ON THE ANVIL with PHIL MATTHEWS

Newly elected FTBOA President Phil Matthews agreed to be  ” On The Anvil “  and the following are his answers to the seven questions asked.

 

1.   Hold Your Horses:  How is the elimination of proxy ballots and the revamping process for electing FTBOA board members progressing?

 

Phil Matthews:  I have had several questions concerning the proxy format and do think that the process is certainly worth reviewing.  There was a preliminary discussion at the board meeting in November and will be a topic for the board in the near future.

 

2.  HYH:  Will the “recommended candidates slate” still be a part of the election process and if so why?

 

PM:  I think there should always be recommendations from the board on the selection of future board members.  As a board member a person knows who has made valuable contribution to the process in the past and who may do so in the future.  I also think it is incumbent upon the board to be looking to the membership for “new blood” and new ideas from people that are sincerely interested in the good of the association.

 

3. HYH:  You have “transparency” high on your agenda.  Does that mean that monthly board meetings will be posted well in advance so that members can attend?

 

PM:  I think transparency is always important in any member owned association.  Do I think that translates to having open attendance at a board meeting?  Absolutely not.  If that were the case, there should be no board.  A board of directors is charged with making thoughtful decisions for the good of the organization based on each individual’s knowledge, experience and research as well as open and honest dialogue during the board meeting.  I believe that open and honest dialogue is thwarted by “an audience”.

 

4.  HYH:  Under provisions already in place the breeders’ awards program could be administered at 20% rather than 15% and would allow a 15% – 3% – 2% split for the first three spots rather than the 10% - 3% – 2% that is now in play or some other configuration. Why has that not been considered?

 

PM:  I think that a 15, 3, 2% split is worth considering as is paying awards for stakes races (and possibly other races) out of state.  The problem with expanding the dollars awarded in whatever fashion you deem to do it, is that you need money to do so.  If there isn’t enough money, expansion of any kind isn’t possible.

Our association has taken a big hit from ADW (advanced deposit wagering).  We are not getting our fair share of the money that is being bet using this format and ADW is growing every year as a percentage of handle which means that every year our association is receiving less in to the trust fund.  This has been balanced somewhat by slots and card rooms but has prevented us from gaining any ground.  We are battling hard to get this situation rectified.

 

5.  HYH:   Who decided there should be a 10% “bonus”  for breeders’ 2010 awards that was distributed last month and was there a board vote?  Would it not have been something that the entire membership should have had in-put on?  It seemed a bit self-serving for past presidents and other board members who walked off with substantial amounts that could have been structured in a 20% awards program.

 

PM:  The decision to pay the additional bonus on the 2010 awards was made by the board.  There was “extra” money in the trust fund, above the reserve, and it was felt that everyone in the association would want to increase the bonus given if the money was there.  (Look at your question #4).  It is interesting this question is framed “self-serving”.  I guess my response to that is “we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.”  I can truly only speak for myself about how I voted on that decision, but I think the feeling was unanimous in the room that day and that is, “great if the money is there from 2010 then the awards won in 2010 should be increased.”  It wouldn’t be fair of me to parse out who won the most races, that wasn’t the point.

 

6.  HYH:  How is the “fraud” case advancing regarding the former employee who allegedly stole about $100K?

 

PM:  The fraud case is in the hands of the state attorney’s office.  The FTBOA office worked hard to provide all the detail that was asked for.

 

7.  HYH:  Why does it take so long to publish financials for the organization?

 

PM:  I’m not certain how long it took in years past to have the financials published so I won’t speak to that.  I know it took longer than I intended it to this year for two reasons.  First, I was personally responsible for slowing the process down this year.  That wasn’t my intent but I held an extra meeting with the auditors this year so that I could better understand the audit process and how it is conducted each year.  Secondly, the short staffing at the FTBOA office resulted in it not being done in a timely manner after that meeting.  Hopefully a delay in posting was not an inconvenience to the membership this year.