 They are in attendance and we'll start with commissioner Cameron. Yes, good afternoon, everyone. Now this is Gail Cameron representing the gaming commission and I am present for this meeting. An attorney Katonik. Hi, I'm I'm like a tonic. I'm the representative from the treasurer's office and I am present for this meeting. Mr. umbrella. Hi, I'm Paul umbrella executive director for New England HBPA and representing the thoroughbred New England horseman and I am present. Attorney Goldberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Peter Goldberg, representing the standard industry, the HHA and the and the SO I'm the breeders. I am present for the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Brian Fitzgerald, the governor's designee and chair of the committee. The next item on the agenda is the approval of our minutes from October 7th, 2020. I believe those meeting minutes have been shared with you prior to this meeting for a pre read. So I just really want to add an opportunity to review those minutes. Mr. Chair, I know that I have and I'd be happy to move that the meetings, the meeting minutes be approved with any technical corrections that may be necessary. Okay. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Okay. Second rate. Great. So since this is a virtual meeting, we have to take a roll call vote. Commissioner Cameron. I. Attorney Katanik. Hi. Mr. Ambrillo. Oh, you're on mute. You're right. Sorry. Hi. Okay. Attorney Goldberg. Hi. And Fitzgerald. Okay. So the minutes are approved. The next item on the agenda is a review of the racehorse development fund updated revenue. And I don't know if the committee members have. Had a chance to take a look at the updated revenue figures are always posted a monthly on the. Mass gaming.com website. Attorney Grossman. Do you have a, are you able to share that link? By any chance? Yes, I can post that up here right now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And I guess I would just go probably towards the bottom of the, the first page. Or actually the second page. It's noted as a second page. This one here. Yeah. So, so that way the committee members can see the total allocation over time. And the differences between the allocations between the thorough breads and the standard breads. In addition to that, I guess I would go to. Page. Okay. So that was August 27th. And if you just scroll up a little bit more. So you can just see the figures there in terms of that was as of our last adjustment. Last summer when we voted to adjust the split at that time. One thing I would just note is I just do my own calculations. But I just kind of noted in terms of what I see from these figures that. Roughly in 2019. There was just over $18 million that was allocated to the fund. And obviously with the pandemic affecting. World in 2020. The revenues. Were diminished to just over 10 million. So one thing I would just notice is. Dr. Lightbaum. If there's any other comments that you want to make to the revenue figures. No, it looks like there's about 19 million in the balance of the fund right now. That's as of January 21st. And that's our latest. That was reported in February. Thank you. Any of the committee members have any questions. I do not. I'm well aware of these numbers. So I guess we can. Move on to the next item on the agenda. Which is item four. Review and discussion of the present resource development of the fund. And then we'll move on to the next item. And then we'll move on to the next item. Which is based upon discussions between the thoroughbred and standard bread industries. So I know that this item. This was mentioned. Briefly at our. The public hearing that we had. Last month. And I guess what I would do is. Turn it over to. And or Mr. Umbrella to. Kind of enlighten the other members in terms of what your discussions haven't, haven't tailed. Yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. So. I'm very pleased to report that. After. Nine years of discussions. Nine years of back and forth between all. And I think we're not going to have any of those. Any further discussions. Okay. And I guess I'll just rest of this committee. And upon the urging for those. I eat those nine years. We've been urged. See if they throw, throw a bread and stand up. It's good. Good at actually get together. And discuss these issues and try to work out a resolution. And agreement, so to speak. With the understanding that. 60 is intended to help the horse racing industry in Massachusetts, ultimately help the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but to help the horse racing industry. In Massachusetts, we have two breeds, we have thoroughbred horse racing and standard-bred horse racing. We've had that, they both go back many, many, many years and the history of both has been well documented by this committee and its members over the past nine years. It's a pretty storied history on both sides and I think it's not, it's important to point out that the horse racing industry is important in Massachusetts and it just so happens that there's two different breeds that race or at least have been racing in the past and this is why this committee is put together by the statue, by section 60 to come up with a split that was fair, that was fair and we also, this committee back in early 2012 talked about that it wasn't a static