In just a moment, Auto-Lite presents Suspense with Jimmy Cagney. Harlow, tonight I understand we have an Auto-Lite Suspense special. Every bit of special is your star performance as the Auto-Lite Resistor Spark Plug Maestro. Is that a plug for me or for my favorites Auto-Lite Resistor Spark plugs have? Well, with no offense to either Harlow, it's neither. Tonight, Jimmy Cagney and Auto-Lite and Suspense are dramatizing one of our great American tragedies. It's so tremendous a problem it warrants our entire nation warring against its grimness and the grim reaper who is its symbol. Tonight, Suspense's story will remind you to drive carefully behind Auto-Lite Resistor Spark plugs or any other, Harlow. Then let's join the Auto-Lite audience and listen. Suspense! Auto-Lite and its 60,000 dealers and service stations bring you Radio's outstanding theater of thrills. Starting tonight, Mr. James Cagney in Anton Leader's production of No Escape. A tale well calculated to keep you in suspense. The only thing I can do now is tell you how it happened. Without any bunk. I don't care what you've heard or read about me. I'm not a devil or a mad dog. I don't know what people think happens to a fella. Do they think all of a sudden I turned into stone? I'm no different than anybody else. If I don't eat, I get hungry.  I'm just like the next guy and that's the whole idea. This, it happened to me sure, but it would have happened to anybody. It could have happened to you. It was supposed to have been one of them days you circled on the calendar with a red pencil. You see, with a little town like ours, 23 miles from the big city, right on the main highway, we get the speed artists going both ways. Yeah, and every couple of days they manage to leave something behind to remember them by. Like a kid with a broken back or well, well, you get the idea. So a couple of years ago the Chamber of Commerce started this safety campaign to name the safest driver of the year. Something to kind of keep the guys in their toes. And this year the fella they chose for the award was yours truly. And tonight was the big doings with a few well-chosen words from me, a lad who was a public speaker, was a wonderful bus driver. I got to the house a little after six. Teddy, my kid brother, was just leaving. Hiya, Big Sean. Hello, ladies and gentlemen in this corner of the world's champion driver. That's me, all right. Hey, that's a swell picture of you in the paper. You don't look so bad for an older man. All right, I'll beat your ears in. Say you've called to say you should wear your blue suit and try to look human. That I would like to see me too. Sorry, I can't wait, though. I'm late for a date. I'll see you in the morning and you can tell me how you slayed. All right, Ted, so long. I know myself the works. Shower, shave, the blue suit like the lady said. Eve looked laugh to me like I was at least five years old. I didn't mind a bit. Ever since Ma died in 42, I'd kept the house going for Teddy because a kid needs something like that. But he was getting out of school in June and then maybe Eve and I. Well, it was nice thinking about it. So nice that I guess I forgot all about the time that was passing. Yeah? Look, slow motion. You should be halfway over here by now. Okay, Eve, honey. You got the speech ready?  Yes, mama. Be right over. Eve lived outside of town. I'd really have to step on it to pick her up and spend some time rehearsing the speech. I then get to the high school auditorium by eight. I got into the car and I decided to take the canyon road through the hills where there wasn't any traffic. I could make better time that way.  Let me get my thoughts together. I got to get this part exactly right. You've got to see it just like it happened. Or else it's all a waste of time. All right. I was on the canyon road that wound up through the steep hills, the wall of the mountain on one side of the road and the deep canyon on the other, about 10 to 7, but already dark. Nobody on the road but me, so I stuck pretty close to the middle and every turn, the scream of the tires. But I wasn't worried about that. Four brand new tires, hardly a week old and good brakes. I never take chances with things like that. Going about 50 miles an hour, maybe a little bit better. But I was all alone on the road, so what difference did it make? I was maybe two-thirds of the way up to the top, right where the road makes a wide curve. I remember I put a cigarette in my mouth and I pushed the dashboard lighter in. I heard the lighter click and I started reaching for it. And then a pair of headlights blazing out of nowhere. And then a screeching horn, a car coming the other way. I felt my inside double up like a fist. I slammed my foot on the brake, swung the steering wheel to the right. I didn't feel anything hit and I thought, oh, God, it's going to be OK. I jammed on the emergency. I jerked the door open. Now look back. The road was empty.  