Why is NYRA not responding to the latest attack by the New York Times?

Posted by noonante on January 6, 2015
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . 2 Comments

The Sunday New York Times featured the latest in the paper’s dyspeptic campaign against horse racing, this time a broadside leveled at Aqueduct Racetrack.  I find it surprising that the New York Racing Association has been silent in the face of an attack on the track that accounts for one-half of its annual race dates.

The piece was a photo essay in the Metropolitan section of the paper.  There were six images  –  none of which I found particularly interesting  –  but the accompanying text by a Times staffer is what was odious.  After an introductory sentence about racing providing one of the great American spectacles, we finished with six paragraphs that were downright laughable.

While saying that the Aqueduct facility is a “decaying building populated by lonely old men” may have elements of truth, the 24-year old photography student from Italy had other observations apparently based on his extensive experience.  For example, he encountered  – and I hope you are sitting down for this  –  someone who was divorced.  He observed that “[t]there is a lot of psychological damage there….  Not all of them should be free on the street.”

The kicker, however, was this one:  “One guy’s first memory of a racetrack was his father dying of a heart attack at a racetrack.  Most of the people had a story like that.”  While that certainly trumps being DQ’d from a winning Pick 6, “most people” have traumatic memories from the track?

Now, I have not been to Aqueduct in a few years since I live several hours away and can watch and wager from the comfort of my living room.  But the condition of the building was the subject of a flurry of criticism a year ago (when the photographs were taken), and from what I can gather, much has been done to improve its appearance.  Alan Mann of the blog Left at the Gate posted photographs last year of a clean and freshly-painted facility.  NYRA CEO Chris Kay presented a slide show at the last Board of Directors meeting describing what seem to be significant improvements.

It appears that the nation’s leading newspaper cannot be counted on to conduct even basic factual reporting when they have the opportunity to take a shot at racing.  But where is NYRA?  Not only are they running Aqueduct, but should be the leading voice supporting New York racing.  Kay purports to be an advocate for the fan experience.  He even hired a “Chief Experience Officer,” paying her a salary equal to that of the General Counsel.  Neither of them can respond to an attack on their product?

I am not suggesting that there are not issues concerning Aqueduct, some of which are considerably more serious that those alleged by the Times.  But if I am running a business, I do not let shoddy journalism go unanswered.  Unless, of course, there is a different agenda and the Times‘ hit piece furthers the interests of those wishing to close the track.

 

 

New York racing’s election dispute – update

Posted by noonante on December 19, 2014
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , . 1 Comment

 

Now that we have gotten beyond the ceaseless advertising and robo-calling of the election season for political offices, a dispute over another election is roiling the waters of the New York racing community.  Earlier this month, Rick Violette was re-elected President of the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, reportedly by a razor-thin margin of 14 votes from over 1,200 cast.  His opponent, Terry Finley, is challenging the outcome claiming, among other things, that over 1,000 eligible voters did not receive ballots.

NYTHA is an organization that represents owners and trainers in New York and also administers programs to assist workers on the back stretch.  In addition, NYTHA has a non-voting seat on the Board of Directors for the New York Racing Association.  Violette is a long-time trainer on the New York circuit.  Finley is the founder and president of West Point Thoroughbreds that markets and manages racing partnerships.

The election was important, particularly in light of the fact that NYRA must come up with a reorganization plan by April to return the organization to private control from its current structure as one controlled by New York’s state government.  While there are several owners on the NYRA Board, Violette is the only trainer and the sole member with a designated constituency to represent.

What first caught my attention about this election, however, was a level of personal invective coming from the Finley camp.  This is from his campaign position statement:

What matters is having a board and members not duped into believing the “Lasix issue” is the only important matter on the table — this is NOT a single issue election – as Rick Violette would like you to believe. We must develop collaborative solutions to issues like race day medication and out of competition testing. It is also important to have an open-minded, rational leader with the right temperament – not one who antagonizes those with opposing views – as Violette does on a regular basis.

Now, Violette unapologetically believes that race-day Lasix should continue to be permitted.  (Incidentally, West Point’s thoroughbreds regularly race with the medication.)  But Violette is more than a one-trick pony.  I have heard him advocate passionately for the interest of New York owners and trainers on a variety of subjects, such as the importance of continuing a program of winter racing in the state.