discussion, it wasn't a one and done so to speak, it was a discussion that we all decided most likely needed to be reviewed and looked at on an annual basis as the state of the horse racing industry in Massachusetts would be fluid, would continue to be fluid for many years. So that's what we've done, this committee has come back every year, looked at the metrics from the prior year, seen what has happened to the, to both industries and made the best adjustments I think that we could under the circumstances. Mr. Umbrella and myself got together weeks ago and started discussing these issues in advance of the 2021 review, looking back at the 2020 numbers. What we tried to do was take into account not just the statute, not just section 60 of 23K and all the metrics that go into the split, but take into account what's transpired over the last nine years, transpired what's going on with the thoroughbred industry currently, the standard red industry currently, and take into account all of the factors and there's been many that have come up in this committee's discussions over the last eight or nine years. The five criteria that were listed in the statute, and of course as we all know and are reiterated, those criteria are not limited, we're not limited to those criteria. So we've always looked past and above and beyond the five stated main criteria. And as everyone knows, the state of the two industries has changed dramatically over the last six or seven years. I believe that the Resource Development Fund has been a wonderful thing for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a wonderful opportunity for horse racing in Massachusetts. The state of the standard red industry has risen as the money has gone to good use, the money has gone to the use for breeding standard red resources, training them, keeping open space in Massachusetts. It has really gone to obviously to the purses, obviously to health and welfare and to the breeding. All the metrics for the standard reds have risen quite substantially over the last five or six years. They've gone up in a very positive fashion. It keeps rising and that's very good. We're not where we want to be or need to be from the standpoint of doing the best for the Commonwealth, but we're certainly on our way as an industry. Unfortunately, the thoroughbred industry for various reasons, it doesn't have a place to race and has not been racing. We've discussed this. We've sort of discussed it to death over the last couple of years, I think. What Mr. Umbrella and I tried to do was, again, sit down and look at all the criteria, look at the history and look at the present, the numbers from 2020, the metrics, and look at the future and try to come up with what we feel is the best way to split the RHDF between the two industries. We both feel very strongly that the new method of doing this, the three buckets as we've termed them, has allowed us. Part of the reason why we did this last year was just for this reason, to be able to make the split more effective for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and more effective for both industries. That's what we did. Mr. Umbrella and I spent many, many hours discussing this, going back and forth, and I understand his needs for the health and welfare for the thoroughbred trainers and jockeys. That's important, as well as what he's trying to do for the breeding and, of course, what he's trying to do for horse racing as well, for live racing for the thoroughbred. So we came up with an agreement between these, between the two industries, that the three buckets would be split as far as the health and welfare percentage would be split 50-50 this year. And that was, we talked about that last year as well. So we're suggesting a split of 50 percent to the standard breeds and 50 percent to the thoroughbreds for the health and welfare portion. On the breeder's side, on the breeder's bucket, if you will, we've come up with a 75 percent to the standard breads and a 25 percent of the split to the thoroughbreds. And where the hope, again, is that it'll keep the standard breed and the same thing with the health and welfare. The hope is that 50-50 split will allow both industries to at the very least keep what they're giving to their membership, to the participants, to keep that going. I don't know. Can you all still see me and Amy? Okay. And the same thing on the breeder's side, you know, the breeding in Massachusetts for the standard breeds has really taken off. The number of mares, the number of foals, number of races has really been terrific. And we're hoping that the small increase of the 75 percent will help that part of the industry continue to thrive and also provide some money for the thoroughbreds who are trying to continue to encourage breeding even without live racing. As far as the purse bucket is concerned, right now there's no racing for thoroughbreds. So we both felt that the need for continued money to be put into a purse account substantially less than it has been in the last year or two. So the agreement that we came up with is for the purse percentage, 92 percent of the RHDF monies for purses goes to the standard bred industry with 8 percent continuing to go to the thoroughbreds for their purses. I'll let Mr. Umbrella add anything if he'd like and certainly wanting to take any questions from