as we just discussed that we would have to go through to change the regulations With the Commission it it seems to make more sense to me to first figure out whether the committee is interested in doing this before Going through that whole process and changing the regulations We can actually even consider moving them simultaneously if no final decision is made here today But there is an interest in pursuing that. I know there are a number of commissioners on this call listening in Of course Commissioner Cameron is here as well. So You know we can kind of work hand and glove on this this thing I don't see it as an insurmountable hurdle in any event But it is just something I wanted to make sure the committee members were aware of That we would have to to address Yeah, and if I may add to that. Thank you, Mr. Grossman. That is a good Summation of of the process. I just think former committee members. This was just never contemplated before it's not that the Commission felt strongly about that being the regulation. It just it just seemed to follow suit with the way the committee was working and Looking at the split differently for the three categories was just never contemplated and I think Mr. Bulberg can speak to that. It's it's not a decision that was made by the committee We just started working along those lines Not Thinking that there was another alternative Yeah, I would confirm that completely there was it was never even a a thought Mentioned at any meeting back from 2012 It was our decision was do a split then have it applied for the statute. So yeah Do any other members have any any thoughts about the You know the the proposed consideration of Addressing whether or not we could Move forward with having that flexibility in terms of considering the split Mr. Chair, I I think our next topic Would help me make an informed decision Um, okay, you know what the public thinks about this as an alternative. I know in the limited Um, you know as a committee or as a commission we're always open to taking comments We just haven't asked for public comments. Yes with regard to this But we did receive a couple already as I'm sure the committee members noted And there seems to be differing opinions Not only between the breeds but within A certain breed so it really is um, I know I think I need more information before considering if this is an appropriate idea for us. So And I know that's our next topic Okay. All right. Okay. All right. So then this discussing that I know that we were kind of uh, we basically would be looking at You know in essence the the the criteria for the revised split calculation so Do we need to have any further comments in terms of you know, does any committee members have any um Specific comments with respect to criteria for making that consideration but I know I haven't had a full opportunity to consider that and Would also very much like to hear from other committee members. So I don't think Um, we were in a position to do that today. Um Back and I thought back back tober of 2014 This committee adopted 15 criteria in addition to The five statutory criteria um, right and when I review the 15 Part of me is like I don't see a lot of these being necessarily applicable to each category And the 15 may not be adequate if we're going to now Decide category by category. So I think that's a a process that that um Needs some thought. I mean, you know to me from an overarching level if we're going to change this to a A category by category approach I think it gives the committee an opportunity to kind of Step back from the way they've done it in the past and look at what our Real objective is which to me the objective You know ought to be What can this race or development fund do in each category? To mitigate what have been the consequences of the site selections For the various other gaming opportunities in the commonwealth like the the site selection and plain ridge was very positive to the standard breads The site selection in boston Was not positive the thoroughbreds. Everyone knew That was going to have consequences for the industry and whether you look at Purses and how does it how do we mitigate those consequences to get that money there for investors? We're breeding, you know, just watching the track record of what's happened Because of that decision. So I think there's there's a whole new way to look at this on both a What I think kind of a 30 000 foot level which i'm talking about now, but also Probably on a micro level as to maybe under health and welfare There ought to be consideration of like the number of people currently receiving money That's not one of the now 20 Categories, so I think there's a lot to to think about here I think public input would be very valuable and the input of you know, the fellow committee members So mr. Chairman if I may um, yeah, I I I agree with attorney savage Um, completely about the timing aspect of this So I think there's there's two there's two considerations. That's why I asked Uh, mr. Grossman about the timing of a regulation change So, you know, should this committee decide to move to a different approach To assessing the percentages There has to be a decision to do that there has to be a regulation change and then Everything the attorney savage talks about the public comment period Deciding what factors what metrics we're going to use for each specific Uh One of the three sections We're talking just we're all, you know, been doing this for a while. This is this is not going to be a quick process This is a process of making a major change to what our