|
|
The Comment Hearing
|
|
SEPTEMBER 28, 2001 APPEARANCES General Counsel, Texas Lottery Commission: Marketing Director, Texas Lottery Commission: On-Line Product Manager, Texas Lottery Commission: I've made a few extra comments. They are marked in Blue. MS. KIPLIN: It's 10:05 a.m. and I'm going to call the public rulemaking comment hearing to order now and convene that. My name is Kimberly Kiplin. I'm the general counsel for the Texas Lottery Commission. I have two other members of the staff here with me today, Mr. Robert Tirloni, who is the on-line products manager in the marketing division, Texas Lottery Commission; and Ms. Toni Smith, who is the marketing director of the Texas Lottery Commission. This is a public hearing to receive public comment regarding proposed amendments to 16 -- Title 16, Texas Administrative Code, sections 401.302, 401.303, 401.304, 401.307, 401.308, 401.309, and 401.310. Also, on the repeal of section 401.301, and on new rules 401.301, 401.313, and 401.314, concerning lottery game rules. We are also here to receive public comment regarding proposed amendments to Title 16, Texas Administrative Code, sections 401.305 and 401.312, concerning Lotto Texas on-line game rule and Texas Two Step on-line game rule. It's -- I called the hearing to order at 10:05. Today is Friday, September 28th, 2001. Comments that were -- have been received regarding Title 16, Texas Administrative Code, sections 401.305 and 401.312, at the time that those two rules were part of the Subchapter D game rules rulemaking will be incorporated into the record, the rulemaking record on the -- the rulemaking that is just on Title 16, Texas Administrative Code, sections 401.305 and 401.312. So if anybody has filed comments as part of that rulemaking, please know that they will be carried forward into the rulemaking that was published August 10th, 2001 and will be considered. The hearing today is being conducted pursuant to the Texas Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 2001 of the Texas Government Code. Let me -- let me just go ahead and outline the procedures that we're going to follow today. First of all, we're following procedures as -- as provided for in the Administrative Procedure Act, and part of that is to publish proposed rulemaking for public comment for a minimum of 30 days. We are in that public comment period now. It is ripe to receive comment. We have received comment in written form, and today is an opportunity for comment in oral form, and then also for people who would wish to submit comment in written form. The first rulemaking on the game rules was published for public comment in the Texas Register May 11th, 2001. And the rulemaking on the Lotto Texas and Texas Two Step rules was published in the Texas Register edition, August 10th, 2001. So it -- it is ripe for comment. The hearing today is to receive public comment. It's not to ask questions of the staff or to engage in a dialogue with the staff. It's an opportunity for people to provide comment. Now, the staff may ask questions, and the purpose of the questions the staff will ask is to clarify the comment so that we understand it so that we'll be in a position of summarizing that comment, and if applicable, having the agency respond to that comment. If you want to make comment, please fill out a Witness Affirmation Form and provide it to me. I have one at this point from Ms. Dawn Nettles. I don't have any others. So if anybody is here and wants to provide comment, please fill out the Witness Affirmation Form. I will call the name of the commenter in the order of the forms that I receive, and when you come to the table to provide comment, please identify yourself for the record. If you are representing somebody other than yourself, please identify who are you representing for the record. We do have a court reporter who is reporting this hearing today, and that court reporter -- and she's -- she's really good. She has reported quite a few of our -- our hearings and our meetings. But she can only take one voice at a time. So if you will bear that in mind when you come forward, that if one of us asks a question, we will wait until you finish that comment. And if you will -- if you will wait to respond to our question until we finish the question, we will get a clean and good record. If you don't want to make oral comment, but you do want to show your support for or opposition to the rulemaking, that's fine. Just indicate that on the Witness Affirmation Form. If you've prepared written comment, I would appreciate it if you would just go ahead and submit the written comment and not read it into the record. That written comment will be made part of the record and it will be summarized. I -- like I said, at this point, I only have one Witness Affirmation Form from Ms. Nettles. If anybody -- and I'll -- if I see people coming in, I'll make the same comment, go to the back and get a Witness Affirmation Form. And with that, if -- if there are no questions on a procedural basis for me to respond to, we'll move forward with Ms. Nettles and her comments. Ms. Nettles, good morning. Thank you for coming and thank you for offering comment. And we're glad to hear what you have to say. MS. NETTLES: Thank you. Good morning, Kim, Toni. MR. TIRLONI: Robert. MS. NETTLES: Don't know you. For the record, my name is Dawn Nettles. I am the publisher