anybody. Yep, no. And just to add because you reiterated kind of pretty much what we talked about for the last couple of weeks and is just that, right? But this has been around for nine years. We've had these discussions just that by breaking out the split into three buckets has just given us that opportunity. But you know, I keep hearing it, you know, one of our biggest frustrations is, and it's no intent of the thoroughbred industry itself is, it's just that there is no thoroughbred racing, but that doesn't mean, you know, the doors are closed, especially on the health and well for the breeding aspect. If not just the opposite, and I can elaborate some details on that. And that at the same time, we know we are talking about, you know, Sturbridge, Wareham, racetrack investors actively engaged, talking with both the commission and should be with this committee. Some have sent letters in in the past. And unfortunately, because of COVID, right? Even I can tell you at a 50-50 split, the way COVID, if numbers don't adjust, or and I've been very vocal with this, with this committee before in significant trouble, and we'll have to, you know, take some drastic measures. Some hope and things do get back to some level of normalcy. And as Chairman Fitzgerald opened up the meeting is, you know, we went from 18 million to 10 million. That's that shows you what we dealt with last year. So, you know, again, just that the thoroughbred industry, and we've talked about this with prior criteria, doesn't mean because there's no racing, the thoroughbred industry doesn't have to theoretically still survive the Massachusetts. And I can tell you prior to this meeting, we're already working on the Breeders Board with submission initiatives for campaigns, ads. There's estimates I don't want to misspeak that we are potentially looking at up to eight or more foals, which is a significantly large number than in the past of those numbers, potentially coming to Massachusetts and being dropped. So, you know, again, we're still alive and kicking, but just that we looked at all the, all the, you got to look at the past, right? And we did kind of look at what the future was going to entail. And we both, again, when we came up with these, this the conclusion of these numbers. Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions if I'm happy to jump in. First things first, I think it's important that that our representatives from each breed have communicated and have really started the work of this committee. I think from my, from my standpoint, is there documentation as to all of the, how you came to these numbers? You know, I think it is important that we as a committee do our due diligence. And we take a look at not only hearing more about what you two have come up with, but some of the metrics that have helped us in the past. And, you know, I know Dr. Leipam has been able to provide us many more numbers, a number of races, the purses, number of licenses, all of the things that, you know, we need to do as a committee to make sure our work is, is thorough before we are able to send it over the legislature and then to the gaming committee. You know, number of people that are benefiting from the health and welfare benefits, I thought was really beneficial last year to learn about that so that we, we are able to make good decisions about this. I value the work that you've done, but I don't think that's, especially without a complete document that tells us exactly how you examined all these numbers. I'm just not a comfortable stopping here without doing our own due diligence as a committee. Attorney Katana, did you want to comment? I think that's a very reasonable position. I mean, I'm happy to hear that shifting to the methodology of looking at the three buckets individually has given the parties the space to come together and propose an agreement. But I would, to Commissioner Cameron's point, like to understand a little bit better how the parties reached the proposed splits. Mr. Gilbert, do you want to add to that summer? Sure. So, so part of it was, as we did discuss, so at the last meeting we did because of the, the extensive data, the criteria we submitted for the health and welfare bucket, we did on the thoroughbred side get an advantage of a 60-40 split, but we've also discussed at that meeting if I go back and recall discussions were in fairness going forward is that bucket going forward for stability. It's the word here is stability should always be a 50-50 split, right? So that's where we more or less came up with that. I need some form, especially during COVID, with stability to know, month to month, week to week, I can figure out what's coming in and how we adjust. Now, as far as the health and welfare itself, we've submitted, or I have last year, which hasn't, much hasn't changed from the fall. And if anything, our numbers probably increased our by-laws, all our members that benefit and how they qualify and are eligible for those benefits for life insurance, for old age assistance, what makes a member qualified, the health program, our eyeglasses, all that is pretty much status quo. And if anything, we've had more members sign up for life insurance and or old age. So hence my concern during COVID that my numbers are going to get a lot tighter. So that was again looking at the criteria for that bucket. As