And at first it didn't register with me. For maybe half a second I just stood there wondering what happened. Then I saw the reflection of the flame lighting up the whole canyon. I went to the side of the road and looked down. The car was about 500 feet below, burning. And the horn still blasting away like the driver's body had fallen against it. I started down the canyon. It was almost straight down. I fell and I rolled. I came to my feet again. Why didn't that horn stop? Why didn't it stop? And then it did stop. And I realized that I had stopped. I had stopped too. What was I waiting for? To get my wind, that's all. I went down another few feet. And then I stopped again. Holding myself against the tree. Come on. Come on, Harry. Get going. No. No. What good would it do to get down there? I couldn't help it while I was in that car. It was too late. Nobody could help. Far down the road I saw another pair of headlights starting the long climb. I went back to my car. I told myself I was going for help. I was at the top of the hill. There was a little gas station up there. I was almost there. I started slowing down. My whole life was about to be smashed. I had to tell them the truth. What good would it do? What about Eve? What about my kid brother Teddy? What's more important than a man's own family? I reached the gravel driveway to the gas station. The old guy heard me coming and started straightening up. No. I swung back onto the highway and pushed the accelerators to the floor. I got to Eve's house a little before 7.30. It was funny. I thought I was okay until I reached for the door handle. And then my finger seemed to go dead and my heart stopped. Started going a mile a minute. That's me. Sorry I'm late Eve. Where in heaven's name have you been? Honestly, if you aren't the most aggravated... Harry Graham. What? Look at you.  I'll go in and out. I'll clean up a little. What in the world happened? I had a flat tire. I had to change it on the road. Flat tire? Oh, fine. All right. Wait right here. I'll get the wisp room. All things to happen tonight. All right. All right. Happened. Now you off, will you? Harry. I'm sorry. Don't just stand there. While I'm doing this, take your comb out and start combing your hair. Took my comb out and turned toward the whole mirror. Funny. I didn't look any different than yesterday or the day before that. I was still Harry Graham. After he finished with me, we went back to the car. Get in.  Why don't you let me drive into town? Okay, if you want to. See, now I turn left to the next block. Don't I, for the Canyon Road? Canyon Road? Yes, we can save some time going that way. No, no. Huh? No. No, I don't want to go to Canyon Road. I want you to go the regular way. But we're going to be late.  I'll drive the car myself. But Harry, we always...  All right.  What have you got against Canyon Road? It's too dangerous at night. Well, all I've got to say is that when they picked you for the safest driver of the year, Harry Graham, they really hit the jackpot. We got to the high school auditorium just a couple of minutes late. But it turned out we weren't the only ones late. We got to the main table. I saw that the chair next to mine was empty. Police Chief Blake, who was supposed to introduce me for my speech, hadn't showed up yet. And they... Then when the dinner was ended, Chief Blake came through the door. And he looked awfully. He went over to the chairman of the meeting and whispered something, pointing at me. And then he started for me, and I thought my heart would quit beating. I was looking for a way to escape, maybe when... Hello, Harry. Oh, hello, Chief. Hello. Folks, folks, please. I'm sorry I'm so late. I've just come from Canyon Road. Another terrible accident. Someone went over the canyon. Four people killed and burned. We still haven't gotten them out of the wreckage. It looks like they were forced off the road. Another dirty, hit-and-run case. My boys are up there now looking for traces of this other car. I don't have to tell you that we're going to keep on looking till we find out who it was. That's why I had one of my boys bring me back to town here at this meeting tonight. Because now it's even more important to let a fellow like our friend Harry Graham here know we appreciate his good work and wish to the saints that were more like him. Yes, after what I just saw on Canyon Road, I'm really proud of Harry Graham. For Suspense, AutoLight is bringing you Mr. James Cagney in Radio's Outstanding Theatre of Thrill's Suspense. This show hits with the zing of a set of AutoLight resistor spark plugs. It gets me right between the optics. I know. I've been doing a little research. Yes? The frigid facts on faulty driving should dispel the optical illusions of any automobile driver foolish enough to relax his vigilance for one single moment. Every 30 seconds, a man, woman or child is injured on our streets or highways. This year, 32,300 people are doomed to death. By Cornelius Hap, I never stopped to realize. You know, Harlow, it takes 10 seconds and 336 feet to stop a car traveling at 60 miles an hour. That's why brains are more important than brakes. Why the man behind the wheel should be aware of the speed at which he's driving.  