 2020 meeting of the horse racing committee of the Massachusetts gaming commission. It is approximately 1132 a.m. My name is Brian Fitzgerald. I am the chair of the committee. I just have a brief statement to make as this hearing meeting is being conducted using remote technology. 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 and safety of individuals interested in attending public meetings. In keeping with that order. The committee will convene this meeting using remote collaboration technology. I would like to note the considerations I would like to note before we begin. First all votes will have to be taken by roll call. So I will ask each member to register their vote if any individually. Secondly I will ask that everybody accept the committee members to please mute themselves to help keep background noise to a minimum. Just a notice to everyone that this meeting is being recorded. And so we will proceed with today's meeting. First I just want to make a brief comment and just acknowledge again all of the participants and speakers who have submitted public written comments. And the speakers who just spoke at our public hearing. I appreciate all of their input and appreciate their time and efforts. The first item on the agenda that I'd like to address is the approval of our minutes from our meeting of April 16. I know that Shara has provided all of those minutes to the committee members. And I guess I'd ask if they have any comments or changes to those meeting minutes. They only changed not a very minor one Mr. Chairman. I was on page two at the bottom of the paragraph. There's a typo that lists me as Mr. Goldman just so there's no confusion should be Goldberg. We can make that edit. Other than that they look good to me. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes of April 16. Second. All right. And I guess what I'll do is call upon each of the members to vote for the approval of the minutes with the noted corrections. Mr. Savage. Yes. Mr. Goldberg. Yes. Commissioner Cameron. Yes. Ms. Katona. Yes. Okay. And Fitzgerald. Yes. Then are so approved. We will move on to the next item. Our agenda. And which is stated as the potential adjustment of the method of calculating the distribution percentage split between the breeds for purposes of funding purses, breeding programs and health and welfare benefits. As the committee members will recall. There is a. Proposed concept and how. The art. HDF funds are being allocated with respect to each of. The separate categories being for purses, breeding and health and welfare benefits. And I wanted to kind of generate a discussion with the members. With respect to. Their thoughts. On. Moving forward to see if. There could be. Potential amendment. To the regulations. That would allow us. That ability to consider. Separate allocations for each of those three categories. And thereby provide the committee. With. In my thoughts, greater, greater flexibility. In terms of how these funds are. Are allocated. To just kind of. Maybe. Make some comments in terms of their, their thoughts. On that. Mr. Chair, this is, this is Gail. Could I ask Mr. Grossman to just review? I believe what we discussed was that a legally is possible to do this, but in the last meeting. The two different. Methods of changing a regulation one by as an emergency and one. During the normal course of. Business, which would be, I believe. 60 to 90 days. And I also think that that would be up to the commission. And I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. And make sure my. My recollection and reading of the minutes is accurate. Good morning, everybody. I'd be happy to do that. Commissioner Cameron and Mr. Chair and members of the committee. If that would be helpful. Commissioner Cameron, your recollection is accurate. There is some language in the gaming commissions regulations that addresses the split. I think that would be good. I think that would be good. I think that would be good. I think that would be good. I think that would be good. I think that would be good at the way it's presently being done. So the gaming commission would have to. Have a look at their existing regulations. To bring them to modify them consistent with the new approach. If the committee. it could be done either by emergency which means of course immediately so we would have to get the matter on the gaming commission agenda which can happen you know in two to four weeks or so depending upon the existing commission agenda and if it were not pursued by emergency it would take about 60 days or so to to get into effect so that's that's that part of it there's the proposal itself which we can discuss a little bit as well if that would be helpful Mr. Chair and I'd be happy to go through that too and some of the law just to recalibrate the proposal and for the benefit of any people who haven't heard this before who are on the call so at present of course the committee makes a recommendation to the gaming commission as to the overall distribution percentage or what has come to be known as the split of the race horse development fund between the breeds and based on that percentage the funds are distributed to the respective breeds into the three categories outlined in the law the statute of course directs that the funds allocated to the breeds be distributed in the form of 80 percent for purses 16 percent to the breeders and 4 percent for health and pension benefits the new proposal would tweak that approach slightly in an effort to afford the committee in theory and ultimately the commission greater ability to direct the funds to the specific uses it deems perhaps best so under the new approach instead of determining one split between the breeds at the outset and letting the funds just flow from there in that same percentage the committee would determine the split between the breeds for each of the three categories so there would be an independent split determined for purses split for the breeders and for the health and pension benefits notably the exact same number of actual dollars would be afforded to each of the individual categories as the statute directs as intended so that is to say that 80 percent of the money would still go to purses 16 percent would still go to the breeders and 4 percent would still go to the health and pension benefits but the committee could determine that they'd be distributed in different percentages by breed in each of those three categories instead of just one big percentage split as you know the split is governed by chapter 23 case section 60 which is the statute that also created this committee there's no language in this statute that would preclude this new approach to the split in my opinion it's entirely permissible though there is absolutely nothing improper with the manner in which the split is presently calculated there is similarly nothing improper with the new approach both are valid methods under the language of the statute and there are a couple of provisions of the statute that I'll touch on real quick that direct this opinion so that's again it's section 60 of chapter 23k if you look at paragraph B there's language that says that the horse racing committee shall make recommendations on how the funds received in subsection A of the section shall be distributed between thoroughbred and standard bred racing facilities to support the thoroughbred and standard bred horse racing industries so there's no suggestion there that it has to be the split has to be calculated once at the beginning and not by category and the other section that's interesting and helpful to look at is paragraph C which says that funds received from the race horse development fund shall be distributed between thoroughbred and standard bred accounts as approved by the Commission and then it goes into the percentages but again there's nothing in there that would preclude the committee from pursuing the so-called new approach but again just as a reminder as you mentioned Mr. Mr. Chair and Commissioner Cameron if the committee does elective pursue the so-called new approach the matter would have to be raised before the Gaming Commission so there is that to consider as well but all in all that's my opinion of the law that governs this and a description as to what I believe the new proposal is. I have one follow-up question Mr. Grossman and that is in your opinion I am thinking about emergency versus the regular promulgating method for regulation and where there is no racing presently I'm just thinking is this does this matter in your opinion justify an emergency as far as moving forward in that in that manner. That is a question that will ultimately have to be determined by the Commission as a whole. It depends upon the circumstances at the time the Commission's considering it of course we're in a rapidly evolving situation it may depend upon the