It is also surprising to see him criticized as not being “rational” with the “right temperament.”  I have seen every meeting of the NYRA Board since it started conducting public meetings two years ago.  He is one of the few Board members with an historical perspective, and forcefully articulates his views, but always in a respectful and diplomatic manner.

So there must be something else going on here.  The essence of Finley’s arguments challenging the election results is a not-so-thinly veiled claim that NYTHA conducted the election in either an incompetent or fraudulent manner  –  and perhaps both.  According to Finley’s appeal, over 1,000 eligible voters were not mailed ballots, and NYTHA’s staff deliberately skewed the mailings to benefit Violette.

The racing media has been reporting Finley’s claims, but the NYTHA leadership has not been commenting.  I think the reason for that silence is pretty obvious  –  NYTHA is holding a hearing on Finley’s claims and any comments by Violette or NYTHA executives would be perceived as prejudicing that process.  (I did not attempt to contact NYTHA because they have not been responding to other media sources seeking comments.)

But what is known about the election process indicates that Finley’s assertions should be viewed with a considerable level of skepticism.

Eligibility for NYTHA membership is rather simple  –  if you owned or trained a horse that raced in New York in the preceding two years, you are “automatically” a member.  The NYTHA web site has a brief registration form that provides NYTHA with the information needed to contact you.

So if an owner or trainer does not fill out that form, how does NYTHA mail you a ballot?  That’s when it gets complicated.  Owners and trainers must be licensed by the state’s Gaming Commission in order to participate in racing.  But, according to published reports, the Gaming Commission says it is precluded by law from releasing addresses.

Owners and trainers are, of course, listed in each day’s racing program, but their addresses are not.  And many owners  –  for example, “West Point Thoroughbreds”  –  do not list the actual names of the individuals making up the partnership.

It is, therefore, difficult to ascertain what Finley thinks NYTHA should have done differently to ensure a fair process.  Given what we just described, how can anyone make a good-faith claim that over 1,000 eligible voters were not mailed ballots?  Knowing the number of licensed owners and trainers does not get you there because one must also have raced in New York.

One must also wonder what responsibility owners and trainers have for ensuring they are listed as an eligible voter.  It is clear that state records cannot be relied on, so an interested voter must take that extra step of registering to vote  –  an on-line process that takes less than a minute.

NYTHA has announced the process it will follow to adjudicate Finley’s claim, including evidence presented by actual people under oath.  Finley will get his chance to make his case.  The constant drumbeat criticizing the fairness of the election should wait until he puts real facts  –  not speculation and rumor  –  on the table.

UPDATE:  Terry Finley has emailed  me regarding this post.  He stated that he has “received an avalanche of notes from people not getting ballots or were so late they could not submit.”  He included two such notes from individuals saying that even after requesting a ballot from NYTHA, it required follow-up before they actually obtained one.  In one case, the writer had to Fed Ex the ballot in order to get it in on time.

 

After two years, NYRA Board still “blinking at reality”

Posted by noonante on December 8, 2014
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . 5 Comments

The Reorganization Board of the New York Racing Association held its last meeting of 2014 on Wednesday, and it tracked almost every meeting this group has held  –  an almost complete lack of either substance or meaningful discussion.  It also represents the latest effort by NYRA  –  which does not hesitate to boast that it is a reform organization  –  to operate in secrecy and, when it does make public statements, evade the truth.

The headline coming out of the meeting was NYRA’s turning a profit for the first time in 13 years, a “fact” dutifully reported by media outlets.  As with most statements emanating from NYRA, however, the assertion requires careful parsing.  The $1.5 million surplus  –  which does not consider revenues from the Video Lottery Terminals at the Aqueduct location  –  was achieved by placing pension and tax liabilities “off the books.”  If those expenses are treated as operating expenses  –  and I do not see how tax liabilities are not an operating expense  –  NYRA is operating in the black only if the VLT payments are counted.  NYRA, at the behest of the Cuomo Administration, persists in the fiction that the VLT revenue  –  mandated by state law  –   should not be considered even if it requires them to resort to the three-card Monte school of accounting.