committee work Change regulations Public comment it's going to be months and months and months and I suggest it's a good thing to do It's a good thing to Put on the agenda and to work. It's a very very good goal to work towards for everyone's sake And most importantly the Commonwealth's sake However, um, it would be irresponsible. I believe of this committee To just say yeah, yeah, we're going to change how we're going to do this now So we'll just put everything on for another year um, I think Especially in light of the times that we're in where everything is so up in the air Everyone everyone on this planet is suffering horsemen and the like Um, it's it's important and we can we can't do the work Attorney Savage and I both submitted proposals submitted our position papers back in february um I think this committee My opinion what we should do is move forward Uh, quickly I'm not saying today Um, but within the next 30 days at the at the slowest to Look at the split the way we've done it for the last eight years To address the changes from 2018 to 2019. We have all you know, I know I'm a broken record We have all the data that the statute directs us to look at. It's the 2019 data I think we need to apply the data. I think we need to discuss it and Decide whether or not an adjustment should be made and maybe the decision is that it shouldn't be made I understand that but I think we should put on our agenda Uh, the first and foremost the process to go ahead. This is supposed to you know Yes that october 14 14 letter that i'm looking at right now that I that I Along with push the camera and help right Uh indicates that this board would meet every october To to look at the prior look at that years metrics and adjust the split if necessary That's difficult. I recognize that but it wasn't done in october. It's now april and Unfortunate delay is was unfortunate for everyone's sake But I think now to put this on hold again To to try to change the whole process again. I believe would be irresponsible So I think we should make that an agenda item going forward Look at the committee look at the regulations make those decisions the public comment and see what criteria should be used If we change the way we look at the split I think at the same time we need to go forward quickly and address the 2019 metrics And do a split as we've done for the first seven years Uh and address it one way or the other within the next 30 days So I would say that I I share your concerns around the timeline Just because we did as a committee sort of decide to set a schedule for ourselves And I think that we've been doing our best to sort of queue to that schedule as best we can So I think it might be helpful for um, mr. Grossman to kind of walk us through what might be the most expedited timeline Under which we could sort of undertake this work Trying to sort of balance all interest and see whether there is consensus amongst the public and the committee to take on a new approach Sort of understanding the time constraints as well well, uh I'm sorry commissioner cameron to do No, I I was uh digesting those comments. They were very thoughtful about is there a way to um to to understanding the timing but yet Seeing what a timeline would look like Yeah, I mean I think um A timeline is somewhat subject to How quickly the committee wants to move I don't with the exception of the commission changing regulations I don't think there are any time restrictions on anything you could move As quickly or slowly as you want. I think I mean the only limit is really The fact that this is not everyone's full-time job. I guess I mean, it's my full-time job So I can do it every day But other people might have other things they need to take care of In their lives and certainly I guess you want to give The public enough time to think about what they want to say so that's the one area I guess you'd want to give people some notice of If you're going to open the floor to public comment to give people a couple weeks or a week or two To think about what their comments might be but otherwise. I mean you could schedule meetings In theory every week To knock off different items And get this moving so I don't think it has to take a long time to do necessarily And of course the committee doesn't have to recommend changing the split at all from the president 65 35 you could actually do nothing And the money would still Move as it presently does I mean to state the obvious there's nothing to split right now, right And and there's no race So there's neither racing nor money to split so I don't I don't get any urgency I mean I I hear the concern but in the reality of where we are I think we've got a little bit of time to work this through no good. Well God willing we'll be racing in the near future Um, you know, no one I don't think any of us for sure Can prognosticate whether it's going to be may 15th June 15th july 15th. We don't know it could be january next year But a window casinos are going to open and that's I think That's not a reason to drag our feet in delay. You know, if we change it to a hundred zero draw And and nothing's open till january then it doesn't mean right. It has no effect. I understand that But to not do our job because at the second I mean, there wasn't, you know, there's no money coming. I don't think is the right approach I think we need to do our work and then Pun intended let the chips fall where they may and hopefully they'll be falling I was not saying we don't do our job everyone on the committee wants to do their job But I was stating the opposite. I