opening of racing at Plain Ridge Park and there are a number of factors that would have to be looked at to make that calculation so it's it's hard to say but I think a case could certainly be made based upon what some of the realistic circumstances may be that this could be an emergency situation. Is it your opinion that there's no need for this committee to weigh those options and that should be left to the Commission? I do think that would have to be left to the Commission certainly if this committee has a recommendation I think that could be persuasive to the Commission of course as to the nature of the emergency and and how how urgent it actually would be of course as the subject matter experts and in that issue I think the committee should consider whether it is an emergency or not. Thank you. Thank you. Would any of the other committee members do they have any comments to the what Attorney Grossman has just presented? Thank you for laying out the case. Thank you Emily. Thank you. So I guess in that regard then is is the quote-unquote new method or new approach something that the committee wants to further pursue in terms of giving giving us a little bit more flexibility in terms of how the funds are distributed? Yeah I'm sorry Mr. Chairman I think as we discussed last month it sounds like a a good idea to give us all more flexibility especially in light of the ever-changing economy. You know my concern last month was the expediency and of making a change of regulations you know in the best case would take a few months. As I said repeatedly this split is supposed to be done prior to the racing season and this might be the first time that happens which is a good thing and I think Mr. Chairman by putting agenda item four today on the list that the committee will discuss a potential new allocation a new split based on the original for lack of a better word method I think it's a good thing to go forward to seek the new the new flexible way of determining the split and I think I think we can answer a lot of questions if we discuss the split today as we're going to on the number four and we make an adjustment I think that answers a lot of questions as far as the emergency nature of it. If we make a split adjustment today then there's no emergency any you know the next split theoretically or presumably would be for 2021 we look at that the end of this year the end of this racing season and check 2020's metrics so I think by the way that the agenda has been set up but time we're through today we very well may have answered the question and I think obviate the need for even going forward with emergency regulation changes so I think that's a positive Mr. Chairman yes so that's news to me that that's what number four stands for I read number four on the agenda as our discussions by category and beginning a process assuming we decide as a group to move to the category methodology which I applaud the chairman and Mr. Grossman on their creativity and coming up with a way that will allow the committee to be more tailored but I confirmed my understanding of number four with Mr. Grossman prior to the meeting as well so I'm in no position to be voting under the old method today and I don't believe that that's what number four is meant to do if I may add I think that we really don't have a choice because it's not designated for a vote today so the agenda does not call for a vote today on anything but the minute so I think that would preclude us from moving forward with any kind of a vote Mr. Grossman am I correct about that I think that was certainly the intention it was just to figure out whether the committee is interested in pursuing this approach and then if it's interested in pursuing an amendment to the split if it's not going to pursue the new approach but I don't it seemed to me and this is just kind of my take that it wasn't really teed up for final decisions as to the split or what the new percentages would be exactly I mean I made a comment at the last meeting that I thought we should do that and I'm fairly certain of my recollection that that the chair Mr. Chair and Attorney Fitzgerald agreed that we should talk about doing the split today because it's gonna take 90 days but we're right back where we were every year since 2014 and that is having a split that is ineffective for the year tended to be applied unless of course we go to the gaming commission and seek retroactivity which we've decided we'd really rather not pursue every year so I believe we I believe we've had votes previous years without it being on the agenda specifically I'm just speaking from my experience with the Commission and we have inadvertently failed to use the word vote and we've always pushed that matter off to the next meeting because it was not set in the agenda for a vote so that's my understanding of how that works I don't know that there's anything that precludes us from talking about the issue in the split but that maybe we'd have to just call another and that could be that could be done very quickly another meeting and and then actually vote yep I understood completely thank you okay all right and I would just like to briefly call upon Dr. Lightbound at the present time obviously horse racing is is is suspended I believe and maybe Commissioner Cameron you can you can allude to to the vote in essence it's been suspended indefinitely and that was the the vote of the Commission until further notice we had pushed it back to a June 1 opening but as you know things are still uncertain and it looked like at this point it wasn't practical to start it on June 1 so right now we have it in indefinitely or until we can get a clearer picture on what's going on okay Dr. Lightbound is it accurate is it still accurate to say that there are no standard bread tracks open in the United States at this time there are a couple of thoroughbred tracks is that correct that's correct yes and could you elaborate a little bit on some of those just briefly there are some there are some unique circumstances to standard bread racing that may that may which is why some thoroughbreds can race and standard breads have yet to do that yeah part of it is the paddock time the amount of time spent in in what's called a paddock area and that time period is much longer in standard bread racing and so like at Plain Ridge now we're trying to figure out if we can run some of the races out of the barns and you know what type of extra security that would need and things like that the thoroughbreds go into what they call their paddock area for a very brief time and with COVID they've even shortened that amount of time so there's a very short amount of time there which obviously leads to less problems with the personal spacing and all and that that's one of the primary things that differences between the two breeds thank you yeah there are tracks there aren't tracks that Ohio is opening June 16th and I have information for harness racing and there are other tracks planning on opening I know with Kentucky and Pennsylvania trying to plan opening as well so you know it's hopefully yeah I think Indiana is opening June 16th as well as Ohio so yeah I think Pennsylvania just came out with a thing that they can't open till the casinos open yeah that's another issue yeah and is that likely the scenario here right now there's nothing's tied to each other the casino opening and the track openings are not necessarily tied to each other but that could change going forward we really don't know at this point but Dr. Leifam is it is it the racing staff provided by Penn National are all for a load at this point correct yes they would we've had these discussions at the commission level that they would have to need the time to bring their staff on and of course when we're normally gearing up for a race meet we're preparing for you know several months in advance getting the track ready and everything so probably best case scenario is once the kind of go ahead came it'd probably be another month or so before the actual first race was raced and just so I can understand the process if the governor gives a green light and then the gaming commission gives a green light is it been a Penn National decision or are they obligated to open that's basically I believe would be up to the Commission it's that could fall under the area of a business decision so you know they are a business and just like with the casinos they need to decide when it's you know safe when they're ready to open and all I I don't perceive the Commission forcing them to open before they feel like they're ready from a public health standpoint and all to open and just to correct the record I'm sorry Mr. Chairman I misspoke earlier the Ohio Ohio is starting racing next week May 16th or this this weekend in Ohio Indiana was June Ohio is this weekend FYI all right thank you thank you