In other words, Hap, just because AutoLight resistors spark plugs give your car more pep. Don't try to use all of it, eh? Exactly, Harlow. But there's more. The good Samaritan is the gracious guy or gal who not only knows and keeps the rules of the road but also keeps his temper in his head when some bungling bunny gives him the roadhog treatment. Yes, Hap, it's sad but true that one right way to wrong driving is to always demand your highway rights. Be sure to be safe. Right, Harlow. And now, let's get back to suspense. And now, AutoLight brings back to our Hollywood soundstage Mr. James Cagney as Harry in No Escape. A tale well calculated to keep you in suspense. I had to keep my eyes on the table. I couldn't even look at the chief as he stood there praising me. All I could see was that burning wreck at the foot of the cliff, and all I could hear was that awful horn blowing. I had to bite my lips to keep him screaming. I did it. Harry? What? Oh, what? Open your feet, son. We'd like to hear a few words from you. If anybody wants to listen to me tonight, please, let's forget it. No, Harry. Now more than ever, we should hear what a fellow like you has to say. Come on, Harry. Go on, Harry. Oh, well, all right. I'm afraid I'm no great shakes as a speechmaker. Just a lucky thing my girl's a good English teacher. I don't believe we should honor a man for safe driving any more than we should honor him because he's never killed anyone with a gun. When a man gets behind the wheel of a car, he doesn't give up his responsibilities to his fellow men. No one can escape the responsibility of being his brother's keeper. And that goes for... that goes for... Harry? What's wrong? Listen to me. How can I stand up here and read a speech after what Chief Blake just told us? No. I can't do it. I'm sorry. I can't do it. I guess Harry's right after all, folks. I guess maybe we just better call the meeting off. I know I've got to get back to Canyon Road as soon as I can. Come on, Eve. Come on. Let's get out of here. All right, honey. Oh, Harry. Yeah, Chief. You can do me a big favor. A fellow brought me down here. I had to beat it right back to the accident. Oh, so? I've got to get back down myself right away. Can you give me a lift? Well, I sure like to, Chief, but, well, I've got to get Eve home. Well, you could take me home by the way to Canyon Road. But I'd be much obliged to you, Harry. What do you see, Chief? Harry. Okay, okay. Let's go. It's too bad the meeting had end like this. When I have a hunch, you feel like I do, Harry. Like you can't sit still until you find the rat who killed those people. Well, I promise you this, Harry. Whoever he is, we'll get him. Yeah. Wasn't that one for the book? Less than two hours after my accident with the other car going over into the canyon, on Canyon Road. Only this time with Eve sitting behind me and the chief of police in back. Harry, you know, mine could just step on it a little bit. I promise you I won't give you a ticket. Okay, Chief. Honey, push the lighter in, will you? The lighter? For my cigarette. Oh, sure, sure. The speed better, Chief? Fine. Harry hates this road. I wanted him to take it earlier tonight. That's all right. Have you got good tires? Oh, you don't have to worry about that. Last week.  Oh. Thanks. Oh. Her voice didn't sound right. Her voice didn't sound right. Then I remembered. When I picked her up tonight, I told the reason I was so messed up was that I'd had to change a tire. She was thinking about that now. I knew she was trying to figure out why I'd lie to her. Nobody said anything after that. When we reached the part of the road in the bend, I started slowing down. I, uh, hope I got you here quick enough, Chief. Yeah, you did fine. Is this where it was? Yeah, just around this bend. Yeah, that's right. But how did... Huh? Nothing. Again, again I'd said the wrong thing. What was the matter with me? How was I supposed to know that that axon was around the bend? I was cutting my own throat, but now I've made the turn and there was the red flags burning on the road and a big crash truck at the edge of the canyon. I was talking the highway. Just pull over the side, Harry. Okay. Ah, they're coming down there, Fraser. Oh, hello, Chief. You're ready to start bringing them up soon. That's, uh... That's a walkie-talkie he's working with? Yeah. He keeps contact with the men down in the canyon. Say, Harry, why don't you come along with me and really see how we work here? Oh, thanks, but I've got to get Yvonne home. The school teachers have got to get up early. Isn't that right, baby? Yes, come along, Harry. I don't mind waiting, Harry. Now, now it was me against all of them. Oh, I was sick about that car down there in the canyon, those four bodies inside. But, well, nothing could change that now. And I was fighting for my own life. Then they wouldn't break me down. I stood with my foot on the bumper and Chief Blake in against the fender of my car while his boys gave their reports about the hit-and-run car that didn't bother me a bit. Two of them told about the plastic cast they'd made of a tire mark they'd found on the road. Does it help you any, Chief? Not much, Harry. No tire. A lot of people have no tires. You, for instance. I kicked my new front tire for them, kicked it hard. They brought over an old fellow in white overalls. The guy in the service station where I'd almost turned in to report the accident. The Chief asked him if