think we've got a little flexibility on time I I had had the understanding that the racing isn't going to begin before june 1st at the most optimistic for you guys Back to life. I'm going to answer that but that's um, I would have to guess that's accurate. Yeah, but that was that was the recommendation to the Commission that was in fact Adopted so that's that's accurate. I think from the discussion that we've just had I think there's there's two things that are You know open for for for consideration one is is You know Does there need to be any sort of? vote on the existing split You know And two is whether or not we proceed with a different consideration of The split based on The three categories So I think there are those those two things that need you know that are you know were You know are open for consideration So and in addressing the public comments, uh, you know, why don't we just then See about scheduling a meeting You know to Consider those those those two items so obviously with respect to the Difference of consideration It really is something that has to be worked through and obviously it has to go through the commission to change the regulations so um and From what we've heard today or what I've heard is is obviously we need you know The committee members still need some more information. They want to hear from the public on it So I think what I'd like to try and do is see if we can Come to some sort of consensus on scheduling a meeting to at least You know get some movement on on on those two issues So I'd like to hear from the members In terms of Mr. Chair, I think what I'm hearing you say is that We could be specific about what we're asking for from the public Meaning we could get up on our website specific questions one would be the idea of Of the committee doing work to adopt A new way for us to calculate the split Um and asking for comments with regard to that particular issue and and the second was kind of overall comments about um You know the usual comments about um the overall process and what's important this year and what factors Is that is that what I'm hearing you say? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, I I I think in terms of you know One is is we've we we've kind of broached this the subject of whether or not there can be some some consideration As to the the breakdown of the split in accordance with the three different categories. So right so You know, I'd like to pursue that further And it's so long as as the other committees are are so willing as well to consider to Look at that further And uh, I think to address the concern that that mr. Goldberg has With respect to you know, whether or not with respect to the present split Does that need to be changed as of you know As of today or as of, you know, the next meeting both. Yeah, and before we do our work. Yeah Before we do the work. Yes. Yeah, correct. Yeah And I I think the other question we could discuss is The form of public comments. Do we want written comments only or Do we want to entertain a virtual hearing where people can notify us that they like to speak to the committee members? and I know that dr. Lightbaum informed me that there are She's gotten many many calls about how do we speak to the committee members? How do we let them know how we feel about this? So there seems to be some interest in from stakeholders Whether it be, uh, you know breeders or whether it be owners or whether it be business Folks that would like to build a new track. I think there is Um And I'll let dr. Lightbaum speak to that but it just got me thinking do we want just written comments? Or would we like to entertain a virtual hearing where we actually get to hear from people? Dr. Lightbaum, do you want to add to that? Oh, yes, like like you said, um, I have gotten questions from numerous different people within the industries asking how they can comment and what the most appropriate way is and um, you know, originally this, um Look like we just we're gonna have One horseman's group for each breed and that whole thing And obviously the legislature when they set this resource development fund up We're anticipating the situation that we're in now where there isn't a full thoroughbred meat or at this point a real Active thoroughbred racetrack so, um There's people that have a definite interest in what happens. Um at this committee That aren't necessarily on the committee so there is a interest from different groups on being able to Get their viewpoints in front of the committee And I I think in terms of my my thought would be is yes, I like to give Further opportunity of public comment to hear from them At the last meeting there were a number of representatives who People who attended And uh, so I I I think we would like to hear from them And my thoughts are with respect to you know, I think what we could do is probably have a hybrid of of allowing, you know for written comments With respect to public comments at the meeting. I think we just have to kind of establish some parameters in terms of time What we want to establish and and who who we want to Hear from from each of the the uh, the industries, so yeah, um, mr. Chair, does it make sense to um, you know, pretty much quality hearing We could have it right before our regular meeting Um, and just you know, let people know they have maybe three minutes to make their comments and Because it would have to be virtual. Do we say please let us know ahead of time If you'd like to make a comment And that way we'd have a list of those and you know, hopefully this would not take more