What should have been the headline from this meeting, however, was a precipitous drop in the betting handle since the end of the Saratoga meet.  As David Grening reported in the Daily Racing Form, the handle at Belmont and Aqueduct had dropped by $58 million since Labor Day.  To put that number in perspective, the average daily handle for NYRA in the fall meets is less than $8 million.  In other words, NYRA has lost handle equivalent to cancelling racing for seven days.

When a Board member questioned CEO Chris Kay about this loss of revenue, he claimed to be unaware of the number.  Nonetheless, he was able to immediately offer excuses:  the weather  –  an explanation offered by this NYRA leadership for every negative occurrence  –  and, incredibly, the college football playoff system.  Yes, three college football games that will not be played until next year  is a reason for fans to bet less on the NYRA races in the fall.  The most disturbing aspect of this colloquy, however, is that a CEO who was hired for his purported management expertise was not aware the entity just lost $58 million is less than three months.

Ensuring that the NYRA Reorganization Board would be true to its past performances, there was no discussion of what should have been a bombshell.  Had a Board member not raised the matter, it is only Grening’s article that would indicate something was amiss.

The agenda item one would expect to consume most of the meeting was a discussion of the proposed budget for 2015.  That took all of 11 minutes.  The longest “discussion” in that span had to do with the food service at the tracks.  Board Chairman David Skorton wanted to save as much time as possible for Chris Kay’s slide show, even to the point of shutting down any meaningful discussion of the issue

Kay’s tedious PowerPoint went on for 42 minutes. In case you are wondering, it was a tribute to the great job done by this NYRA Board.  As has been the case so often in this group’s two-year existence, the Board meetings are little more than a group of men sitting in a circle discussing what a great job they are doing.  The rare problem they acknowledge is, according to them, that the public has an inaccurate perception of their efforts  –  for example, the prevalence of drugs in the sport.  Yet they have done nothing to change that perception.  Nor have they done anything about what one Board member described as its “blinking at reality” in failing to acknowledge that there are trainers with frequent and suspicious improvements in performance when they take over a horse’s training.

The NYRA Board and its enablers in state government like to boast about the “transparency” of their meetings in contrast to the prior NYRA.  But if you believe that any entity controlled by Andrew Cuomo is being open and accountable, you have probably made arrangements to have your chimney cleaned in anticipation of Christmas Eve.  Whatever decisions are being made, they are being made in secret, even though state law  –  and NYRA’s own policies  –  require decisions made in meetings open to the public.

What makes the secrecy even more troubling, however, is that after two-plus years of David Skorton and 18 months of Chris Kay, it has become abundantly clear that each is in way over his head when it comes to racing.  Skorton did his job  –  not by advancing the interests of New York’s racing, but in keeping the lid on potential problems until his boss got reelected Governor.  He announced his resignation at the meeting and is moving on to his next gig, being the top official at the Smithsonian Institute.  It may turn out to be an unfortunate irony that the person selected to supposedly revive the fortunes of New York racing is leaving to go to a museum.

Kay, on the other hand, is staying.  While he has demonstrated that he can be conversant on some racing issues at a very superficial level, he is clearly not fluent.  He made a big deal in his slide show that racing has a $2.1 billion dollar impact on the New York economy, and that the Saratoga meet generates $200 million to the Capital region.  One does not have to be particularly adept in either racing or mathematics to wonder how the premier race meet in the United States runs 16 per cent of NYRA’s race dates, but contributes only 10 per cent of the overall economic impact.  He is either making the numbers up or misconstruing valid information.

But Kay has amply demonstrated that he will stretch any detail to serve his immediate interest, even if he hasn’t clearly thought through the implications.  When the early attendance figures at Saratoga  –  following increases in admission and parking  –  appeared to be falling through the roof, he changed how attendance is counted.  Under his new approach, you did not have to actually be there in order to be counted as being there.  He has justified this by saying that actual attendance figures are not an important “metric,” but that revenue is.  He is fond of citing food and beverage sales as being significant, although actual fans attending races and wagering are what the sport should be about.  Now that one of his metrics  –  handle  –  is now falling through the roof, he resorted to lame excuses for the drop.

Then there are the innovations that cause one’s brows to rise.  As part of the Belmont Stakes “Festival,” Kay is proposing to cancel the preceding Wednesday’s racing card to focus attention on the draw for the Belmont Stakes.  It’s hard to think of a bigger non-event than the draw for a 12-furlong race that rarely attracts a full field.  And NYRA can’t conduct a race card and a half-hour program to draw the Belmont field?