he thought the car he'd seen was a hit-and-run. Must have been, just about that time, you know. The way this fellow's scheduled away for no reason at all. I don't know what kind of a car it was, though. A black sedan, I'd say. Like this one, maybe? Yeah. Well, might be. Might be that. But there's too dark to be sure. Well, first thing tomorrow I'm going to get myself a green convertible. And everybody got a good laugh out of that. But I would have to be careful. Mustn't go too far. It was me against all of them. And I felt the kind of excitement that a guy might get from walking a tightrope. Thinking back now, sure seems screwy, but that's how I felt. And maybe that is the worst thing that happens to a guy in my spot. The way it turns you into a wild animal against the world. Hi, Charlie. It was the fellow with the walkie-talkie over near the crash truck. We're ready to start bringing up the bodies. Come on, Harry. Let's go away. Something flopped coldly in my stomach. And then lay still. This was the test. If they didn't break me down now they could never do it, never in a million years. All the people who'd come up in the town started gathering around the crash truck. I wanted to run and never stop running. But I didn't move.  The brown blanket wrapped neatly around something and then the bundle rested on the ground and everyone seemed to edge away from it like it could hurt them. And the cable went down into the valley again and then there was a second bundle and then there was a third and then a fourth and over and over like a drumbeat like a prayer I told myself they wouldn't break me down. And then someone pushed forward from the crowd. Joe Mandel the little tailor. He seemed shy and embarrassed as though he had no business being here. Chief Blake Oh yeah Joe My boy Phillip he didn't come home for supper tonight. You want to look?  Alright Joe doesn't hurt none. Thank you I'd better go back to my Rose. Sorry Joe I uh wait a minute Yes. Do you know who Phil was going to be with tonight? His best friend was Mike Roebuck. They were always together. The gold dust twins everybody called him. Thanks Joe. Excuse me Chief I must go to Rose now. Fraser! Yes Chief. Go over to Roebuck's. Don't tell him anything is wrong. Just see if Mike's home. Okay. I couldn't take anymore. I started back for the car. My legs felt like they weighed a ton. I heard a sudden movement in the crowd behind me. They wouldn't break me down. They wouldn't break me down. I opened the car door. And Eve was there. I'd almost forgotten her. And I was sure she knew the truth. Yeah. Harry. I don't want to hear anything now. I'm taking you home. Wait Harry. Listen I'm telling you. Kiss me Harry. What? Hold me and kiss me.  Hold me. All right all right now stop it stop it. Harry. If you know what's been going through my mind. Okay okay stop it.  And then when I saw you come back in my car. The look on your face. Oh Harry. How could I have ever thought. All right all right. Now we'll talk about it later. I'll never talk about it again. Never Harry. So it was all over with. I was going to be okay. God I wasn't proud. I felt rotten and sick. And now that it was all over. The strength ran out of me like water running out of a glass. But what good would it have been to crucify myself. It wouldn't have changed anything. I wasn't a bad guy. It could have happened to anybody. And now. Now I was going to be able to take care of my own. Eve. And my kid brother Teddy. Was that a bad guy. A fellow who wanted to do right for his family. I started the car. And then look he had me through the windows. His chief Blake. Signaling me to wait. I turned the key off. Whatever it was. I was very tired. Come on out Harry. I've got to get Eve home. Come on out of the car. Harry. Do like I tell you. Come with me. What do you want? Come with me.  Yes. You know about it. Listen. You've got to believe me. It shouldn't have happened to a fellow like you. You've got to hear my side. Right here Harry. Huh? What are you? Take a look at this fourth body. Why should I? Pull the blanket back Harry. Oh. No. No. Harry. That's it. The whole works. I don't care what you heard or read in the papers. That's the story. Just like it happened. No bunk. And thinking back. I guess I kind of hit the nail on the head in that speech. That I made that night. You know that part about no man can ever escape the responsibility of being his brother's keeper. I'm James Cagney for a magnificent performance. Mr. Cagney will return in just a moment. Well, after that performance of Jimmy Cagney's and your heartfelt expressions on the rights and wrongs of the driving man, it's hard to switch the conversation to auto light resistor spark plugs. I'm sure you'll find a way. Yes. I think I'll just say friends, switch to a set of auto light resistor spark plugs just as quickly as you can swing into a service station. When you replace your narrow gap spark plugs with wide gap auto light resistor spark plugs, your car will idle smoother. Give you better luck with lean gas mixtures. Actually save you gas dollars. What's more, auto light resistor spark plugs cut down spark plug interference with radio and television reception. Switch to auto