than an hour to hear from stakeholders Um, because we would limit it to say three minutes. We at the gaming commission Early on had many many hearings. We were just making major decisions and That's one of the techniques we used was to hold comments to say three minutes And that kept it moving and maybe if if they're from the same organization, whether it be You know, one of the associations or the breeders, you know, maybe they have one representative speaking for that organization Or two representatives. We could we could make that decision just throwing that out. There is a way to organize um such a Listening to people Yes, yeah, yeah No, and I think obviously that would be very helpful um In in terms of the time before it, you know, if You know, I'd like to hear from the committee members as to whether they feel an hour is appropriate or a half an hour or or I think the only the only problem we're going to have of course is if you've got 50 people that want to Be heard, you know, how do you I don't know the answer to the question. How do you pick and choose? How do you Yeah, you could time it three minutes. That's great, but You know, who we have a lottery people get to like, you know, we maybe we can raise some money for something Well, I think because if they belong to the same association I think that's how you limit it, right if if You know say they're they're two different representatives for each, you know, for each of the organizations and then maybe those who are, you know Have have plans before the legislature to build a track. They get they get an opportunity to speak also um To hear their thoughts on that So, you know, I think there's a way to limit limit that I mean, it's something where we would want to pick and choose And and then schedule who the speakers are prior to the meeting. I I'm not sure Well, because it's virtual, I would think I don't know how we would be able to set it up if we didn't know Who was going to speak and in which order dr. Lightbaum. Do you have some thoughts on that? Um, we could do a combination and um, allow written comments. Um, you know, send them into the mgc comments section and then um, shara could distribute them like she does now and that might um, help A lot of people might do it that way and it would decrease the number of people who would actually want to speak but I think it As far as allowing people to speak. Um, what uh commissioner cameron suggested is a good idea um, limited to one or two people from Um, whatever groups may want to speak. So if it's somebody proposing to build a track um, maybe two people get to speak and they can each speak for three minutes if it's um, you know, one of the horseman's groups same type of deal and um Basically the the group itself Could be the ones who decide who their One member or two members would be that would be um doing the speaking so that The committee wouldn't necessarily get involved in that type of a discussion From my perspective, I would err on the side of giving the public more time rather than less time and I think maybe you'll have some Ability to to put it out there see how much interest there is in speaking and then allocate from there. Um, but I the there's uh How to characterize it there are lively conversations in the hallway every time we meet in person and I think that hallway That hallway dynamic should come on in the room and and and yet heard all right, so, um They based on that I I'd like to hear from the committee members. Just I you know, I obviously we want to try and establish some sort of parameters so um We've heard an hour or half an hour. I guess You know I'd like to hear what you know in terms of the the time limit that we have prior to that um And then from there we can say, okay, you know, I think what we could do is establish the further parameters of how many how many individuals During that allocated time so Again from my view, I I'd give them two hours and longer to speak I think we're setting ourselves up if we really restrict people like people are feeling unheard And to say all right, you got 90 seconds, you know I don't know that address that so I I'd recommend we Set aside a couple hours and then see how many people want to speak and then carve it up after that I mean, I don't necessarily disagree except when you open the floodgates Yeah, where do you draw the line? I think is the is potentially the the issue And the you know, one of the reasons I why the legislature set the committee dynamic Demographic as it is Is to give the commonwealth All the stakeholders if you will a voice You know the standard bread industry we have meetings I I talked to the h.h.a any h.h.a any the horseman association People regularly I talked to the s.o.m The standard bearer owns the breeders regularly We have meetings we invite the horseman to come to the meetings to talk To give their opinions Because my thought is that's my job. My job is not not peter golver's opinion of what should happen It's the industries And I you know, I assume then the thoroughbreds got got a representative Who you know, and I'm not I'm not saying that attorney For solely in the past or attorney savage has done anything that they've done great job in my opinion But that's our job is to is to is our job is to speak to these people speak to the stakeholders Speak to the the owners the trainers the drivers the jockeys Get what's going and report to this committee. I'm not against public comment. It's fine But I think let's not lose sight of the There can't be a thousand members of this committee or or even 50 members