Plainridge's Baffling Raffle: Still No Answer?

Meetings listed below.

 

 

Will the Gam[bl]ing Commission ask about the Plainridge Baffling Raffle?

 

Since you have recently taken on the task of overseeing the Massachusetts horse-racing industry, as well as your statutory responsibilities “establishing the financial stability and integrity of gaming licensees, as well as the integrity of their sources of financing”, I would like to express my concerns about Plainridge Racecourse and a yearly “charitable” raffle offered by them since 1999, ostensibly to benefit non-profits, both locally and out-of-state. My concerns are the following:

 

1. Below is a photograph of the ticket for this year’s raffle, sold by the participating non-profits (I don’t know if tickets were available from Plainridge directly). There is nothing on the reverse of the ticket. No other organization’s name or information appears except that of Plainridge Racecourse.

 

 

2. Plainville Racecourse does not hold a raffle permit with the town of Plainville (nor could it, if I understand Mass. General Laws: CHAPTER 271, Section 7A). When I asked our town clerk, Ellen Robertson, if Plainridge had a raffle permit in Plainville, she said that they did not, and told me that they would not qualify for one, in any case.

 

3. Upon inquiring about the legality of the raffle, I was told that the raffle was held under the raffle permits of the beneficiary non-profits. Again, as I understand the Massachusetts General Laws, this is not legal. Moreover, more than one article I’ve read about the raffle says that it was “conducted by Plainridge”.

 

In any case, at least one of the those non-profits, the Plainville Athletic League (PAL), did not hold a raffle permit from 2009 until April 23rd, 2012, but participated in the so-called Plainridge Raffle during those years anyway (as well as holding several others). They did not hold a permit when they charged for and distributed the raffle tickets to PAL participants this year. They only applied for and received a permit after they were questioned by Plainville residents about the legality of the raffle.

 

Other beneficiaries of the raffle are not even registered non-profits within Massachusetts:

http://xwebapp.ustrotting.com/absolutenm/templates/article.aspx?articleid=42256&zoneid=1

 

4. I first learned of the raffle when parents of PAL participants called to tell me that their children’s PAL registration packets had ten raffle tickets (above) stapled to each packet.

Under the "Fees" section of the PAL website, it reads: "Registration fees for 2012 include the ability to play, playing shirts and $10 in Plainridge raffle tickets."

 

This is what board member and fundraising coordinator of PAL, Bryan Weddleton, wrote on the NoPlainvilleRacino Facebook page about the raffle:

 

“I am also a board member at the PAL, the fund raising coordinator. The plainridge [sic] raffle is a fundraiser were [sic] the $10 in tickets is rolled into the registration fees. It is then up to the parents to either sell the tickets to get the money back or put their name on the tickets. Plainridge sees nothing of the money, it all goes to the PAL were [sic] the board allocates the funds towards the facility and upgrades to help make the 400 kids of the PAL have a better baseball/softball experience. Please email me directly with any further questions. My email can be found on the PAL website. Www.palonline.org”

 

When some parents said they did not want to participate in what amounted to mandatory gambling, and asked for their $10 back, saying they would write a check, free and clear, for an extra $10 for their children, PAL refused to refund their money or buy back the tickets.

Two of the fathers who called me were quite distraught because they are each recovering gambling addicts. Imagine how they felt when raffle tickets for wagers on a horse race came into their homes, unsolicited and without their permission.

 

5. The language about "wagers" is particularly troubling. If Plainridge can't take wagers outside their four walls, how is it that they can sell or “redeem” chances on wagers?

 

6. There is absolutely nothing on the tickets (or in the instructions from PAL) that indicates a minimum age to "play"; instructions about who is allowed to peddle, promote, or sell the tickets; how old one must be to “play” and/or wager; to what purposes the money goes; what organizations benefit from the raffle; who makes the wagers; who decides on what horses to wager; how the “wagers” are made and with what money, etc. What you see on the ticket is the only information provided.

 

7. Because the raffle laws in Massachusetts seem pretty clear cut, it seems to me that Plainridge is in violation of the law. I called the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office in April to ask for clarification about the law, and, based on what little information I had at the time, they started an investigation. As far as I know, that investigation is ongoing. The investigator at the AG’s office with whom I spoke is Dan Ferullo.

 

8. At the Plainville Board of Selectmen’s meeting on April 22nd, the response of Chair Andrea Soucy to hearing about the Attorney General’s investigation was to invite Steve O’Toole (General Manager of Plainridge) to speak about how wonderful the raffle is and about “all that Plainridge has done for Plainville.”