of the Lotto Report and owner of the website www.lottoreport.com. I am here today wearing three different hats. First, I am a citizen of the State of Texas. I'm a taxpayer. And I am a player. I play the games of Texas. My second hat is that I've become a messenger. There are a whole bunch of people just like me who wanted to be here today but could not and have asked that I deliver their messages to the Commission. So these people are -- the majority of them are citizens of the State. They are taxpayers, too. And they are absolutely, positively your customers. They are not groups and organizations. They are players. They are people. They are the people that make the Texas Lottery successful. There are some that are out of state that have commented. They are from Oklahoma and they cross over and play. But again, they are not groups and organizations. The reason that I make that point so very clear that they're not groups and organizations is because if y'all will recall, in August of '99, the Texas Lottery Commission proposed to add four balls. By September of '99, you all had a tremendous outpour of response from the -- from the players, the people of Texas, telling you not to add those four balls. They were totally opposed. In September of '99, Linda Cloud issued a letter that went to 17,000 retailers. It did not go to the media. It did not go to the people. It went to the retailers. In that letter, she explained her purpose for adding the four balls and asked them to please comment. She didn't get any. In October of '99, she called a press conference and announced that she would be canceling -- withdrawing the rule -- proposed rule to add four balls, that her players had spoken to her, she heard it, she was listening. They would not add the four balls at that time. So I was elated because I personally brought in over 2,500 comments. Y'all received over a thousand letters direct because of the media coverage on it. And I really believed with all my heart that it was over and done with, that you all were listening to the people, and that our system did work. Well, as you know, you came back in March and you proposed it again. But this time, I feel as though you were better prepared. By that, I mean, you had -- I feel you made arrangements to have petitions signed, Gtech has admitted carrying the surveys to the stores, getting signatures, and this that and the other. And you came up with 4,600 people that were for, 4,600 separate pieces of paper for the four balls. You had the same number of players comment a second time about the four balls. You had at least 3,500 come forth and say, no, do not add the four balls. Well, come May, you had a Commissioners meeting and you voted to approve the four balls -- or the Commissioners did. At that point, after that day, whenever it was -- I don't know the exact date. But I went to the Texas Register and saw where 4,500 -- or 3,500 names were listed as -- as for the rule, but there was only 450 names listed for it -- or opposed to it. I'm sorry. Opposed to it. So that got my attention immediately, and I picked up the telephone and called Diane Morris. And I said, Diane, I do not understand. I know for a fact you had over 3,500, you know, people against this deal, but in the Texas Register, you only list 450 to 500 names that are opposed to it. I'm sorry. I keep getting it backwards. That are opposed to it. So she was kind enough, she took me on the computer through the Internet, took me and showed me the law that stated that to be listed there, you had to be a "group or an organization." Now, admittedly, by Gtech and a later Commissioners meeting, they carried those surveys to store clerks. And store clerks signed and wrote Exxon, Texaco, 7-Eleven, Diamond Shamrock, Albertson's on it, and they were counted as "groups and organizations." But they weren't. They were individuals. They did not have the authority to speak for their company. They did not represent any organization because they didn't have the authority to do that. Okay? So therefore, I learned a lesson. And I want it to be really known that when I do submit the comments that I have received or that I have been asked to deliver to you, these people want to be treated equal. They want to be heard. They want the State to hear them. They are opposed to your proposed rulemaking. Okay? So we got the groups and organizations considered, and I want you to do that as you go through these names and these comments. Okay. My third hat -- MS. KIPLIN: I'm sorry. Can I -- so what you're saying is, the comments that you are -- just for the record, you've got, it looks like, a stack of comments that are to your right, and those comments are from individuals? MS. NETTLES: That's correct. And I'm going to cover that in a little bit. I'm not going to cover it right now. I'm just trying to describe my three hats so that when I hit each one at a time, you know what they -- what they are. I'm trying to define that these people are as good as present right here because they have asked me to deliver their message. Okay? They're not in this room, but they want to be a part of it. They don't want to be deleted like they were over the four ball issue. Because those people were cut out, and it was not fair to not hear your people. Okay? But the third hat that I wear today is that I am also co-founder of an organization called