far as the breeding bucket, again, other than the full numbers looking back that are being down, not much has changed from those buckets. But in fairness, we know we're not for the thoroughbred industry. Again, on the breeding side, the doors aren't closed. If anything, we're still doing and as even Dr. Lightbaum knows is that we are looking with our breeder's bill that's out there, HD 1017, which I'm feeling more and more confident after six years this year looks like this should pass. That's going to kick out our program, but that's for the future, not looking back. The fact that I said we have more foals looking at the future. So I needed in some sense again to show stability that there's going to be enough money to pay as even Mr. Goldberg knows the 8% for administrative costs just to keep your doors open. And then the fact that showing those that someone who might want to come and drop a fallen Massachusetts or breed on our side more so as bleak as things are, and we're trying to turn that around, we need that sense of stability. So we came up with that percentage. And then as far as when we talk about, and I'll jump ahead with the whole purse bucket, I keep hearing money grab, money grab, money grab, and I will admit our lobbyists for the last six, seven, eight years fought to secure that resource development fund even during a pandemic. I hope that continues. I felt that if at the time, because we're looking back that the standard breads obviously could benefit with their program at the time being, without that large amount of funding going into the first bucket, we came up with the 92, 8%. And what I would recommend for this committee, and I was going to ask Council Grossman to reconsider again, because I've been being very vocal about this, and this is also something that Attorney Goldberg and myself talked about is that if you really want to preserve a racetrack investor, Sturbridge, Wareham coming into Massachusetts, this committee as a committee should be looking at securing the resource development fund, escrowing that money. Because by doing that, regardless of the 92, 8%, you're now assuring that the Wareham folks and the Sturbridge folks, which I continuously communicate with, that would just reassure them that they have the kickstart of that 19, 20 million, probably by the time we're done this year, to kick off a somewhat of a meet once the racetrack is built. And again, because we look back and not forward, a racetrack would have to be up and running and operable for a given year unless we make some sort of exception. And this committee has an emergency meeting. We would have to look at what, let's say 2022, if someone got their track up and running, we would have to look and see what that program would look like as far as the number of races. So all that factored in as to how we came up with these numbers. I don't know if you want anything else? I do think the numbers are important for the committee to look at, not just two members of the committee. And I just feel like I still don't have a good understanding of how you got there because you didn't mention that you looked at these factors and what numbers led you to this. And I do think it's important that we see every year, you know, there are many, many stakeholders in racing on the thoroughbred side. There is not, there is not just one group. There are many groups that are very, very interested in this. And I think it's so important for this committee to take the time, to do the work, to look at the numbers, to make sure, and it's not that I don't believe what you're saying, it's just that I'd like to see how many people are benefiting from health and welfare. You said those numbers have gone up. I would, you know, it would be nice to see that exactly where the dollars have gone over this year. This is a new year we're looking at. So I would like to see those numbers. I would like, I know Dr. Leipam can pull together the numbers that she does typically every year. And I know that your associations can pull those numbers. I'm not asking for a 30-page brief, but just some numbers that helped you get to these, these are very different numbers than what this committee has decided on in the past. So I just, I believe we need more due diligence here. And just for clarification, so the present split for health and welfare benefits was 60 to the thoroughbreds, 40 to the standard-breds. And your proposal is to amend that to a 50-50 split. The breeders was 70% to the standard-breds, 30% to the thoroughbreds. And you're amending that or proposing to amend that to 75, 25. And the current purse allocation is 70% to the standard-breds and 30% to the thoroughbreds with a 92% split to the standard-breds and 8% to the thoroughbreds. Correct? Correct. That's correct. And I can certainly, I can certainly appreciate Commissioner Cameron's request for documentation. You know, and that's, we're always, I'm always caught between, you know, trying to do what everyone asks to get along and try to figure this out and to be thorough. And I get that. And we've come back with 30-some odd page or more reports every year. But a big, and I get that, Commissioner Cameron, and I don't, I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment. But as far as, you know, the health and welfare and the breeders, we're talking about very small