and just to go back to in terms of the timing so if if the governor were to you know lift the emergency order and the gaming commission were to vote to allow the the resumption of of live racing we probably are looking at somewhere towards July to start I mean probably talking at least the middle of June I would say middle of June okay which would be it well I mean we're already to the 14th so if you know even if it happened next week we would probably be talking three weeks into June maybe and Dr. Leipam isn't it your understanding that the governor's four-phased plan for casinos were probably talking later in those phases correct correct yes and there's I don't have any indications yet that the racing would be before that and Dr. Leipam my understanding also too is that our live racing is still faced with are they faced with the deadline of July 31st for the legislation or is that not correct um gosh for some reason I'm thinking the July 15th I think they gave it a deadline slightly before the end of the legislative session so I think it might be July 15th July 15th okay if I recall and can you click what's that a reference to I miss part of the question the racing legislation has is scheduled to expire then as you know the racing legislation usually goes about a year and it's been up to a couple of times and in short intervals recently I got I just missed part of the question okay so again coming back to the proposed new methods of consideration of calculating the distribution percentage I just kind of would like to see in terms of the committee members whether this is something they want to support to put forth to the the gaming commission to amend the regulations to allow us that greater flexibility and making these decisions well I know that mr. Goldberg and mr. Savage each spoke about the health and welfare extensively at our last meeting and is there a way to to think about that differently so that may be a good place to start with health and welfare okay all right but I again I guess I just understood what were you asking mr. Chairman whether we as a group think it's a good idea to go to the new method well to to allow that option to be made available to allow that option to be made available to both we as a committee as well as for the gaming commission's consideration right I believe we should do that yes yeah I think with the chairman I mean it sounds like we're all in agreement that giving our committee more flexibility to be able to attend to the needs of the horse community thoroughbred and standard bread would be very helpful if we could take each of the three categories purses breeding and health and welfare and basically adjust them with separate percentages so it might take a little more work for us but I think we can do it and I think it would be helpful you know my concern mr. Chairman was last month and it's now this month and it'll be next month as well is these things take time you know change doesn't happen quickly and well it's I think it's a terrific idea and I'm all for it again I worry about us talking together hopefully at a table in the fall and still not having made any looking back at the 2019 metrics and they made any adjustments if necessary right I think we're charged with doing the work of checking them at looking at the metrics after the end of each racing season and if if necessary if we feel it's required to make an adjustment of the split so my only hesitant not hesitancy but my only concern is that whatever we do and then we need to put in the machinations in place to allow us to adjust the split hopefully before racing starts may not be done until the end of July or July 1st or end of June whenever it is but I think we owe that to the harness racing horsemen the third and the thoroughbred horsemen and everyone and all the investors you know race tracks are 50 or 60 million they just built a standard red track last year in Kentucky hundred and fifty million dollars so they're not cheap we all know that I think I think we need to get to the do our work if we can either prior to racing starting or as soon thereafter as possible that's my only caveat mr. Jen if if we made the decision to look at the three categories differently and we've followed that up by a decision to allocate I'm just thinking can we do one at a time can we say yes we'd like this change and get that portion to the gaming commission so that can be promulgated well we're doing our work on the allocation or should that all be done at one time I'm just trying to figure out the the way that we should move forward so that mr. Goldberg your your time sensitive issue is addressed and I have no objection to us working in parallel I don't think we need to wait for the gaming commission to start discussing allocation by category and I'm I hear mr. Goldberg's argument I don't find it particularly compelling because there's nothing to split and there's nobody running but I hear the argument and so I'm fine with us working in parallel yeah yeah I don't disagree with that right I think you know that's why I thought the sooner we discuss the split even if even if we use currently the old method until the regulations are changed there's nothing to say that for example let's just assume on June 1st we do a split and we change the percentage if we do nothing to say in my opinion and mr. Grossman you can correct me if I'm wrong that we can't come back in October or September if new regulations have been promulgated then we can't come back in September and address the split again this law doesn't say we can't address it twice in a year so we could come back in September it's okay now we have new regulations instead of doing it this way we're gonna put versus X percent readers X percent and the health and welfare X percent so I think we can we can have it both ways we can burn the candle of both ends I think mr. Goldberg I I think in terms of in terms of moving forward with the quote unquote new method but we would have to have some proposed language that we as a committee all agree upon in order to have that I guess submitted to the to the Commission and attorney Grossman you could you know provide any comments that you want but that's just my my thought processes is if we work in parallel with the the two issues you know we at least have to come to some sort of consensus on the actual language that's gonna be or that would be that would be submitted to the Commission yeah mr. Westman do we have to or do we have to or should we be proposing new records we'd be drafting regulations to supersede the old regulations regarding the split yeah I think that's what would happen obviously the staff can prepare something but it does certainly stand to reason that the horse race committee would be able to have a look at it first and sign off on it to make sure that it is what you are in fact proposing but yeah I don't I don't think there's any harm and moving in parallel you know with the assumption that we will present this to the Commission and they may very well go along with it so I don't think you have to wait necessarily for that to take place before moving forward with the new approach if that's what the committee wants to do so sorry go ahead no do you Mr. Chair go ahead you can go ahead no so listening to all of those comments and listening to both mr. Goldberg and mr. Savage say that they were in agreement that changing the way we calculate meaning we separate out the three I just wanted to add that I agree with that as well particularly because of persuasive arguments on the health of all their side okay all right okay all right so if we're working in conjunction to move forward on a parallel basis with with those two issues and we would need to place a vote on each of those two issues then in terms of talking about scheduling a meeting to vote on those two issues I'd like to hear from the committee members in terms of scheduling and I realize we're impacted by the fact that we really don't know what the timeline is going to be for live racing what my preference would be is is if the committee members do see that there is any sort of need for a change in the distribution that that vote take place hopefully prior to the commencement of the racing season I'm not trying this I'm sorry Emily we just by way of clarification am I hearing that we would have a vote to move for new regulations for the authorization to sort of tackle these items in a different way while we are in parallel developing the criteria or am I hearing that there's a feeling that we need the criteria beforehand before we can move for regulatory change because I think if we're moving to sort of petition the gaming commission to allow us the flexibility to consider these criteria in a different way I wouldn't push to move pretty quickly to do that since there does seem to be general consensus on this