Speaking of Belmont Park, if you want to wager on simulcast racing during dark days, you will not be able to do so at the Belmont Cafe.  It’s not profitable on dark days, so the most loyal NYRA fans will have to make do elsewhere.  I am sure Kay and his NYRA suits will say go to the internet, oblivious to the reality that there are some who go to a wagering facility because of the camaraderie.  Let’s not forget that New York City still is without OTB’s, and the Skorton-Kay team has apparently not accomplished anything in addressing that embarrassment.

In those rare public instances when Kay is not reciting his scripted talking points, he is actually charming and witty.  What he is not, however, is a national leader in the racing industry, a stature he should have as the head of one of the top three racing organizations in the United States.  With his small-bore focus on minutiae such as food and beverage sales and attracting B-level music acts to Belmont Stakes Day and, heaven help us, the Travers, he is more akin to a concierge than a figure of national import.

So there you have it.  New York racing is governed by a secret society composed of incompetent “leaders.”  The NYRA Board is made up of many accomplished business people and professionals, which makes their passivity on important matters and clear inadequacy as an oversight body even more frustrating.  And their plan for returning NYRA to private control next year is that they will pick the next Board.

NYRA Board offers food for thought on future

Posted by noonante on November 13, 2014
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . 2 Comments

The NYRA Reorganization Board got down to business at its Wednesday meeting as they began to discuss the future of the racing franchise.  There were some interesting announcements, but the most significant part of the meeting had to do with their ideas for a new governing structure.

First the announcements.  NYRA’s CEO Chris Kay said that the re-privatization plan would not recommend changes affecting the continuing existence of Aqueduct or Belmont.  He observed that the NYRA Board was established as an interim Board until a new structure could be put in place and thought it inappropriate for a temporary group to recommend such significant long-term changes.

Kay further stated that the Saratoga meet would remain at 40 days, running six days per week and ending on the traditional Labor Day.  There had been reports that NYRA wished to go to a schedule of five days per week beginning in early July.

There was also an announcement that NYRA’s operating costs would finish 2014 in the black without reliance on VLT revenues, marking the first time in 13 years it could say that.  This was accomplished by not considering pension and tax liabilities as “operating costs” and using the VLT revenues to pay them.  By law, however, the VLT revenues are designated for the purpose of “general thoroughbred racing operations.”  While it is not clear why NYRA is resorting to this bit of legerdemain, it appears it is for the purpose of giving the Governor the chance to say his involvement in running NYRA resulted in it turning a profit.

From my perspective, the most significant matter raised at the meeting  –  and the one with the longest-term consequences  –  had to do with NYRA’s future governing structure.  I realize that this is the sort of arcane matter that causes many eyes to glaze over, but nothing will be as determinative of the future for New York’s racing as this one.

The current NYRA Board, created by Governor and the Legislature in 2012 when Cuomo seized control of NYRA, has 17 members.  Eight are appointees of the Governor, two of the Senate and two of the Assembly.  The remaining five were appointed by the prior NYRA Board which, while it had a significant number of government appointees, had a majority of non-government members. The legislation creating that Board also directed it to propose a  “statutory plan for the prospective not-for-profit governing structure” for the next NYRA.

Joseph Lambert, NYRA’s General Counsel, reads the statute as requiring that the next NYRA be under “private control,” not government control as the current Board is.  While there had been speculation that there would be a bidding process to determine the franchise holder, Lambert is proposing that the next NYRA Board consist of some government appointees with the majority selected by the current Board.

Let’s unpack that one.  The “privately controlled” next NYRA would have a Board composed of some government appointees with the rest being appointed by the current “government-controlled” Board.  How is that not perpetuating government control?

Lambert offered additional ideas for the new structure.  (It should be emphasized that Board Chairman David Skorton said at the outset that he would not be seeking Board approval for any of these concepts, but rather just wanted to get the ideas out in the open.)  Under Lambert’s approach, the number of Board members would be reduced from the current 17, and the terms of office would be between two and four years with staggered terms.  He said that he developed these ideas based on “best practices” in the corporate world.  We do not know if these are the practices utilized by the boards of such responsible corporations as General Motors and JP Morgan.