changes on both of those. The only change is of any significance right now is the purse bucket, right? Going from 70% to 92%. And the biggest part I think, I think Mr. Umbrella stated correctly, it's in keeping everything stable. Keeping things stable. And we've talked about that stability for many, many years. And that's how horse racing as an owner, trainer, breeder is not a one-year deal. You can't get into the business for a year. I mean, you can, but you really can't. If you buy a horse, if you breed a horse, it's three years before it's two years old, it can start racing and all that stuff. So when we looked at the purse bucket, 2020, the purse structure of Blainridge was a certain number. I don't have, I wasn't prepared to give you all the figures and numbers, but we raced less than 70 days, right? Three months weren't raced because of COVID. The purse structure was higher for those 60 days. You know, going forward now in 2021, it's going to be challenging to keep the purse structure the same going back to the 100 plus race days of racing. So that was, that was part of the, our discussions was that we need more money just to keep the purse structure as it was last year. And the Thurbereds once again will not be racing live racing. So we felt like their current amount that is in, that they have four purses that has not been earmarked for purses yet is more than sufficient to keep their race hopes stable and alive for the future. That's what we came up with that without, without completely making it 100 to zero, which maybe it should be, but I think there was a compromise on both sides. Yeah. Mr. Goldberg, my issue is I, I take calls all the time from folks in the racing industry. They'll call me and because they know why I sit on this committee. And if I am asked, well, how did these numbers come about? I can't answer that question right now because I wasn't part of the two of you working on this and you're giving me generics on how you got there without really talking specifics and talking numbers. And I do think that work is important to do. And I know I am not comfortable agreeing with this work without knowing more seeing documented, you know, you know, or doing our work as a committee with what you're each telling me now, just how you got there very generically. Well, if I may, I'm sorry, Christian came in. It wasn't as generic as when you looked at 2020 again, pretty much everything was status quo other than the live racing element, we had no race days, right? So, and again, no matter what Mr. Goldberg said was is in the from my side, the legal expenses, it took to put a 40 page briefing together with all due respect, I could still make the argument that under the racing program, I would beat the standard breads with W2s 1089s or not. But in the end, the way this committee always voted year after year, five, 10% adjustment was pretty much based on live, live race days, if I go back and look at it at the history of that, right? And then we've always said from day one, the purse, well, sorry, the health and welfare bucket should always be 50, 50%. So that both breeds can have some level of stability. Sir, we have never made that decision as a committee. We have never made that decision. You're this is your first year on the committee and that's not something we've ever done. I thought if we pull last meeting minutes, we talked about the 6040 and thought it would be fair at the next hearing probably just to keep it out of 50, 50 split. Maybe I don't recall that. That's okay. Nope. Yep. But even then, looking at past history of the committee with a five to 10% adjustment to Mr. Goldberg's point where again, I can still submit all the data on the breeding aspect, not much is going to change other than the two foals. Our foals are down. We probably had two. That's what I'm saying this year. We expect to have eight. I don't think it should be hard. You have it in your head just to quickly put those numbers together. So this committee can do its work based on the criteria that we were put together to do. So can I ask it a different way to this committee? If Mr. Goldberg and I put a briefing together and we both make recommendations because that's the other thing is that I wasn't always fond of the bantering back and forth between the two breeds and us saying we have more stallions than you do and more foals, right? That's really not what the intent of this committee should be is to just see who should benefit greater. It's not the reward fund. It's the development fund. And that's where again, when we when we look to go back at the history, it should be different about and develop the industry. So, you know, other than paying the exorbitant amount of legal expenses, to me, it only it only made sense. But Mr. Umbrella and Attorney Goldberg, I mean, I think when we met back in October, we kind of agreed to read to a timeline, which was that, you know, executive summaries would be submitted by February 26th. And then we'd have a meeting on March 10th, where we discuss those except executive summaries and consider a change to the distribution percentage. So, so I guess in terms of in terms of satisfying, you know, some of the questions that are being raised by the committee members, Mr. Umbrella, you kind of alluded to it in terms of preparing some brief or an executive summary that