call and then we get to another time where we could sort of more fully consider the criteria and nail those down so I agree with that it's not even clear to me that we need a vote on the idea of just going with three categories I mean we've got a consensus that presumably can be passed on to the commission I do think we need a meeting to talk about the criteria per bucket and then I think we need and these don't have to be far from me other a meeting where we actually apply those criteria and come up with a new split I mean that seems to me it's a two-step process what other criteria like they set back in October of 2014 the criteria for the aggregate way we would set criteria now by bucket and then thereafter apply it to the facts on the ground I would just add that I don't think that the criteria don't need to go in the Commission regulations so that's something you can develop separately as a committee and work on but I think I agree with what everyone has said you could just set a meeting to develop the criteria and then ultimately to apply the criteria and it can all be done relatively quickly I think and so would we need a vote then a formal vote of this committee to petition the gaming Commission for regulatory change or is that something that can be done by consensus I think you could do it by consensus it seems like today you're working towards a consensus that you would like to pursue the so-called new approach and if that's the case then we as Commission staff can get started on drafting some amendments to the Commission's regulations and by the way they wouldn't have to be extensive for the committee to have a look at and for us to approach the Commission with and at the same time set up a meeting to look at those and also talk about the the criteria that you would apply in each of the categories as far as adjusting the actual split is concerned I think you should talk about that a little more here today too it's unclear to me that you really would even need to adjust the existing split if you were going to pursue the new approach so that is something it seems like you could leave in place with the understanding that you're we're working towards a new way of looking at it so and I think the two were put on the agenda today in the event that you decided not to pursue the new approach that then you would pivot into looking at the existing split and whether it's something you want to adjust or not but if you are deciding that you would like to pursue the new approach I don't I for one don't necessarily think you need to get into the existing split I think it is what it is you can leave it in place and just move from there yeah it's obvious that we can leave it in place it's been left in place for two years at a time in the past due to circumstances I just think that as a committee we're charged with a duty to look at the metrics as we decided in October of 2014 to look at them on an annual basis and if necessary to make adjustments we're running into the same this is just another unfortunately method of stalling the decision looking at last years because it's it's it's not gonna get done before raising starts if we have to look at the three the new approach or the three-tiered approach which I'm in favor of I think it's a good idea and the flexibility is good we can still we can still use the old method under the new method but we don't have to so I just thinking it's not it's something it's not gonna happen in 60 or 90 days you know maybe it will maybe I'll be happily surprised but I just don't I see racing starting with us having not looked at the old at this at the 2019 metrics and made any decisions on a new allocation which I know I know that's what my brother Mr. Savage would like and I understand that that the thoroughbreds would like to keep everything the way it is because the metrics are so clearly favor a reallocation of the split and I think we as a committee all went to the Commonwealth for the citizens of Massachusetts especially especially in light of these times to make a change we've already had legislative try to change take our percentage and knock it down from the 9% to 4% I'm not sure how anyone's gonna be able to defend 18 20 21 million dollars sitting in an account for an industry that's not even that's not operating and that and and I think the thoroughbreds are being short-sighted because they get the money the purse account keeps rising it's held in escrow if the legislature comes in and reduces the RHDF they say I you know what you don't need you know we're gonna give you 65% now that's all you need is the thoroughbreds aren't even racing they're not even operating we're gonna take away 35% now we come back next year or whenever the thoroughbreds start racing and now our pie is a 65% pie we have to divide that up and that would be unfortunate for both industries I think I think right now as a committee we need to protect the racehorse development fund that's our job I think we have failed if we sitting here next year and our fund is you know instead of 9% it's 4% or 6% or 8% if that pie starts shrinking because we don't do our work or do our job shame on us and I think it's been I think it's a short sight of everyone to say I just leave it the way it is that's not gonna work you know I appreciate all the thoroughbred comments they were wonderful every one of them I don't disagree with anything I'd like to see a facility no we've been hearing that now for years and that's great they should continue but the reality is right now it's it's we are where we are and they're looking at the future every thoroughbreds speaker talked about the future people where it is so the future is brighter chapter 23k section 60 talks about a retrospective look it says we look at the past and then that's how we make the adjustment and I you know Anthony Spada who spoke today I wish I had a recording of his comments in my law office in 2013 where he told me in no uncertain terms Peter we have to follow the statute we have to look at the metrics from 2009 1011 12 and that's the way it is so we got 25% the metrics have changed dramatically and the metrics are so much better for the standard reds now we should be getting more than 75% based on the thoroughbreds argument back in 2012 2013 so my problem with this is I don't think we're doing our job and I think we risk we're gonna risk our pie getting eaten by the legislature and if we do that if that happens my hands are clean I think we should take actions and make sure that doesn't happen and I think I think we're all not be honest everyone if we don't think that the legislature to say geez that 20 million dollars does thoroughbreds have when they're having a race in three years yeah that's not better for the homeless people or the people right millions are out of work that's not better for the people that aren't eating let's give it to them standard reds have spent every dollar of the money from the resource development fund since its inception every dollar every dollar is going to good use they won't take the money if it's going to good use and it's increasing open space and it's increasing the agrib the agri economics they won't take it but the way it's situated now millions of dollars every year going and sitting fallow we're going to lose our pie folks thank you for listening thank you mr. chairman yes just briefly I have no idea what that actually was in response to I don't particularly appreciate mr. Goldberg telling me what my views are but maybe he's got insights into me that I don't even know about but it's impossible to take the position that mr. Goldberg took today having listened to the people who testified today and it's not a matter of section 60 says look back it doesn't say that I wasn't around in 2012 so I don't know what he's talking about but section 60 does not say that in fact it's a racehorse development fund that is by definition forward-looking and this committee has taken that view in the past I mean I'll read from the minutes in October 2014 when this committee decided to set up an escrow for a non-racing breed and the reason it was done was quote to allow for and encourage the development of new facilities to ensure the continued racing of the breed so it's our guiding principle has always been that the money is meant to promote horse racing not some you know check the box off of last year oh race days oh race days I'll skip addressing the rest of it because I don't think it's particularly relevant to what we're what the agenda I got is about today thank you mr. Grossman I just wanted to kind of come back to you in terms of in terms of just the process if if the committee is is expressing a consensus with respect to this new method of consideration in terms of what is required to be submitted to the Commission should we have a either whether it's a proposed regulation