But NYRA should not be viewed as a corporation.  The prime obligation of any corporation is to maximize profits for its shareholders.  NYRA’s “shareholders,” however do not hold stock.  It is owners, trainers, jockeys, exercise riders, backstretch workers and  –  let’s not forget  –  fans.  The new Board, therefore, should be protective of those interests and not just the bottom line.

There was some discussion of the importance of the next NYRA Board being “independent.”  Board member Robert Megna, who serves as Cuomo’s Budget Director, emphasized that “up here”  – presumably meaning the Governor’s office  –  the “question of independence is pretty critical.” Now, “independence” is an interesting word and concept.  I doubt there are many who would dispute the notion that the next Board should be “independent.”  I am guessing, however, that the Governor’s idea of “independent” means someone who is independent of any thoughts or views that do not emanate from the Executive Chamber.  That’s not, however, what most people are hoping for.

The notion of independence is also tied to how the Board is appointed, and how long the terms of office will be.  The Governor’s recent appointee to the Board suggested that the term of office should be ten years.  As noted earlier, the original idea by Lambert for a Board appointed by the current one would then mean that the existing government-controlled Board would retain its influence for ten years.  To put that in context, it would take us to the end of President Cuomo’s second term in 2025.

There has to be a better way.  Here is one modest proposal:  There should be a number of state government appointees.  One member suggested six, with nine more being non-government appointees.  Instead of having the current Board select those nine, they should nominate the nine. Then, there should be an external panel of knowledgeable industry professionals who would approve or disapprove each of the nine.  It is akin to the mechanism for external bodies (such as the American Bar Association) reviewing the judicial nominees of governors or the President.

There would be standards for reviewing the nominees  –  true independence being foremost  –  as well as goals such as diversity.  If the corporate world is the mindset for the current Board  –  which consists of 17 older, white men  –  we know that a Board appointed by them is likely to be made up of older, white men.  It’s not as if it would be difficult to find prominent and respected people within the industry who could serve on a panel to review their selections.  Dr. Mary Scollay from Kentucky already served on the Governor’s Task Force on Race Horse Safety.  Dr. Jennifer Durenberger from Massachusetts overhauled that state’s approach to racing safety and integrity.

Then I would turn to a long-time and respected member of racing in New York to chair the panel  – Tom Durkin.  Such an approach would give the next NYRA heightened credibility and help ensure that the resulting organization would truly be viewed as independent.

David Skorton and Chris Kay should be commended for their approach thus far on the re-privatization initiative.  The Board meeting, while brief, was substantive.  More importantly, they are making public their thinking on the direction going forward for NYRA, and doing so five months ahead of the deadline for submitting a final plan.  It gives stakeholders something to think about and debate.  It may even be an opportunity for the main stream media to deliver some insightful coverage.

 

NYRA to discuss its future on Wednesday?

Posted by noonante on November 10, 2014
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . 2 Comments

We may learn this week the direction the leadership of the New York Racing Association wishes to take the racing and breeding industries of the state.  There is a meeting of NYRA’s Board of Directors scheduled for Wednesday, November 12.  Many of those involved with the thoroughbred industries are hoping for the best, although the current NYRA leadership has no past performances that warrant optimism.

The current Board was appointed over two years ago following Governor Andrew Cuomo’s takeover of NYRA.  The legislation creating the current entity put government firmly in charge with the state’s political leadership appointing 12 of the 17 voting Board members.  The Board was charged with submitting a plan by April, 2015, that would recommend a “statutory plan for the prospective not-for-profit governing structure” for NYRA.