light resistor spark plugs today. And remember, auto light means spark plugs. Ignition engineered resistor spark plugs. Auto light means batteries. Stay full batteries. Auto light means ignition system. The lifeline of your car. And now here again is Mr. James Cagney. It's always a pleasure to appear on suspense, but I was especially pleased when Tony Leader asked me to do tonight's story. That's because I feel strongly about the kind of thing that happened to Harry Graham. I believe that any person who gets behind the wheel of a car assumes a great responsibility to himself, to his family, to his fellow men. That one moment of carelessness or recklessness or drunkenness can mean a lifetime of pain and misery for someone. And it might be you or me. Yes, when you're driving an automobile, we are our brother's keeper. Over the holiday season and all the time, drive carefully. Next week on Radio's Outstanding Theatre of Thrills, Herbert Marshall will appear in a story with a Christmas atmosphere. Another study in suspense. James Cagney is now appearing in the photo play of William Saroyan's prize stage hit The Time of Your Life. Copies of tonight's suspense play No Escape by Larry Marcus will be available for educational use by groups interested in highway safety. They may be obtained by Writing, Suspense, the Columbia Broadcasting System, Hollywood, California. Music was composed by Lucian Moraweck and conducted by Lud Bluskin. The entire production was under the direction of Anton M. Lieder. In the coming weeks, suspense will present such stars as Ronald Coleman, Robert Montgomery, Dana Andrews and Frank Sinatra. Make it a point to listen each Thursday to Suspense, Radio's Outstanding Theatre of Thrills. And next Thursday, same time, hear Herbert Marshall. Suspense show? All right, Mr. Wilcox. Autolight and CBS wish to thank the radio editors and columnists of America for electing suspense as the best history show in the annual balloting conducted by Motion Picture Daily for the magazine Fame. Good night. Switch to Autolight. This is CBS, the Columbia Broadcasting System.


Welcome to Sister Power. I'm Sharon Thomas Yarbrough. Sister Power is celebrating Black History Month with diversity and inclusion by discussing never justify your truth. Black women navigating constructed white female spaces. And our panel and our special guest today is Sequoia Carr-Brown, Katherine Waddell-Takari, and Daphne Barbie-Wooten-Queens. Welcome back to Sister Power. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm very excited about this subject that we're going to approach today regarding never justify your truth. And as a whole, we as Black women have always had to kind of tell our stories in a certain way, look a certain way when we're expressing our truth. And today, we're just going to dig right in. And I always remind people that Sister Power is a safe space for women to air and discuss their differences, their challenges, their love, their positives, and all that good stuff. So let's discuss, ladies, the title of, you know, Sequoia, your installation, never justify your truth. Black women navigating constructed white female spaces.  So the question is, how does the title, never justify your truth, set with each of your experiences as accomplished, educated, professional women? Thank you for having me and all of us. My art installation is a performance art installation. It's based off of the major, the overall arching concept that's called walking on eggshells. So this is a topic that is kind of spoken, the unsaid, maybe amongst ourselves, not necessarily in mainstream conversation. But these are, this is information, these are experiences that we've had as white or Black women navigating constructed white female spaces. So I have been exploring through performance art, how do we navigate to that through that? Why do we even have to? And just no longer will we have to justify our experiences and to prove who we are and what we are. And that would be either through how we look and our beauty, our hair, our bodies, how we navigate an academia or a professional corporate world, and kind of just taking these tropes that historically have been, we've been burdened by, be it the Jezebel, the Mammy, right, the Sapphire, contemporary would be like the angry Black women, things like that. So I wanted to explore what that was all about and how we've had to navigate through the ages, but we no longer will do that. Now, in terms of whiteness, constructed whiteness and white women in particular, we know who our allies are. So we're not speaking to them. But there are some women out there they might call them Karen's. Back in the day, they were called Miss Ann. So it's always been some kind of title given to this type of behavior. But I found in my research that is a lot of it is based on jealousy, not able to be raised to hone in and nurture your inner spirit or strength that we've had through the ages.  So that generates a certain level of animus, right?  And then this compounds over the years over the years. And then we have Jim Crow statues and, you know, you've got the Jezebel, you've got the Mammy, you've got the Sapphire.  And then juxtaposed to us, we are the opposite.   