GETREAL. Professor Gerald Busald is the other co-founder of this organization. It -- GETREAL stands for Governments Evade Truthfulness, Responsibility, and Ethics in Advertising Lotteries. So I am going to cover my three hats and make the comments on behalf of all three now. Okay? Can I get a drink of water? My -- I am dry. Sorry. Okay. In May -- or at the end of April, you came out -- the Commission came out with a rulemaking that I read. When I read it, I was completely dumbfounded. It read that you wanted to start paying the winner -- You came prepared with your water, didn't you? MS. KIPLIN: Yes, I did. MS. NETTLES: That you were going to start paying the winners -- the six of six winners on Lotto Texas the amount that you advertised instead of the amount that's in the pot. Now, that was late April. And I sat there in shock, and I thought, why on earth would they want to do that? That's risky. There is no way that they can figure out exactly what to advertise because there is no way for them to know exactly what sales are going to be. They cannot advertise that the jackpot is going to be $4,622,386.77 to accommodate the amount that's allocated in the prize pool. Going back over the history of the lottery, I realized that for every dollar that a person spends for a Lotto ticket, that the rules for that dollar -- and I'm going to quote current rules -- is that out of that dollar, that single one dollar bill -- and I intended to bring one and left it in the car -- 37.532 percent is allocated and belongs to the six of six winner. 2.7885 cents is allocated for the five of six winners, to be divided by them. 6.8805 cents is allocated to be divided by the four of six winners. And 6.699 cents is allocated to be divided between the three of six winners. Thank you very much. (They brought me water!) The Commission withholds 1.1 cents for reserve that has always been stated that the reserve monies is supposed to be used for, if you over -- if you don't have enough to cover the three of six winners. It has always been stated that way. If you call -- anybody calls the Commission, that's what you're told. Customer service is very good at quoting that that's what that reserve is for. Then you have 33 cents out of that dollar to goes to the schools. You have five cents that goes to the retailers. And you have seven cents that goes to the Commission. And that's exactly one dollar. Now, y'all are talking about when -- about taking and paying the amount that you advertise and whether or not that is a wise or smart or economical -- good economic move. And it's clear that it's not because it's too risky for the State. On the behalf of the State of Texas, it's a bad move because you either are going to -- for every time there is a winner, you're either going to be adding money to the prize pool or you're going to be taking money out of the prize pool. Okay? Out of the "pari-mutuel" prize pool. Okay? When y'all made this game, you made it pari-mutuel, and that's the way that it was. Now, before I move forward, I also want to make it real clear that the biggest problem perceived here is that the people do not understand that when they win the Lotto, they do not understand that really, all they've won was a percentage of sales in the first place. Because lotteries across the country have always advertised, win four million dollars, win 10 million dollars, win 50 million dollars. So it has been embedded into their heads that they believe that if they hold that winning ticket, that they can drive here and pick up 50 million dollars for just their share. They don't understand that, really, all a lottery is doing is -- I almost call it borderline misrepresentation in advertising. Because it is borderline because that's not what they've won, and everybody knows it. All they've won is a percentage. The people don't understand that you take that percentage of sales and that you invest it, and that over a 25-year period is when, hopefully, they will get back the amount that they saw on the billboard. Okay? So it has also been told to me since 1993 by this Commission, over all the years, I have been assured that every Lotto winner that has ever won received everything in the prize pool and all the interest earned from that money. I've always been told that. Okay? So with that in mind, I'm back in May, and I'm reading your proposed rule where you want to pay the amount that you advertise, not the amount of the pool. And I'm thinking, well, if they followed the rules, how can they take that dollar and pay more or take more -- take some from it? You know, it's not just not quite jibing. I'm not quite clear with it. And to be real honest with you, I really didn't get clear with it until July when the one-year anniversary came about for adding the four balls, where we did the tallies of how you really came out at the end of a year. Okay? So anyway, the people are confused and do not understand how or what that four million, ten million, 20 million, 30 million dollar means. And so I think that that's something that perhaps should get cleared up. The fact that -- well, okay. The truth of the matter is, too, that the Commission has really already been doing this. This is something people don't know either. But the truth is, since late 1996 and early '97, the Commission already took it upon itself and they've already been paying, sometimes, the