Board Chairman David Skorton indicated that Wednesday’s meeting may be the first step in starting to discuss seriously the future of New York racing.  That this Board has been around for more than two years and has waited until now to have those discussions is, of course, an indication of how dysfunctional  –  or political  –  they have been.  Here are some of the matters that should be addressed  in the five months before their plan must be presented:

  • Governing structure of the body that runs racing at Saratoga, Belmont and Aqueduct:  The statutory language of “not-for-profit governing structure” leaves open the terrifying prospect that state government will continue to control racing.  Chairman Skorton said as much at one Board meeting when he said the new entity would be “hopefully us.”  While one does not know how much NYRA believes its press releases of how great they have been over the past two years, if they are that delusional, it is not a big leap for them to recommend they remain in charge.  If that is not the recommendation, however, there are a myriad of fascinating issues concerning the selection of the new NYRA.  How, exactly, is that to be accomplished, and what will the role be of the Governor and legislative leaders?  Will people actually knowledgeable about racing and breeding have a significant voice?
  • What is the future of VLT revenues that have been crucial to NYRA’s sustainability?  There had been a drumbeat by the Governor and his top racing appointees (Skorton, Budget Director and NYRA Board member Robert Megna and Franchise Oversight Board Chair Rob Williams) that NYRA had to achieve profitability without consideration of the revenues guaranteed by law to NYRA.  While that campaign had been put on hold while another more important campaign was taking place, now that we are past Election Day, is that issue going to take center stage again?  Convenient, isn’t it, that serious discussions were delayed until the gubernatorial race was decided?
  • What is the future of Aqueduct and winter racing?  There have been reports that the Cuomo Administration would like to sell Aqueduct.  After all, all those real estate developers who were such heavy campaign contributors need something for their largesse.  NYRA CEO Chris Kay told one group that Aqueduct loses $11.9 million during its winter meet.  Now anytime Kay gets near a number, it is time to pay attention.  In a written report to the NYRA Board he said that an indication of the success of NYRA’s “Big Day” concept of racing was the “$574 million” Pick 6 carryover from the July 5 card.  $574 million.  He has also said that an indication of the enhanced guest experience at Saratoga is increased spending by fans, actually citing the higher admission and parking fees as examples.  So when he says that Aqueduct winter racing loses almost $12 million per year, it’s time to ask for a detailed explanation of that figure.
  • Does NYRA care about New York’s breeding industry?  The discussion of winter racing is inextricably intertwined with the future of the New York-bred program.  Almost one-half of the NYRA’s NY-bred races are run at Aqueduct, and are crucial to the sustainability of the breeding program.  Not only is the New York-bred program on the upswing, but it provides some of the most lucrative incentives to breeders.  (Dayatthespa became the first Grade I Breeders’ Cup winner this year, and each juvenile race on the dirt saw a third-place finish from a NY-bred  –   Upstart in the Juvenile and Wonder Gal in the Juvenile Fillies.)  The winter meeting gives local owners and trainers a place to race their stock, a particularly important consideration if we want to maintain the low-profile operations in the game.  Not everyone can afford to move from New York to Florida during the cold weather months.

I give NYRA credit if Wednesday’s meeting is the start of an open, public debate about these issues.  It’s a conversation that should have begun a long time ago.  Board Chairman Skorton has been talking for at least 15 months about the hard choices facing NYRA and New York’s racing without specifying what he means.  I realize the Cuomo Administration has kept a lid on all matters that present difficult decisions until the political campaign was completed, but there are 30,000 jobs at stake in both the racing and breeding industries.

One of the major benefits of having that public discussion is that it will give the many knowledgeable and experienced horse people a say in how things should go.  Neither Chairman Skorton nor CEO Kay has any background in the business and, quite frankly, neither has demonstrated anything more than a rudimentary familiarity with the issues.  The fear, of course, is that any decisions are going to be made in the way that seems too typical of the Governor and his appointees  –  behind closed doors with no airing of the competing considerations.  A recent news report that a decision on expanding the Saratoga meet was made in a secret meeting that violated the state’s Open Meetings Law does not reduce the apprehension.  We can at least hope that this time it will be different.

Random musings on the elections

Posted by noonante on November 5, 2014
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . 2 Comments

Some thoughts on the 2014 mid-terms:

  • Prophetic headline of the season:  “Dems fret about …”  That’s right  –  “fret”  –  is there a word that could possibly describe better the behavior of the Democratic Party this season (if not many seasons) as “fret?”  Not “fight.” not “fierce,” but “fret?”  I do not remember what they were fretting about this time, but does it matter?  When the Democratic opponent to Majority Leader-elect McConnell will not even acknowledge whether she voted for the President, I had the feeling Tuesday night that they got what they deserved.
  • GOP mandate?  After Obama kicked butt in 2012, there was endless talk about what the Republicans had to do to avoid terminal irrelevance.  This time it’s the Dems conducting that post-mortem.  My advice is to save your breath.  Folks are irritated for understandable reasons, and they will take that out against the party in power.  Quick  –  name the Republican policy idea that carried the day  –  and not liking Obama does not count.
  • Most upsetting headline of the season:  Politico.com wins the award for today’s “4 indicted N.Y. pols win reelection.”  Most states would be embarrassed if there were a single potential felon.  In New York, the competition is for which Congressman or state legislator’s alleged crime is the worst.  That must also have been upsetting to Governor Andrew Cuomo who made rooting out corruption in Albany one of his campaign issues in 2010.  That was, of course, before he dismantled a commission investigating New York’s corruption after they started making uncomfortable inquiries into his own campaign contributors.  And now Cuomo is being looked at by federal criminal investigators.
  • Speaking of Cuomo, how are those Presidential aspirations looking?  I know it’s too late for him to change, but people are not looking for arrogant jerks to be President.  He refused to shake the hand of his opponent in the Democratic primary, let alone condescend to debate her.  In the general election, he would not agree to a televised debate with his Republican opponent, and his sole debate appearance amounted to less than 15 minutes of answering questions.  Then his much-anticipated memoir sold less than a 1,000 copies in its first week and, remarkably, even fewer the following week.  Now, with a campaign war chest well north of $30 million against an unknown opponent, he managed only 54 per cent of the vote.  Even more telling, I think, is comparing total votes between 2010 and 2014.  In each year, the Republican received about the same number of votes  –  1.5 million in 2010 compared with 1.4 million this time.  Cuomo, however, got 1 million fewer votes this time around.  Not exactly a compelling endorsement.
  • Martha Coakley didn’t “choke” this election:  The national political media loves simple narratives and I read that headline about a week ago.  The reality is that Republican gubernatorial candidates have historically run well in Massachusetts, and Charlie Baker is a non-ideological and pragmatic politician.  (Contrast him with Rob Astorino.)  He is also a decent, smart and likable guy who actually listens to views that may disagree with his own.  Coakley, for her part, campaigned vigorously  –  unlike the Scott Brown campaign in 2010  –  and is also decent, smart and likable.  The Massachusetts voter had the opportunity to vote for the candidate he or she thought would make the best Governor and not need to vote against someone or have to pick the lesser of two evils.

Kay bonus award symptomatic of NYRA problem

Posted by noonante on October 27, 2014
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , . 2 Comments

Recent news articles revealed the salary paid Tom Durkin, the legendary and (and now-retired) track announcer for the New York Racing Association.  Albany’s Times Union used the occasion to observe  –  correctly  –  that NYRA “needs to remember its obligation to the public when deciding how generous to be with salaries.”

At least we know what Durkin did for his money, and his performance was rated by tens of thousands of fans every time he called a race during a career that included Triple Crown races and the Breeders’ Cup.  Now that NYRA has released documents to me concerning the bonus and salary increase awarded CEO Chris Kay, we still do not know what he accomplished to warrant a quarter-million dollar bonus and a $9,000 pay increase.

When the NYRA Reorganization Board embarked on hiring a new CEO early in 2013, it was leery of fostering a perception that it was overly lavish with the salary since NYRA is now a state agency.  Thus, it established a base salary of $300,000 with eligibility for a bonus of up to $250,000.  The prior permanent CEO was paid $475,000  –  a level criticized by Andrew Cuomo’s Budget Director, Robert Megna,. Megna, appointed by Cuomo to the NYRA Board, however, apparently had no problem with a level of compensation that was greater by $75K.

Now, I don’t have a problem with a salary in that range.  What I do have a problem with is an agency of government being misleading, saying one thing and doing another.  When the NYRA Board discussed the concept of a bonus, Chairman David Skorton  –  appointed by the Governor  –  assured the public it was a performance-based bonus based on metrics and that he was a hard grader.  He also promised he would be “very public” about this.

The “very public” part did not mean the public would actually know what the CEO’s goals and performance measures would be.  After the protracted refusal of NYRA to disclose that information, ending with a finding they were violating the public records law, they released the “Performance Metrics” for Kay.  It is a vague document of less than a half-page containing nothing more than generalities, but again assures us that the CEO’s “performance will be reviewed annually against the goals set by the NYRA Board.”  The NYRA Board never established any goals, let alone discuss them.