We can't be in school with our braids, but white women can do it all the time. So I'm unpacking all of that. Well, yeah, that's a lot to unpack in. And I'd like to, you know, go to Dr. Catherine Takara. You were a professor at UH. I just want to hear your take on this title. Well, number one, I like this notion of movement, that we are in the process of moving. We have always been in the process of moving, but now we are less inhibited, perhaps by the society around us. I taught at UH from 1971, and I retired in 2007, Black Studies, and there was always resistance, whether I was in ethnic studies or in interdisciplinary studies. In fact, just two days ago, I had one of my mentors and also a colleague here, and he was reminiscing back to the time when I was going up for a permanent position, not even tenure yet. And there was one tenured professor, White, who said the only reason that I was being hired was because I was Black, implying that I was unqualified. And I think that that whole affirmative action bugaboo has haunted many of us as people take what they want to take as truth. And our truth and our presence and our manifestations are perhaps, and our history, certainly, are not the same truth that perhaps other people have, white women have. And as you mentioned, Sequoia, I think there is that element of misunderstanding and jealousy that exists historically between white women towards Black women. I'm reading a book recently, and it's talking about a louding voice. And I know that that's kind of a progressive gerund, if you will, but it's like walking, it's like movement, a louding voice. And I think that that speaks very much to how I taught and how I was received at the university. My louding voice, I would take it out into the community and speak against the policies of tokenism, of being the only one of the solitude of the indifference to what it might feel like, the lack of mentoring, the lack of putting me in contact with people, with publishers, with conferences, with all of those things that are necessary to be successful in academia. I always felt that I was, you know, clawing to hold on. And I think it's the louding voice because we know within ourselves that we shine. We shine and I'll stop there so other people can talk and then I'll come back. I love it because it's a certain confidence that when a Black woman knows who she is and what she stands for without saying a word, it shows when you show up.  Talk about that. Yes. Actually, I don't know if any of you have heard of the Crown Act, but it's a law which the federal government is taking up. They didn't pass it last year. An African American senator asked that it be passed this year, basically saying that African American women and men as well can wear their hair in cornrows, dreadlocks and many of the African and Afrocentric hairstyles, which previously were. Banned, for example, many newscasters once they let their hair go into an afro or let grew cornrows or had dreadlocks were taken off the air, lost their jobs. And in fact, the military just recently, a couple of years ago, changed their rules about grooming by allowing African American women to have cornrows and natural hairs, because previously you had to have it cut short and put it in a ponytail. Well, you know, you have Afro can't go in a ponytail depending on how long it is. But now they are allowing cornrows. They are allowing dreadlocks as long as it's neat. But that's a big step forward, because previously they would get kicked out of the military for grooming reasons. And, you know, not all human beings are the same and look the same and have the same characteristics. But basically, if you were proud of being African or African descent and you wore your hair in an on European fashion, you were penalized for it. This is changing now with the Crown Act, which was enacted in several states, California and Illinois, not Hawaii yet, but soon soon to be. And there have been a lot of cases where people with dreadlocks have been kicked out of schools. And even in Hawaii, there was a situation where a young boy had his hair and dreadlocks neatly groomed. He was one of the top singers in the choir and the boys choir. And he was told it couldn't be in the choir because of his hair. Now, fortunately, the NAACP and along with the African American Lawyers Association wrote a letter which caused the school to rethink its position and he was able to go ahead and sing. But so this is something that's going on. And I just want to comment very briefly about what Sequoia said about the movies and that in the past have just instilled this very negative stereotype about African American women in Africa, the dark continent. Anyways, gone with the wind. Everybody still talks about it.  