or formal document or letter to the Commission that kind of sets forth the proposed new method you know in terms of they're taking a vote to thereby amend the regulations so I guess what I'm getting at is do we submit a consensus letter or do we do we actually need to schedule a meeting in order to take take a vote on it so well I'm I may even turn to Commissioner Cameron to weigh in on this as it's she and her colleagues who will have to vote on or have a look at the best approach but I don't know if you have a specific thought Commissioner well I think we need to correspond in some fashion and we've we've done this in many different ways over the years as a Commission I think the idea of a letter proposing a new regulation would be appropriate and and I thank you for your offer to maybe draft some language just outlining exactly what we're talking about here today the fact that we as a committee wish the Commission to to amend the regulation so that the committee has the flexibility to look at these three categories separately so I mean I think that's certainly appropriate to handle it in that manner and therefore do we need do we need to schedule a meeting of the committee in order to vote on that on that letter Mr. Grossman you mentioned earlier that you would be willing to draft language and that the committee could then in fact take a look and make sure that's what we all understood when we talk about reallocating for the three categories you know I think we're going to need another meeting anyway because we really do need to you know talk about what we're doing with those allocations so I think we could easily take a quick vote then on yes we we think this is appropriate mr. Grossman you tell me would you take would you get a draft out to two members and they could individually not comment obviously we don't want to have violations but they could get back to you with suggested language if what you had wasn't entirely what they were thinking and then that vote could be on that final draft what are your thoughts on that yeah I think that sounds like a sound approach actually we could do that get it ready get it all teed up for your next meeting for ratification if you will but at the same time you can also plan on discussing the actual criteria and the final vote as to what their criteria should be so you're ready to go to move quickly as to applying that criteria I think there's there's really no limit on how quickly we could move this whole process I think we can have all the documents prepared and and have everyone ready to go as quickly as you're reasonably able to do that so yes I think we can do all of these things in parallel essentially the reg as I said I don't think any regulatory amendment of the commission's regulations would be tremendously complex I don't think the letter needs to be tremendously complex I think the proposal is actually fairly simple and it is one that I could probably brief some of the commissioners on so they understand what we're talking about too and it you know if it is the committee's consensus that this is the best approach I think that would be a very persuasive starting point even though there's been no formal vote so that's that I think that's perhaps Mr. Chair and committee members what you should consider at this point is we'll draft a letter we'll draft amended regulations we'll circulate them to all the committee members for review you can schedule your next meeting whether it's today or shortly thereafter and we'll have a ratification or you can have a ratification vote then and discuss the any criteria and I guess my my question would be attorney Grossman would be in that discussion of the criteria would we then be able I guess could we at that point in time take a vote as to that proposed allocation like in other words to separate out the three categories and and have the separate percentages allocated between each category or do we need to have the regulation enacted first before we can vote on I guess it's just it's really it's just a recommendation so if we submitted all of it at the same time to the Commission could they enact the regulation the amendment to the regulations and also then take a vote to you know whatever recommendation we make at that point with the separation of the different categories you see what I'm getting at absolutely and I think you hit the nail right on the head Mr. Chair with the recommendation part what you were doing is making a recommendation to the Commission as to what the split should be and how it should be split and in theory they don't have to accept it and they could send it back to you so I don't think it would be presum presumptuous on your part to send a recommendation to the Commission that includes a new way of splitting up the fund if that's how the committee is so inclined to move forward in the in the in the name of time and consistent Mr. Goldberg's concerns I think we can get all this moving in a fairly streamlined fashion without offending any sensibilities or anything like that absolutely okay thank you attorney Grossman I think that's helpful Mr. Chair we typically have because we have consensus for a new way of allocating we typically have a short brief from each of the representatives of their breed kind of outlining what they think that split should be in this particular case I think it would be three recommendations and that's typically helpful to other committee members to really understand the nuances of this decision we have to make do you think that would be appropriate in this case that they prepare such a document so that at our next meeting we'll have facts and figures and rationale to consider and you're speaking of just you know we all have the the position papers that they previously submitted but just something like an executive summary from each just to yes and you know with regard to each because the the previous papers speak to one split number as opposed to three categories I personally think that would be helpful to hear from because of course we're not just hearing from these two individuals we're hearing from the entire industry about their thoughts on these three categories I that would be helpful to me and again it doesn't have to be warranties it could be just as you suggest an executive summary yeah yes so so my I guess I guess I got slightly lost or I thought what we were considering or maybe only I was considering a two-step process where we decide what the criteria are for each category and then do the briefing around how to apply those criteria and not to throw it another wrinkle in here but I heard a number of interesting things today from our speakers for example that there are 35 breeding races run by the standard breads I've been unable to reconstruct that I've been to the SOM website so like when we're going to talk about breeding it would seem to me we need to know how the breeding money is being spent on each side to assess its effectiveness for example or on the health and welfare I heard today something that changed my understanding of the standard breads program which I thought was was purely the pension program and that no one is immediately dependent upon that program but now apparently there's eyeglasses and there were two emergencies so I think when we get into this issue of comparative health and welfare and comparative breeding we're going to need as a committee a good understanding of how those programs work and I don't know that but wouldn't that be your responsibility to speak to the folks in the thoroughbred industry and and have that information as part of your executive summary to this issue. I can't get the standard bread information. We presented the information we had maybe was two meetings our first meeting this year you specifically asked for health and welfare of each group and I presented health and welfare analysis which included the eyeglass part and included the vanilla part of the emergencies it was in there and I think we may have provided something in writing while I'm not sure about that so we've been through this before but I think Attorney Savage is right I'd like a lot more information regarding the thoroughbred health and welfare program I don't know who the people are that are getting these benefits every month not just that I appreciate people are getting them that's great but I like to know who they are you know I think that we all have a right to know who's getting this money and I think that's a great point because we would like to know as well like we we have a sense that we're well we know we're helping hundreds of people and you saw the letters that came in that are poor and on the edge and depending on these payments and as I understand it and if Mr. Goldberg corrects me or tells me it wrong it just makes my point that we need more information that that the folks that