kind of outlines some of the discussions. What are the obstacles to that in terms of cost and timing and you know, in terms of putting something together, I guess. Is that directed towards myself? Well, to either or both of you. Yeah, look, again, and I didn't finish the comment, sorry was, is that if Mr. Goldberg and I both of us put a briefing together that literally we agreed on the split where we just recommended, I guess I'm curious how the committee would end up taking that into consideration. For myself while sitting on this board and having prior counsel, I'm going to have to probably take significant amount of time depending on what these briefings are going to again, consistent look like. Because again, it takes a lot of time and a lot of effort for something that's so important that, you know, I think we've kind of nailed down in a between the two breeds and agreeable split. And I thought was always the intent. We always were seemed to talk about sit down and meet and talk sit down and meet and talk. You know, this just shows unity and stability, but I understand some of the members on this committee their position. I'm going to need a significant amount of time because I might now want to bring on new counsel. I might have to bring new counsel up to speed. I'm going to have to budget for that as well. And I'll probably have to pull last year's criteria and review it. I don't know about you, Mr. Goldberg. Well, yeah, you know, I think originally, Mr. Chairman, you were correct. We did have a schedule to have the posing brief submitted by February, I think the 26th and then March date. Unfortunately, after the last public hearing meeting and some discussions that we all had, I felt or I thought apparently mistakenly that we'd be able to come to the board, come to the committee today with an agreement that we could discuss and talk about and hopefully vote on. That said, you know, I understand the need for I understand what Commissioner Cameron's saying. I think what Mr. Umbrella was asking, and if I'm wrong, Paul, interrupt me, is would this committee and Commissioner Cameron, Chairman Fitzgerald, Attorney Katanik, you know, would you be willing to accept one brief from both, a combined brief from both breeds that discusses the figures? You know, my issue, quite honestly, Commissioner Cameron, everyone else is, is timing, right? I've tried over every year for nine years to get this discussion done in the spring before racing starts, because again, that word stability comes up, it's used, and it's important. It's important for, for not just the HHA and the SOM, but for the race track itself, for management, the plan this season, the plan races, if they want to have a big race in June or July, the funds for that have to be earmarked, marketing has to be done, you can't run races, you know, in October, you know, for July, you got to plan ahead. So, again, I've pushed hard, and I appreciate Mr. Umbrella's willingness. In my opinion, he's been very willing to work in a faster pace than in the past, and to work with the Standard Bridge to at least get this done, whatever the outcome may be, at least get it done before racing starts, so that it gives us some time to plan the season, and to use the money. You know, the key is, you know, the bottom line is the key is what benefits the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That's really, in my opinion, that's what the statute's all about, and there's two industries that we're going to get, you know, historically got decimated by legalized gambling in other states, and you know, what the history shows us that other states had to put some protections in place for horse racing industries, otherwise, they could get wiped out by legalized gambling. So, it's been in place, we've worked hard, again. So, right now, my issue is, you know, if we need, if we need two separate, you know, opposing, you know, knock them over, drag them out, beat the other side up briefs, I hear what Mr. Umbrella is saying, you know, if he's got to hire someone to do this, is it going to be another time where, you know, we get this done in October, then I have to yell and scream to try to do it retroactive, but then, you know, in October, it's hard to spend the money if you get it anyway. You know, my hope was, yeah, I'm sorry. Mr. Goldberg, we have, I share your frustration that we have had quorum issues over the years, but that is not the case with the makeup of this committee. This committee has been very responsive to the needs of the breeds and our responsibilities to work in a timely manner. I think, you know, we can see that, that's evidenced here, but what I'm not willing to do is sacrifice the work that we do, which is by statute, the things that we should look at. I don't find it impossible to pull together numbers again. I preface my comments by saying we don't need a 30 page brief, but I would like to see more documentation on some of these numbers and what was looked at, just not the generic explanations, and I appreciate every year, and I think it's important for us to look at you know, the numbers from Dr. Lightbaum, just how many races, how much of the purse money, just things that we should be looking at, as well as I love that we were able to split out into the buckets, as we call them, the three buckets, but knowing who is utilizing