Yet this document is the only piece of paper having to do with the CEO’s goals  –  unless you count the cancelled check for $250.000.  Nowhere is there a description of Kay’s specific goals and metrics, and obviously no explanation of how his performance measured against the non-existing standards.

The portion of the NYRA Board meeting at which Kay’s bonus and pay increase was announced took all of 80 seconds.  Laughably, one of the factors cited in the Board announcement was Kay’s “fostering transparency.”  No Board member mentioned any goals, nor was there a discussion in the 80 seconds allotted this topic.

Kay was asked about this during the September meeting of the Franchise Oversight Board, a state agency whose sole responsibility is to oversee and monitor NYRA’s performance.  He was, shall we say, less than forthcoming about the fact that there was no documentation relating to his performance and the bonus.  Board member Steven Newman pressed Kay on whether there were a written set of standards, stressing the importance of a public agency being transparent and accountable.

Kay danced around the issue without ever answering directly.  He offered to provide a written statement from Chairman Skorton, although it is clear it would be something Skorton would have to create from scratch.  The FOB Chairman, Rob Williams, said he would ask NYRA for the standards, but at no time did Kay acknowledge they did not exist.  (Williams referred to the “Performance Metrics” piece of paper as being a “loose description” of goals.)

It’s not as though there are not significant issues that arose during Kay’s tenure that warrant extended discussion.  One of the three areas that Kay stresses every time he speaks is his efforts to “enhance the guest experience.”  It would be nice to know how his management of the fiasco that Belmont Stakes Day was for many fans factored into the bonus decision.  Or, how the increase in admission and parking fees might have affected attendance and handle.  Kay remarkably described those increases as an example of the enhanced guest experience he has brought to NYRA in his comments to the Franchise Oversight Board.  It is not to that body’s credit that no one questioned Kay’s logic.  (Board member Newman, who appears to be immune to Kay’s relentless spouting of nonsense, had left the meeting by this point.)

In the greater context, the secrecy and obfuscation surrounding the awarding of Kay’s bonus are not the most significant matters that face racing and breeding operations in New York.  There is the upcoming matter of what form NYRA will take when the state-controlled entity expires less than a year from now.  But if NYRA and the Governor’s appointees cannot be forthright about the relatively minor issue of the CEO’s pay and what he did to earn it, who can trust them when it comes to truly consequential decisions that will affect the livelihoods of tens-of-thousands of New Yorkers?

NYRA’s latest farce of a Board of Directors meeting

Posted by noonante on September 29, 2014
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

I have written before about how completely useless meetings of Governor Cuomo’s Reorganization Board of Directors meetings of the New York Racing Association have been.  They have consistently been devoid of anything approaching serious content, and are a complete waste of time.  Now, however, they appear to be trying to outdo the silliness of a prior meeting by having an even more ridiculous one.

Today’s meeting was announced on late Friday afternoon.  The agenda was made available on Sunday afternoon.  You know, timing designed to attract the maximum level of interest.  NYRA could not even get the meeting announcement straight and had to issue three of them.  The first omitted one of the video conference locations.  The second omitted the date and time of the meeting.  The third  –  90 minutes before the meeting  –  got it all together.

In anticipation of yet another colossal waste of time, I would not even drive to Albany to watch the video conference there, and instead tried to watch the webcast.  In a day and age when web casting is a remarkablly useful and common tool, NYRA cannot even seem to get that right.  Today’s meeting lasted all of 51 minutes.  The quality of the webcast so dismal that I think I heard one complete sentence.  The broadcast was interrupted 120 times by freezing of the screen and sound.  If anything, I under counted.

What is even more troubling, however, is that I do not think I missed much.  We had CEO Chris Kay’s repetitive and typical blather  –  did you know that there were 750 HD televisions at Saratoga?  If you have heard him speak any time in the past year, you would.  I will see if any of the reporters who endured this session have anything new to report before I look for a hopefully coherent version to appear on NYRA’s web site.

At the end of the meeting, Board Chairman David Skorton apologized for scheduling so many meetings.  He should instead be apologizing for wasting everyone’s time by chairing meetings at which nothing ever happens.