qualify under the pension plan for example would include owners who are wealthier than the people that are in our program that may be relevant to this committee and drivers yes who are also often owners in the standard world yeah they own houses they own dogs they own lots of things and horses including horses but this is my point here is like I don't think we as a committee know enough here to be just all right let's let's vote and and so I don't know what what you all think about the best way for for Peter to be comfortable that he knows what he needs to know about the thoroughbred breeding and health and welfare programs and that I'm comfortable and everyone else in the committee is comfortable that we know enough about the standard breads like I I think I heard today that it was a million seven spread over 35 races but I thought that number they were getting was a million eight or whatever and that may not matter that may be administrative money it's probably totally fine I just I literally don't know and I don't know how we can meet our fiduciary duty without knowing okay so then I guess is there a consensus between the two industries then that there'd be an executive summary that would be prepared and presented to our committee prior to the next scheduled meeting and obviously that executive committee executive summary excuse me would be shared between the two industries no that's the opposite of what I okay that just was exploring which is I don't think we can get to that okay the summary of how to apply factors when we haven't set criteria and we don't know the underlying facts like I think we need to have a meeting discuss how these programs work have a consensus amongst ourselves that like you know maybe it doesn't matter whether the recipients are in state or out of state or maybe it does if it does to the committee then that's criteria if it doesn't it's not a criteria maybe it doesn't matter that it's means tested and so that's a criteria or not a criteria maybe it doesn't matter that the money is going to be paid later whereas other money is being paid now like just to be totally blunt about it we're paying people every single week money they need we should get the disproportionate share health and welfare right now then if we need as a committee to true it up down the road because they had to defer some payments retirement plan that nobody's collected from or vested in that's also something the committee can do but I think we really need to have an understanding of where this money is going so that we can meet our responsibility it would I think it would be tragic to do some sort of adjustment or even maintain it where such such that actual horsemen who were in poverty on the thoroughbred side stop getting checks so the pension fund on the standard bread side can be funded for somebody someday to collect a pension out of state that I think no sense to me I agree with I agree with Mr. Savage that we should know where all the dollars are going and to who they're going to I like that I have no problem with that that both both industries should put in black and white you got a million dollars for your health and welfare how did you spend a million dollars and who did it go to not it went to poor horsemen but to me that's yeah but the names are blacked out I'd like to know because I've heard all kinds of things about a poor thoroughbred horsemen who are getting nothing who are really upset by a lot of what's going on because they're getting nothing so I think we Mr. Savage is correct I think we need to know exactly how the money's being spent with the salaries that I need that people are that are working how the money's being spent is a good thing I have no problem with getting my industry to put together how we're spending our health and welfare money how we're spending our breeding money absolutely Joe no problem with that okay how it's being spent and the economic benefit to the Commonwealth we can figure then figure out you know if money being spent upstate New York is better than money being spent at playing bill okay that's fine we can make adjustments I think knowing where the money is going is a good thing the purse money well we know where the purse money is going that's the easy one but the health and welfare that's 80% that's not you know what I'm trying to delay all this see again we're talking about 20% with the that there's an issue one because the purse money is not an issue we know where it's going theirs is going in an account ours is going out the purses it's the 16% for the breeders and I think we should we all have a right to know where every dollar is gone for 2019 let's put it out there in black and white and the same thing for health and welfare I'd like to know where every dollar is gone and who it's who it went to on the thoroughbred site and the standard red site equally no problem with that but four months so we're in the same place essentially other than we followed the chairman's guidance to black out the names I don't know if there's an executive session option or Todd what you think the right is on personal identifying information it doesn't matter to me but I'm not the recipient of the money and we're you know this there's privacy concerns but however council guides us to get you the information the committee information I'm fine I don't I guess I guess I would say you know in terms of the privacy information I guess I would say just in terms of if you talk about the concept of an executive summary and you're both in consensus that that okay yeah we need to know where this money has gone I guess there's maybe a difference in what I thought which was you know okay so this executive summary would essentially say you know these are the these are the dollars that we receive these are how those dollars were spent and this is the need that we have in this particular category you know for the you know whether it be for the coming year or the coming future years in terms of how those funds would be spent you know in the future and what they would be anticipated for and I think you've kind of alluded to some of that because obviously with the the escrowed purse funds you know that the proposed developers of the racetracks you know are looking at that figure in terms of what would be made available to them should any one of them be granted a license so I guess so you know can you do the executive summary or is it specifically that you're both looking at you want to know who who actually received in which particular organization received you know the line item dollars that were spent by that respective industry so I'm not as obsessed by the line item as Mr. Goldberg is I just want to know how the programs are working because like I believe them that there were 35 races I just can't find them and I want to see like where it went and then you can see who got the money for breeding it's it's simple but and and as to the executive summary on the bucket for purses well that we've fully briefed already that's the stuff that Peter and I put in long ago so that that doesn't take me additional time and we can brush it up for you and it's the it's the Dr. Gray report and it's the investors and and it's important but it's it's been baked these are two new areas that we've never addressed directly past and so it seems to me again that we need to talk amongst ourselves as to how do we evaluate these buckets what are the criteria and then apply them to the facts and the executive summary you described of each breed saying here's what we need is one half of what I view the executive summary to be but the other half is in comparison to okay relationship to the other breed I think that that's really helpful feedback that the brief will perhaps be more meaningful once we've decided on which criteria we want to consider and I think in terms of the logistics sort of moving with a you know a two-step process may actually be helpful as well in that we can schedule a meeting to you know send a letter requesting a regulatory change to the commission and to discuss the criteria and then reconvene at a later date maybe two to three weeks down the road at which point we might know whether or not the commission is willing to entertain an emergency regulatory change and we can then apply the criteria to the new method or at that point if we're not getting sorry I have some background noise you might be hearing that's right okay if we all get an emergency change then we could apply sort of the old criteria using the old method do we need to call DSS everybody good that's why all right so don't don't worry about that so um right so then I'm I'm hearing one thing I mean in terms of you know with respect to establishing the criteria so and Mr. Savage and Mr. Goldberg you can you can comment based on your understanding of what you both perceive the process