that money is part of our responsibility as well. So I would like to take a little bit of time, and it doesn't have to be a lot of time to pull together those numbers, and whether we call it an executive summary as opposed to a brief, I just think that would be important before I'm comfortable moving in any direction on any of these three buckets. No, I agree, Commissioner Cameron, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I truly do. My only, I think what Paul and I are trying to find out really from this committee is, you know, and I think especially Mr. Umbrella was trying to find out, you know, what will satisfy this committee as far as the documentation, you know, is it something that we can work on together as a horse racing industry and get something to you in two weeks possibly? You know, again, I guess that's the question I think that Mr. Umbrella was trying to get answered. You know, if we work together, we pool our resources, try to save some money, right? And so we're not just beating each other over the head for the next month or so, and we somehow do this as one document, is that okay? Is that sufficient? Will that satisfy this committee or not? And I think if he needs the, what I'm hearing, and maybe I'm wrong, is if he needs the hire a new attorney and bring him up to speed, I'm hearing time. That's all. Yeah, and if I may add to that, sorry. Chairman Fitzgerald, the last time we also met is we took the format of the criteria, which again, guideline, not a guideline, we factored all in. So what's the wait? I always say each bucket should be waited, but that's for another day. We've got to follow into Mr. Goldberg's point. That would be my question is, am I going to follow or have to follow that same format? Because that's what takes the time to go to the different places and gather all that data, validate it, different resources, and put something together, and then defend it. Well, I think I'm encouraged by the fact that that there's been a discussion between the two of you. I guess I would turn to Attorney Grossman and say in terms of some joint memorandum of sorts that kind of explains the logic and reasoning behind their proposed agreement, is there any sort of legal impediment for them to present that, for the two industries to present that to the committee? Well, yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. That's a good question. Members of the committee or any board can't share their opinions with the other members outside of a public meeting. So to the extent there's some document prepared by members of this group, it cannot be shared in advance. If it's shared, prepared by someone else, then it can be circulated. The alternative would be to post it publicly so members of the public can see the document at the same time the rest of the members are seeing it. And then you can do it in advance of the meeting, but it's not just shared with the board. And that way you add a layer of transparency that the open meeting law requires to the process. And people know that decisions haven't been made behind closed doors or before and outside of public meetings. So there are some options, but there are also some obstacles involved. And Commissioner Cameron, just so in terms of your concerns, would you be looking for to stay with following the timeline that we set forth last fall in terms of the executive summaries, or would it a joint memorandum explaining the logic and reasoning behind their proposed agreement? Yeah, the timeline is not my concern to sticking to a timeline. I understand the urgency of the work, but I do think we need some documentation and transparency is a very good word to use in this situation, because right now I know that I don't have the information to justify any decision. So I would like to see that and I don't have a preference as to how it's prepared. But I do heed Attorney Grossman's words that it needs to be done in a transparent way. If it's posted ahead of time and we could see it, I'm fine with that. The other thing to just consider to kind of break through some of this is to the extent there's just some data or numbers that don't reflect someone's opinion, they're just facts, we can share those in advance without a problem. It's only when you start talking about the reason you did something or you think something that it becomes problematic. But if it's just a breakdown as to all the expenses of an association or how certain money was spent, or what the number of foals was or something like that, that's not an opinion, that's a fact. And you can circulate that. Attorney Katanak, did you have any further comments? I think I would sort of echo the comments that Commissioner Cameron has made. I think part of the work of this committee over the past couple of years has been to put in place a standard and a thorough, no pun intended, actually, process that's predictable. And I think that now that we finally have that process in place, I would be hesitant for us to stray away from that. I think we should sort of stick to the schedule. And I think I would be okay considering the numbers because it sounds like that's something that would be a little bit easier to pull together. And then sort of hearing the oral arguments as you will at the next meeting instead of having to pull together, you know, a lengthy and time-consuming