amount they advertise. Unfortunately, this Commission has not followed the rules completely, and they have picked and chose different individuals to receive different figures and different sums. No two people that have won the jackpot have been paid the same amount of money, period. Okay? Let me cite you some examples. On 9-18-96, there was an eight million dollar winner, and he is receiving -- after all of his payments, he's receiving a total of 7,466,511. The Texas Lottery Commission so generously added 275,000 dollars to the prize pool to get that kind of a return. Now, he didn't get eight million dollars. Okay? He got 7.4 million. Okay? Not eight. And eight is what was advertised. You did not advertise 7,466,511. Okay? On December 11th of '99, you had a 29 million dollar jackpot. There was a winner, and he is receiving exactly 29 million dollars. Okay? Exactly to the penny from the State of Texas -- MS. KIPLIN: What year? What was the date on that? I missed that. MS. NETTLES: This one was 12-11-99. I'm kind of jumping on dates. I'm going to come back. I realize that that's a big time frame. But these are overpayments. When I -- MS. KIPLIN: That's all right. Your comments are your comments. I just -- and you lay them out how you want. I just missed the date. MS. NETTLES: Okay. That winner on December 11th, now, the Commission did pay him the amount they advertised to the penny. And for his win, the Commission was very generous again, and they donated an extra 312,229 dollars. Okay? Then -- I forgot a date, and I was trying to make sure I had all the dates when I decided to do the dates. And I forgot one. Okay. On 3-24-99 -- wait a second. Let me back up. Then we had a 40 million dollar winner, and he received exactly 40 million dollars, down to the penny. Yet, the amount in the prize pool was -- wait a second. I have a mess up on my notes here. I'm not quoting that one right. Let me move on. On March the 24th, '99, we had two winners who split an 18 million dollar jackpot. Now, when we say that he's going to get the 18 million dollars, and what it costs -- we're talking about the cost for securities. I did not clarify that, too. Y'all know what I'm taking about, but maybe other people don't. But we know that you take the amount in the prize pool and you're supposed to invest it, and that's the amount that the winner is supposed to get, including all the interest. Well, on the two winners who split the 18 million, the cost to get a return of 18 million was 10.1 million, but you only paid that winner 9.9 million. He actually got the amount that was in the prize pool. He didn't get the amount that it cost to get back the -- the 18 million. So he didn't really even collect 18 million. He didn't get the advertised amount. And this is 3-24-99. On 8-19-98, the jackpot was advertised at 33 million. There was two winners, and they both received 16.5 each, they are annual pay. There was 18,488,904 in the prize pool. My question is, 18 million and 18 million is 36 million. Is he not getting all the interest that's earned off the monies? Where is the rest of it? The rest of these were equally divided, pretty much, but he didn't -- there are a number of prize pools where you say that it takes approximately one-half to get a return. And if you compare the draws before and after on these figures, they don't jibe. So I began to see a pattern here that perhaps y'all have been investing whatever amount, but by paying the advertised amount, you don't have to necessarily give back everything that you earn off the money. So it's beginning to kind of jibe in my head. Oh, I see. They're going to make up the difference because they're going to start earning money off the interest that this money is accruing. Then we have the poor winners that did not receive at all the amount in the prize pool. You have 13 jackpots -- 13 different jackpot wins where the winner did not even receive the amount allocated. They received the advertised jackpot amount. You have a win for 2-4-98. The jackpot was 47 million. There was -- and that's exactly how much the winner is collecting after you tally all of his payments. He was short-changed by 798,145 dollars, at least. That's the provable amount. Okay? So there was 26 million in the prize pool. 26 and 26 is 52 million. I'm wondering, where is that money? Now, I have financial experts going through these right now to determine the interest rate and going back on those forms and taking the interest, and we're calculating these figures. I do not have them now because I did not get the information soon enough to have it in time for this hearing. But it is quite -- it has been told to me by the financial experts that it's very obvious that the winners are not receiving everything that their money is earning in interest. Okay? Which would make sense with your going along with paying the amount advertised because this is how you plan to offset it. (Kinda like the $85 million jackpot. Ms. Cloud told the Commissioners on Oct. 9th that she paid $89.4 million to the Chody's - the people who won it. But she didn't. She paid the Chody's $51 million and she wants us to believe that when one invest's $51 million over 25 years that the return will only be $89.4 million. She also told the Commissioners that she "under-estimated" this jackpot because she had no other "like jackpots" to compare sales with. That