of this committee will get no work done And that's why you have five member committees and that's 500 member committees So I just I just caution everyone, you know, I'll sit for three hours and listen to people talk I think at some point it becomes Something that can be something I don't want to say be wasting anyone's time, but This is I think it's more of my job and and attorney savages job To get the pulse get the opinions and one hour of our Constituents of our represent and to present that to the committee. So again, I'm not saying don't do it Don't do public comment in the written comments are great because People can write it. They feel comfortable. You can read them Um and discuss them again. I think get into a Hearing I mean the people are going to be sworn in are they under oath? They're not under oath Do we get to question them? I mean, you know, there's all kinds of I'm guessing these no, but um I don't want to have a problem where someone says, hey, I didn't get a chance to speak Joe, Sarah, Bill, Tom and Al spoke and I didn't get my three minutes Well, I mean we've we've done this in the past. I think successfully. Um, there were many many, um Passionate people who had strong opinions about gaming You know as they do about racing So I I think I like the the hybrid approach written comments as well as Some sort of a hearing but I do think we have to limit it and what it forces people to do is okay Pick your representatives from your group and be If you know, you have three minutes or five minutes You really are thoughtful about tailor and your remarks and not repeat the same thing over and over again So it just forces you to be a little bit Better about your remarks and it does I think it in many ways helps people When they know look I have three minutes or I have five minutes to speak before this committee So I've seen it work and work well So I do like the hybrid where we listen to people but we do have a time frame as well and we We are limiting it within the groups and to the amount of time and you try to stick to that as closely as possible right So so theoretically you could do 10 10th hour of red speakers 10 standard red speakers Chosen by the industry may be chosen by Joe and myself who each get Three minutes, you know that would be that's 60 minutes or six minutes for two hours something. Is that what you're suggesting something? Well, you know, I think We all know the different organizations that are out there whether it be you know, the unions the associations the the different ones for breeders and and you know owners and whatnot We know that and in thoroughbred there happen to be two organizations. So And then of course we do have these other stakeholders who have an interest in building Tracks here in the commonwealth. So I think we kind of know the groups out there And how they're selected. I think those individual Associations would determine who your couple of speakers are Okay So are we thinking more along the lines of an hour prior to the meeting? You know with a half an hour allocated to each industry and You know up to 10 individuals Who are allocated, you know, each individual allocated three minutes each Well, just just as a practical point. I'm not I'm not sure Like when you start to mix new investors in with Sort of legacy stakeholders. I'm not sure who's going to divide this up. You know, I don't think it's going to work that You know, I can pick 10 people So well, I I didn't think that would be I know that mr. Goldberg said that But I actually thought it was better to let the association say we have an interest in speaking or You know, I have a proposal to build a track before the legislature. I have an interest in speaking I agree with that, you know, and we take that list and you know, uh, we'll know then What the public body will be that will be presenting before us Yeah, I agree with that. That's that's good. I like that approach Right. That's good to me Okay All right Okay, so we're talking about then are we talking about an hour then I I think that's an is is about right to to hear and and if people have more to say they are more than welcome to put it in writing and get it to us Okay, all right, so, um With that then um We need to talk about a timeline for for scheduling, uh, a meeting So, uh, I wanted to hear from the committee members, uh, just in terms of Scheduling the next meeting then where we would Give the public and the industries an opportunity to provide, you know, further public comment so, um Can we look at our schedules in May? um Does the public meeting law put any restrictions on this in terms of is there a Notice period or anything mr. Grossman 48 hours notice is pretty sure what it says Do we do this on monday then? Only if we can restrict you to three No, no problem. I'm not I won't even be one of the speakers. How's that? Yeah What do we think is appropriate to let people get their comments in? Whether they prepare for a hearing Uh, their verbal comments or their right their their writing comments I mean, I would think at least a couple of weeks, right? Yeah, yeah a couple of weeks prior prior to would be appropriate um Or even to the extent of a week, but a couple of weeks would be would probably be better. So So if we're looking at the schedule then, um, what are your thoughts on saying, okay, we'll Have, um public comment available till may May 13th And then Um Schedule in a meeting sometime during The last week of May So we're giving them a month to um A month to uh get their comments together Unless you think lots of period of time is