to be and that is I was thinking that there'd be an executive summary that would be submitted to the committee prior to the vote of or the next meeting of the committee and then but I think what you both are you both saying that you want those executive summaries submitted and then we'd have a discussion about the criteria and then take a vote so my vision is a meeting on the criteria with no executive summaries submitted a consensus on the criteria and then another meeting that would actually do the split applying the criteria to the facts for which there would be an executive summary by each side I would just add one other thing in there Mr. Chair if that's helpful and I think this should be open to any committee members not not just Mr. Savage and Mr. Goldberg but those those two members in particular but I would say that prior to the next meeting anyone who has a proposed set of criteria that don't get into the specifics as to how the criteria should be applied and this is what Mr. Savage I think is talking about we don't want to get into that part of it but just what the criteria should be might be helpful for the committee members to look at in advance of the first part of the meeting that we talked about so if it's a two-step process as Ms. Katanik mentioned which I think makes a lot of sense the first step of the process would be determining what the criteria should be so if any committee members have any recommendations as to what the criteria should be and can circulate that to staff not to the whole not to the whole committee but just to staff that would be helpful as a starting point and then the second part would be once you have the criteria that we set up a second meeting whether it's two or three weeks later or when have you and that's when an executive summary I think would probably be helpful as to how the new criteria should be applied and that's when you get into things like how the money is presently being spent and what the needs are and what have you so that's that's kind of my takeaway and the refined thought I had on the best way to proceed. Mr. Chairman if I may yeah we talk about new criteria and putting the the other criteria for this new method of addressing the split we're not suggesting that we that we rewrite the statute are we that we rewrite section 60 I don't think that's what we're trying to do okay so I think we still have to follow the law unless I'm wrong Tony Grossman let me know I think we need to follow 23k section 60 b where criteria were laid out for this committee when addressing a split the statute does state these criteria including but not limited to we know what that means so but but this that you know this statue was was was drafted after years and years and years of people probably better than me even me and Mr. Savage believe it or not looking at looking at other states other jurisdictions and coming up with criteria that were important and were a good method of addressing these types of split so I just want to make sure that when I'm looking to rewrite the statute but we're looking to use the statute to help us and take the criteria and say okay purses you know for purses it should be these three parts of it for health and welfare it should be this piece of the puzzle so I don't think I don't think this are looking at new criteria we're looking at taking the criteria that were enumerated in the statute and apply them separately to each of the three tiers so so when the committee met in October of 2014 it enacted under the including but not limited to uh 12 whatever whatever a through o is additional criteria and that that's what I envision here is is just exactly what they did in 2014 to the extent this committee agrees that additional criteria are relevant because of the new methodology we should agree to that to the extent the old criteria are applicable in the statutory criteria are applicable then we should also of course apply that we didn't we didn't change the statute back then what we said was we use the criteria given to us by the legislature and said in the future here are things that we think which are sort of if you look at them Joe and and that the camera will will back me up in some shortish we were there we did that they were all sort of fleshed out from the original criteria there weren't there weren't there weren't there wasn't a number of cats in the barn as a criteria all those discretionary criteria had to do with live racing so it was pool size I don't remember them it was pool size it was live it was things that were it was more specific to the criteria that are already in the statute so we weren't creating new ones we were fleshing out basically what we were asked to do by the legislature I mean you know I'm not I don't want to rewrite the statute I don't think we have to I think we have to stick to the statute yes I think there's some there's some latitude and leeway but I don't think we're we want to go down the road or saying well and now we should look at you know the number of housing starts in massachusetts no and I think you know that the hypotheticals hand but not not particularly relevant um the third statutory criteria is the relative needs of each horse racing industry so I mean I think that you know gives gives the latitude for you to do what you did in 2014 which is add additional related criteria now I completely agree with mr. Goldberg the criteria that we're coming up with is from the moon and is contrary to the statute or not consistent with the statute absolutely not going to adopt it but um I think there are some things like I'll just throw out one that that occurs to me like do the the the main benefits of say the breeding program or health and welfare go stay with the massachusetts or go out of massachusetts I think that's consistent with the five criteria I think we ought to consider making that a criteria here so that's that's what I'm envisioning I agree that I agree that the breeding races should be raised in mass and that's a better thing for the for the state obviously so that's I don't know that's that's part of the racing criteria that we've dealt with so yeah I mean I've no issue with those so in terms of planning and and you know kind of moving forward and and you know scheduling scheduling of meetings so I you know my initial thought was that it could be accomplished it could hopefully you know or that it could be accomplished in one meeting but I take it there's there's a consensus among the members that that these four items as I'm looking at them be taken over the course of two meetings and that is that you first got the amendment to the regulations which would allow both the committee and the commission to the gaming commission to consider the new method of looking at each of the three categories and then the second part of that is also establishing whether it be additional criteria or some criteria when you're looking at those respective percentage allocations and that would be the first meeting the second meeting would be a review of the executive summaries that are submitted based on the criteria the committee has established and then from there taking a vote as to whether or not there needs to be any change in the respective allocations that sounds right to me sounds right to me too okay commissioner cameron yep that sounds appropriate thank you miss katana i have some more background noise so okay sorry that's okay you agree okay all right okay all right all right so then with that I guess in terms of now you know when we look at item three and then we were looking at item four on our agenda so I think we're moving on to the discussion of next steps to now say okay we're gonna start to schedule these meetings to then have put this plan into place so I would call upon the members to you know propose in terms of what they need I mean obviously attorney Grossman with the proposed language that we'd like to submit and then with the committee members each you know at their own volition to be able to submit their own criteria that can be considered for the next scheduled meeting and attorney Grossman just in terms of your timing you know in terms of putting together some proposed language what would you think you'd need for that type of time I think we are let's say today's the 14th you know the I would say by the last week of May okay you know maybe towards the end of the week if there's availability okay I mean this is the ambitious and there's there's let's be clear about that and there's there's nothing wrong with that if everyone's okay with with that approach and and I will certainly do my part if that's if that's the direction we want to move in and I would say for that the last week of May I think would be adequate at least on my part to get what I need to get done okay and then to the committee members looking at you know your proposed