 

In light of this violation of Open Meeting Law (neither Mr. O’Toole nor the subject of the raffle was on the agenda), as well as other cases of preferential treatment given to Plainridge by the Board of Selectmen (lobbying in Boston in 2010 for slot parlors to be added to the gambling bill without asking Plainville voters what we wanted, for instance:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/plainville/news/x905707661/Town-officials-livid-over-stalled-casino-bill-worried-about-track#axzz1wDllMwJn), I don’t see how the residents of Plainville can trust the selectmen to work in an objective, unbiased way toward negotiating a deal with Plainridge for slots.

 

9. During at least one of the raffles, a horse owned by one of the owners of Plainridge Racecourse was running in the race (the Kentucky Derby) on which these “charitable wagers” were being made.

 

10. Finally, while it might be true that Plainridge sees nothing of the raffle money, directly, they are currently in a PR battle for the hearts and minds (and votes!) of the people of Plainville, so I believe they do receive considerable "benefit" from the raffles in the form of goodwill. Plainridge even had a table at the opening day of PAL, with information about harness racing, gambling, and the slot barn that they’re poised to propose. Is that appropriate material to have around children, at a children’s event? With gambling addiction on the rise for teens, having Plainridge as a “guest” at the PAL opening day — even to have Plainridge as a sponsor of a children’s team — seems dangerously close to recruitment of new gamblers. Would PAL allow an alcohol or tobacco company to sponsor a team and to peddle their wares at an event for children?

 

I would not necessarily expect PAL to know about all the intricacies and nuances of the raffle laws; but Plainridge has plenty of legal expertise at its disposal. (As a matter of fact, they had their attorneys write a cease and desist letter and threaten a private citizen with a lawsuit for having started an anti-racino Facebook page on which a stranger had posted something that Plainridge disliked.) I hope Plainridge did not lead PAL or other non-profits into a situation where they have endangered their non-profit status.

 

I hope you will take this issue seriously, as I believe the laws regarding raffles are a serious matter, intended to be adhered to and enforced, especially when we are dealing with a pari-mutuel gambling establishment that’s looking to expand its facility and entice citizens to "play to extinction" in their slot barn.

You can access all the reports from Cummings Associates here:

http://www.plainville.ma.us/Pages/PlainvilleMA_EmerNews/03C0E1F7-000F8513

These constitute the findings of the Plainville gambling consultant about the addition of a slots casino at Plainridge.

**********************************

MA GAM[BL]ING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING - TUESDAY, JUNE 4th

PUBLIC MEETING: Plainridge Gaming Facility Proposal:

The meeting is being held to launch a process to evaluate and mitigate the impacts of the proposed Plainridge Gaming Facility Proposal on the potential surrounding communities.

DATE: TUESDAY JUNE 4, 2013
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: PLAINVILLE SENIOR CENTER, 9 SCHOOL STREET, PLAINVILLE, MA 02762

Sponsored by:
Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC)
Southeastern Regional Planing and Economic Development District (SRPEDD)
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)


Read the full NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING here:http://www.plainville.ma.us/Pages/PlainvilleMA_Calendar/S03FF71F0-03FF7206.0/Mass%20Gaming%20Commission%20&%20SRPPEDD%20&%20MAPC.pdf

PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO PEOPLE IN PLAINVILLE, FOXBOROUGH, MANSFIELD, WRENTHAM, NORTH ATTLEBORO, ATTLEBORO, ETC.

***********************************

PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING - MONDAY, JUNE 17TH

Plainville Planning Board hearing on slots at Plainridge

MONDAY, JUNE 17th at 7:00p.m. at the Plainville Senior Center, 9 School Street, Plainville, MA.
All matters pertaining to the applicant's amendment to the Special Permit and Change of Use will be covered at that hearing, including traffic, impact on abutter's, general welfare of the public, etc (read below).

At that time, the public is welcome to bring up any questions or concerns regarding what "the Planning Board shall consider," included in §500-41 of the Plainville By-Laws:

(2) Review criteria. In making a decision on an application for a special permit in the CI District, the Planning Board shall consider the following:
(a) The purpose of the Commercial Interchange District.
(b) Health, safety and general welfare of the public.
(c) Conservation and preservation of the natural environment.
(d) Impacts on abutting properties and neighborhoods.
(e) Proper drainage of the site.
(f) Safe access to and from the development.
(g) Capacity of the existing traffic network to accommodate projected increases.
(h) Adequacy of proposed water, sewer, fire protection and public safety provisions.
(i) Impacts on water resources, including wetlands, streams, water bodies, groundwater and floodplains.
(j) Visual and aesthetic quality.
(k) Impacts on municipal services and fiscal capacity.