sufficient. So No, I We can take Yeah, I'm I'm wide open for a meeting that last week at next I might encourage us to look a little bit sooner. Um, I think being respectful Of the public and allowing them at least two weeks Um, but if schedule on sort of the front half of May, then I think that does give us A little flexibility if we do decide to move forward to sort of push for emergency regulations and get that done by the beginning of June If that's the route to go All right, the first or second week in May So maybe that second week in May the week of the 13th That that still gives people a month to get their comments in but we could actually schedule the hearing in the meeting That week Yeah, yes. Yeah Okay, all right So would we say may 1st or may 8th somewhere around there to get the comments in Have a may have a may 8th for the comments and then the next week have the hearing have the our meeting That sounds fine That sounds fine by me. Yes. Yeah Okay, I'll write over that week too Okay, all right So may 8th for the uh, written comments public written comments, and then we're looking at Either may 13th or 14th For our meeting Yeah, the 14th is a good date Thursday the 14th Yeah, okay So may 14th Do we ask them mr. Chair to also have the um Uh representatives a list by the 8th so that we have the appropriate time to then Uh organize our hearing before the meeting Correct. Yep. Yep Yes, yeah, yeah, we would ask for them to provide us with a list of their representatives Yeah That will would be speaking And and uh, mr. Grossman, I know you're you're here in chara as well Um, do we want to get on our website? Just those two that the chair laid out those two Questions that we're really looking for comments just so they the comments can be organized. Does that make sense? Yes, we'll do Great So the questions just to be clear, uh are Whether the committee should adopt the new Uh approach to the distribution and secondly what criteria or factors should be considered? Is that what everyone Was thinking and I think there was a question of do we do this year's work? um before we Before we implement that if we do implement a change in the split Or is that mr. Chair? Why don't you speak to that because you articulated it better than I am Oh, yeah, so I think I think the two can open considerations were one is is is is You know Do we is there any? Uh Consideration for an existing adjustment based on the parameters that we have right now So is there you know, would there be? Uh An adjustment of the split at this time based on the position papers that were submitted for 2019 And 19 and the public comments that we then have received thus far and the ones that we Most likely will receive by may 8th and then the second consideration is related to the you know distribution of the actual categories of The the the split itself as to whether or not the split could be um divided between each of the three separate categories that we we consider for distribution So so does that mean the we'll have an agenda item on may 14th About considering first considering an adjusted split and then talking about the change of process Correct. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, and I think at that point in time we would take a vote of the committee to whether we proceed in that direction Mr. Chair are we talking about maybe a 10 o'clock? Hearing followed by an 11 o'clock meeting Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking 10 o'clock for the public comment and then 11 o'clock we'd start the meeting If that works with everyone else's timeline Yes Okay, right. All right. So uh with that in mind then do I um Do we want to entertain a motion to schedule the meeting then for May 13th May 14th. Sorry. What I'm sorry. So I move that we You want a motion for that? Mr. Chair? Sure. Sure. So I move that we um We uh conduct a public hearing where we we will hear Virtually where we will hear a comment from the public um at 10 o'clock on the 14th followed by our Meeting our next meeting with this committee at 11 o'clock All in favor Oh, let me sorry. Excuse me. Let me run through the bowl call Miss Katana. Yes Mr. Goldberg Yes, sir Mr. Savage Yes Commissioner Cameron. Yes And Fitzgerald. Yes. Okay. All right so, um Are there any other items I call to the committee? Are there any other items that they Feel need any further further discussion at this time? But just just to be clear Mr. Chairman. Yes, the first agenda item on the 14th will be our discussion of potentially Or at least the discussion of an adjustment of the current split Based on our position papers and the metrics from the past Correct, correct. Yeah Then the change. Okay. Thank you Okay All right, uh Do I have a motion seeing is there are there any other any other comments that was kind from anyone else? No All right. Do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? I'll move during the meeting second All right. Miss Katana. Yes Mr. Goldberg Mr. Goldberg Yes. Yes. Oh, okay. Mr. Savage. Yes And commissioner Cameron. Yes And Fitzgerald. Yes So thank you all. I appreciate everyone Everyone's participation and thank you to Sherba Dard and thank you to Todd Grossman for For all your all your hard work and thank you for taking the minutes. So Thanks, everybody. Can we agree on a dress code for the next meeting? Can we agree on a dress code for the next meeting? You are all appropriate. I'll skip the tie next time. All right. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you everyone Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Bye now. Bye. Bye