criteria what timeline would you be looking at to be able to submit something so that all of the other committee members can review at the next meeting I mean after after the end of May meeting how long do we need to put together our executive summaries is that the question I don't think we said we'd schedule a meeting at the end of May I think it's just I just was kind of trying to get it from Attorney Grossman's perspective you know how how long he needs to be able to submit something to us to be able to to review okay and and then as well as the committee members with respect to their submissions of the criteria and then you know the scheduling of the meeting to take the votes on those two items well let me let me just refine what I said Mr. Chairman they may have misunderstood I think I can have my part done by the end of the next week and circulated to the members I was thinking if you wanted to have a meeting the last week of May if everyone was on board with that I think we could pull it off all right but that would yeah and and can I just make one other point Mr. Chairman real quick and committee members I also just want to be mindful of course of the open meeting law and when people submit things we can't submit documents to other members that include your opinion about how things should go down so if you have proposals for criteria I would recommend that you submit them to Ms. Bedard or myself and we can try to synthesize them without indicating who's opinion it is so people can start thinking about some of the criteria and Dr. Leipan of course too who just popped up on my screen okay so we can try to synthesize some of the criteria so you at least have something to think about but you really can't have you know Commissioner Cameron says this is what the the criteria should be because that would be a violation of the open meeting so if you want to shoot for the last week of May if members think they might be able to submit some comments to Dr. Leipan, myself, Shara, I think we could pull it off okay I can get comments submitted by the end of May but I can't do a meeting on the 28th or 29th okay like I could get comments in by the 28th to God or the first week of June perhaps that I can do I'm available whenever the committee would like to meet I'll make myself available with this remote access I could be anywhere and join the meeting so I'm available for for an hour for you folks anytime I'll do it on a Sunday if you'd like I would be but I'm literally driving back from Florida and I won't be able to do it okay those two days are all right uh I actually did a Zoom meeting with someone that was driving back from Georgia this week but I'm not saying you should do that Joe so I'm okay and we don't want a distracted driver no no he's in the back seat he's not driving I am definitely driving it's we'll share offline why this is should we look at our calendars for the first week in June yeah and I was gonna throw out there as as far as June you know do Thursday seem obviously seem to be amenable to the committee members we do have a commission meeting scheduled now for the 4th of June okay so it's it's kind of every other Thursday that the schedule frees up for uh for us okay do any other days that work week for the committee members third works for me the the third work the fourth and fifth aren't really the third works fine for me same here okay the third works for me as well June 3rd Miss Katana uh that works for me in the afternoon I have a 10 30 to 11 30 okay how do your afternoons look for the other committee members like I have availability I can be available we thinking one o'clock what are we thinking one o'clock or two o'clock would that work what one or two two o'clock how about two o'clock okay we're two two o'clock work for everyone yes it it does all right okay all right so we'll we'll schedule then a meeting on June 3rd at two o'clock and at that meeting we will consider the proposed amendment to the regulations for the new method of the allocations for the racehorse development fund and then as well as the criteria for those allocations to be considered so agreeable okay and and the committee members are going to submit to mr. Grossman their proposed their thoughts on the matter and he will synthesize as he as he said yes yes yes so should we submit those to Shara and you can send them to Shara and copy me or Dr. Leipman as long as it doesn't go to Commissioner Cameron or the other committee members that's fine okay great great then in terms of the next part of it is is then talking about you know the the timeline to establish for executive summaries to then be submitted and then you know in essence and then you know considering a vote that would be a recommendation to the gaming commission based on the proposed new criteria are we good did we decide to that we're gonna submit and maybe Tony Grossman are we gonna submit our proposed amendment to the regulations at the same time as we propose any new split if if we do or separately I think you probably do them separately the we can get the ball rolling on the amendment side and after after the third if we agree in that ship you suggest shipping that to the gaming commission yeah we can get that moving and obviously if the commission has any concerns or objections we'll bring that back to the committee's attention and we can try to refine again what we're talking what the proposal is but I think you the committee can operate you know hoping slash assuming that things will go consistent with the way you've discussed it today just any name of time thank you I just wanted to be clear Mr. Chairman on the yeah the timing and the steps so we don't have that issue thank you okay all right um Mr. Chairman so I guess sorry no I just think if I could get three weeks after we set the criteria to get my executive summary and that would be great so that would be June 24th okay Mr. Goldberg is that acceptable to you whatever Mr. Savage needs I you know the problem that I have is I mean so June 24th for submitting them and then then I'm suggesting what a week later for a meeting correct yeah we're into we're into July you know I guess I was hopeful of getting this getting this sort of done into the gaming commission before the end of June but you know that's that's the time he needs I'm okay with that and then okay then scheduling a meeting in July then at that point what works so if we say June 24th is when the executive summaries would be submitted is that agreeable yes okay all right and then scheduling a meeting in July how about Wednesday July 1st to travel you should schedule that week okay next with the next Wednesday the eighth work I could do Wednesday the eighth the eighth this works for me um that for us is the um the week before the week in between Mr. Grossman help me out with this that I think that Wednesday would be an agenda setting right but those are short and typically done at 10 in the morning correct that's that's correct yes so um so I'm sorry go ahead no so I would be available after um I guess I'm afternoon is better is what I'm saying because of some commission responsibilities so with two o'clock work for everyone on I guess we're looking at July 8th yes that's fine for me it would be for me as well okay good here okay all right so Ms. Katana yes that works for me July 8th okay so July 8th at 2 p.m. then okay okay okay all right so we've got a plan for the next steps I think you know also on on July 8th I would say at that point in time we'd obviously need to talk about the schedule you know moving forward from that point in time in terms of in terms of how we address um you know the the scheduling of meetings for for any sort of consideration that needs to be made at at that point so um so at this point in time we've got the schedule moving forward so June uh I guess what we would do now is uh is there any other discussion that any of the committee members needs to have at this point in time but just just to clarify because so I'm not so I'm sure the second meeting July 8th we're going to review the executive summaries yeah vote as to a potential new allocation new split correct the word vote will be in that agenda correct yes yes all right god thank you all right okay all right anyone else all right do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting at this point in time so moved second second okay all right and then let me run through so Mr. Savage yes Mr. Goldberg yes commissioner Cameron yes miss Katana and Fitzgerald yes thank you all thank you all I really appreciate your time and efforts in doing this so thank you mr chair excellent job thank you very much mr chairman and chairman and the idea of public comment that was I think that was very important to the community thank you thank you thank you okay thank you thank you be well stay safe bye bye you too