and expensive brief. Right. And that's, and that's, yeah, I think, no, Mr. Chairman, I was just gonna say, yeah, I think pulling together the data, the numbers hopefully could be done in expeditious fashion at this point and getting those numbers from 2020 together, hopefully between, as Dr. Lightbound has always been extremely helpful in getting those numbers together. We've seen our help as well as the thoroughbred breeders and thoroughbred, the NEHBPA as well as the HHA and ASOM. I think we could get the numbers, the raw data together hopefully fairly quickly. And as I think Attorney Katanik said, then we can sort of present our opinion on those numbers on the data at our next meeting and then as Commissioner Cameron has suggested, have that discussion about the numbers, about the data, about the metrics, and then come up with a transparent and well-reasoned decision. But it sounds like that can be done maybe pretty close to the schedule that we set back in October, if not right on that schedule. Remind me of those dates, hold on, I'm looking. Where are they? I think it was February 26th for the data, for the executive summaries, and March 10th maybe for our meetings. That sounds right. Maybe what we could do is extend the first date a week, maybe get the data submitted by March 3rd, because the 26th is only nine days away, maybe get the data to this committee posted publicly by March 3rd, and then keep that March 10th date for a meeting. That honestly might be too aggressive for myself. Well, hopefully Paul, we can at least work together, I use the word loosely, to get all the metrics in to the committee. I mean, Dr. Leipan would know probably best if all those numbers and metrics are available, if you will, of at least the five criteria, main criteria. Right. I was going to ask where the 20 numbers are. Do we have those yet? The numbers that I developed that are on that racing and horse racing in Massachusetts, those are all pretty much gathered already. I'm not sure, I think usually there's a couple of pages of financials out of the annual report that you folks asked for, and I might need to be reminded which ones those are, and I could have our financial analysts work on those. You could probably get them out within the next week or so. So then are you both proposing then having raw data submitted as of March 3rd with a meeting taking place on March 10th? I would be okay with that, and I think we could get, hopefully get most, it's not all the numbers together by March 3rd. I'll in good faith shoot for that date, but with the caveat I might need an extra week, depending on how readily available things are, and pulling it all together. Commissioner Cameron? Does that? Yes, I would be, that sounds very reasonable to me. Attorney Katanuck? That works for me too. Do we want to have a motion to continue our discussions with having raw data submitted by March 3rd, and then scheduling a meeting for March 10th, where the two respective industries can then present their proposed agreement? So I would make that motion, Mr. Chairman. I would move that the committee tabled its discussion on the current review of the RHDF and have the data, the metrics necessary for to continue our review process presented by both industries on or before March 3rd, 2021, with, in keeping with our current schedule, with the next meeting of the committee to be March 10th of 2021 at 2 p.m. to review that data, discuss that data, and potentially vote on any split that needs to be changed. Second. Second. Okay. Motion carries. So then we will take a roll call to vote on the motion. And then we will take a motion. Now, Commissioner Cameron? Aye. Attorney Katanuck? Aye. Mr. Umbrello? I'm contemplating. I'm sorry. Can you skip me? Go to Mr. Goldberg for a second. Doesn't matter. I might have just, aye. Go ahead. Mr. Goldberg? Aye. So we are now at the point then where the raw data would then be submitted as of March 3rd. And we would be rescheduling our discussion regarding the proposed distribution with percentages as of March 10th at 2 p.m. Okay. Are there any other comments, questions that any of the committee members have? Chairman Fitzgerald, I'm sorry because I'm not sure I heard it was answered. Are we using the criteria format to fill in the raw data that was recommended at the last briefing? Or is it a skinny down version of that? I believe, I think the intent seems to be that it's a skinny down version of it based on what you're talking about for your agreement. And I think we just kind of need the information as to how that a proposed agreement is arrived at. Okay. That's what I thought. I just want to make sure I was clear. Sorry. Thank you. But enough information to make a good decision, obviously. As much of the raw data as, I mean, hopefully all the raw data that we've had in the past can be updated and presented from 2020 to help with the discussions regarding any review. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other comments, questions? Seeing none, then I ask for a motion to adjourn this meeting. I'll moved. Second. And based on a raw roll call vote, Commissioner Kameron. Aye. Attorney Katanak. Mr. Umbrello. Aye. Attorney Goldberg. Aye. And Fitzgerald. Aye. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. Bye, everybody. Thank you. Stay well. Stay well. Be safe. Okay. Bye.