And so now I know that a lot of the films now show a different picture about slavery and reveal the ugly truth underneath it. So you have 12 years as a slave and you have African American and African actresses starring and winning awards now, finally. But it took a long time to get to that place. And I know that there was a good author and I'm turning my name, Faith Ringo. I think she's also an artist and in response to the wind gone with the wind, she wrote a book, The Wind Done Gone. So it never, I hear someone say, oh, I love gone with the wind. I said, well, you need to read The Wind Done Gone. And what did you think about the way they portrayed Africans and African Americans and basically slavery? So the truth is coming out now. More and more people are accepting of the truth. Young people are realizing, you know, all of these myths are just that. Just myths. And so it's time for us. As Sequoia says, it's time for us to explain the truth and speak the truth. And and also, you know, never justify your truth. What I'm loving about this panel and this discussion, all of us have been friends for many, many years. And and it's important for women, especially black women, to have a sisterhood you know, because we can lean on each other, we can talk about these difficult subjects and feel safe. And that's what it's all about. You can feel safe. We we and the first thing is you have to respect each other's truth. My truth may not be yours. Yours may not be mine. But let's move forward, because I want to start with Sequoia. I want to know, share how you navigate spaces where you were the only black woman. How did you protect yourself? Oh, well, the first thing I do, I walk in, I'm I'm dressed to deny. Like to be fashionable, put the get well put together. And it's interesting, I will do test sometimes. I find when I wear my hair natural and not pulled back or with the hairpiece, I have a lot much more negative energy come towards me. Then if I do something that's a similar that simulates to the standard American standard, basically the white standard of beauty. But for me, I just stand in my my truth and my I know I'm intelligent. I know that I am raised well. And I just exude who I might all of those things that my family is put in instilled inside me. Also with the guidance of what I've learned through Professor Takara. She's guided me well and helping me to navigate and to speak in a way that potential oppressors know that you can't okidoke me, right? So and because of that, it's interesting when I speak and say my truth and am assertive, it's taken either as, oh, I'm an angry black woman. Or they say, oh, this is someone who was on it. I cannot mess with her. I cannot you move her laterally along the corporate line or say anything to her and she will just, you know, fall to the wayside or cry in a corner. So it depends on who it is. I approach people. I give a strong handshake when I meet people, nothing weak and noodling. So that's another indication, just a nonverbal. And when I speak, I make sure what I say is succinct. It's intelligent and that they know that they cannot. Bumbles on me. Yeah, I like that.  And out, was there a backlash? Well, yes, yes, and yes. Number one, what I noticed in my classes starting way back was that the black students were largely athletes. That there were no other black faculty that were speaking out. The couple or three that were at the university were pretty much not addressing racial issues, but perhaps celebrating the interconnectedness that they felt sometimes wrongly, I think, with the university community. That whole Kimberly Crenshaw thing about intersection sectionality is very, very powerful in that I had to go outside of the university to find support or to my students or to black organizations in the community who demanded that there be a tenure track position for a black course. But interestingly enough, and this is kind of not well known, but one of the founders of ethnic studies was a black man called English Bradshaw, who worked specifically with Franklin Odo to establish the whole ethnic studies at that time program. And he invited me to put together a proposal since our black movement, I being from Jim Crow, South Alabama and civil rights and protest oriented, that it was the backbone. It was the foundation of the whole transformative movement, not only for blacks, but for other minority groups and then for women and then for people that shared physical disabilities. So or whatever you might be the wrong word, disabilities, but physically challenged. So how that was whitewashed. It's constantly I've found at the university that we were kind of forgotten about our issues were not expressed or not allowed to be expressed, were not taught. And so English Bradshaw, when they did the ethnic studies story, I forget who published that, but he was not even mentioned. He was not asked to donate an article. And I had to say what he did, but it was just it was it made me on the defensive. It made me angry. It makes it made me feel very isolated to see how we were treated and how the stereotypes were perpetuated. And just one other quick thing at the beginning of every semester, I would ask students to write stereotypes on the board. No, I'm sorry. I would ask them to write on a piece of paper with no name on it. And then I would put them on the board and the stereotypes ranged from light skin folk to dark skin folk. The light skin folk lights and Chinese and maybe Japanese Portuguese or whatever, they had the least damaging stereotypes. I mean, they might not be fun, but it didn't hinder their access to society and their progress and their possible success. Whereas for the darker people, be it Filipinos, be it Polynesians. And of course, we were at the bottom, African Americans. We fit into those stereotypes of not being successful, being violent. We know all those negative stereotypes. And it was appalling to me, even from 1971 all the way until after 2000, 2005, 2006, that those same stereotypes would come back again and again, whether it's family or the media, very often it's the media own insecurities, whatever. It just placed us in a lower stratosphere or status or possibilities, a possibility seem limited by those stereotypes. And I'm sure that they still exist. I've long retired. Yeah. Well, you know, I always mention to people that sometimes you feel invisible. They just don't see you. They see you, but they don't want to acknowledge you. And we have so many positive role models. You know, we're not just talking about the bad.  We have our first African American, first lady, Michelle Obama. And we are aware of this. We are aware of the positive, but it's just not enough. You know, never justify your truth. And Daphne, I want to ask you this question. What types of troops have been ascribed to black women to justify blatant disrespect of our minds and bodies? Well, we were talking about stereotypes, negative stereotypes and images that the media portrays and that too far too many people eat up like propaganda. But one comes to mind of Michelle Obama, who is one of the most brilliant, beautiful, proudly black, female powerhouses and an attorney to boot when she was maligned by certain people and she was referred to as a gorilla by someone who was in the media. Now, to me, to refer to her as a gorilla is very stereotypical and negative, but she surpasses all of that. She's a superstar. She's written one of the books, most beautiful books about being a black female and going on to a position of power and using the power wisely as the first lady. But yet it's these haters. They don't see the brilliance and what she has to offer and what she can offer to the world.  But she rolls above it. What did Maya Angelou say? You just rise above it. Oh, she said it. Michelle Obama is the one that said it, right? You know, we rise, yep. Yeah, we rise and keep rising. And, you know, that's just one example of some of the hate and the negative stereotypes and the negative vibrations that a lot of, in my opinion, racist people subscribe to. Those who succeed and succeed very well. Oh, what does she say?  I just want to jump in. I just want to jump in and say one, one quick thing. And that is the Department of Education and the education that people get here in the islands, in particular, but all over the country, our contributions, our successes, our inventions, our incredibly long history back before, you know, Egypt and, of course, the whitewashing of Egypt to make everyone think that Egypt was all white. These these things are not taught and but rather those negative stereotypes slip in. I think that we have to put the feet to the fire, their feet to the fire to incorporate another kind of African-American history. Forget all this stuff about what's it called? Critical risk theory. I mean, that's just that's just not right. I can't say all things. Yeah, I cannot say it on.  And and before we go, I just want to let our sister viewers know about walking on eggshells, walking on eggshells. And this is something that we have been doing for so long. And that is very quickly, Sequoia. Tell us about when and where for walking on eggshells. And the panel discussion on Saturday. This is a Pico Dance Arts Project. We are NEA and Map Fund grant funded. We won this. We pitched a proposal about navigating through spaces through the intersectional elements that Kimberly Crenshaw, you know, principles that brought forth through Black women, racism, sexism, LGBTQ plus issues, all intersectional, all through a performance arts installation format. I will be at Arts at Mark's Garage, March 4th through 5th, 7 and 9 p.m. Look for the marketing and actually Saturday, we I will be leading a panel to further discuss this topic about Black women navigating through Black female spaces. And my guest panelists are here. Yeah, constructed white female spaces in my Daphne and Catherine will be there on that panel as will be Cynthia Michelle, the photographer, and we have Sharon Thomas Yarbrough, sisters in power in Hawaii, who are our organizational partner and drumming African drumming by Baba Sango. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, ladies. You know, I'm glad we're having this. We're taking this discussion further on Saturday. Never justify your truth and Daphne, Sequoia and Catherine. Thank you so much for your wisdom, Queens. I'm enjoying this. My name is Sharon Thomas Yarbrough. Thank you for tuning in to Sister Power Aloha.


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.  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.  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.  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?  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.  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.