was not true either. There was a $77 million jackpot and sales were greater for it than they were for the $85 million jackpot. The reality is, the $77 million jackpot was really the "record " breaking jackpot - sales were greater and the percentage due the 6 of 6 winner was only 32% then - The Commissioners have no way of knowing what's true - they are all relatively new Commissioners. Come on Linda ... gimmmeee a break) If you want to see the details on the $77 and $85 million pots, click here These 13 winners had no idea, nor did their lawyers, nor did their accountants. When they won the Lotto, they thought, oh, boy, I've got this winning ticket. I'm going to come in here and I'm going to go get my money, you know. They don't think to question you. They call you and they say, how much is he going to get, how much do we need to make arrangements for. They ask the ritual questions. They've never once thought to question how much money their client should be receiving. And I've got to tell you, you've got some mad folks in Texas that have learned that their clients did not receive what they were supposed to get by law. And the rule -- I realize, Kimberly, that the rule says that the -- that the rule was changed to read that the executive director "may" increase. It does not say, the executive director may decrease the allocated amount. The game was set up, the money was allocated, and it was supposed to be spent that way. It also was designed that the players were supposed to get 55 percent -- in this past year, it's 55 percent back. They don't get that either because you withhold 1.1 percent in reserve. When you tallied up the three of six wins, you had an excess of, I believe, 100 -- reserve has 113 million in it. I mean, I'm sure it doesn't have that in there now, but from the game, from Lotto Texas, it has 113 million that the players never saw, yet that's part of the 50 or 55 percent that was supposed to be returned to the players. And this doesn't even start to count the monies that -- the unclaimed prize funds. So when you tally that -- the unclaimed prizes that y'all blame on our legislatures for taking away from us that, to me, y'all should fight for, because it says the players are supposed to get 50 or 55 percent. They're not. You've got 113 million in reserve that has been used to overpay all these winners that -- where you've overpaid. You've underpaid, you've overpaid. You've paid -- you've given so many different various amounts. There has been 148 wins since September of '96. 148. There has been five different ways, and no winner has been treated equal yet. And I've got them all broken down. I'm not providing you with this page -- this report yet. Okay? I'm not turning this in. This is just part of my testimony. But they're all broken down. Now, y'all want to pay the amount that you advertise. That's not fair. Nobody plays poker -- when we play poker, you win the hand, you drag the pot, whatever is in it. Whether there is 59 cents in it or whether there is 62 dollars in it, you drag the pot. It's all yours. That's the way Lotto Texas should be run. You can design a game like Pick 3 where you have set prizes. Fine. You can clean house with that. You have a game like Cash 5. It's a pari-mutuel. There is no reserve fund for it. You pay out everything on it, though I've never checked the numbers on it. I guess I'm going to have to, but I've not made that a priority. Okay? Then you pay out all the funds. You don't need a reserve fund. The people of Texas, we -- we -- we got the lottery, we voted it in, and we can vote it out. But we want what is entitled -- what we're entitled to, and we're entitled to 55 percent. You pay the advertised amount, there is no way you can guarantee that you pay 55 percent. And we don't want it. It's a bad idea. It's costly. It's too risky. So there is two reasons not to do it. And just the last -- in the last -- in the last year, you have paid out ten million -- 10.1 or two million dollars more to the six of six winner than what was in the prize pool. And the Commission told me last week that the money came from reserve. Well, the reserve money was supposed to be set aside for the three of six winners. Those aren't supposed to be co-mingled. The four of six, the five of six, and the six of six, there should be no carry over for the six of six. And that's why you're trying to write it in the rule now, because you've already been practicing this. And it's a bad deal. It's a bad deal. There is two reasons not to adopt this rule. It's too risky. For every jackpot won, you have to put money in or you have to take money out of the prize pool. It's not fair. You can't pay the 55 percent if you pay the advertised amount. Make Lotto Texas a complete pari-mutuel game. Okay. The -- MS. KIPLIN: Wait. I'm sorry. What -- you said there were two reasons it was a bad deal. MS. NETTLES: Yeah. And the other -- MS. KIPLIN: The first was too risky and what was the second? MS. NETTLES: The people are opposed to it. The players said no. The players don't want a game where they pay -- where -- where -- they don't -- quite frankly, I don't think there is that much trust going around for the Commission. I don't believe there is that much going around for them to trust that what you advertise is what is there. For all we know, you can advertise 20 million and have enough to bring in 40 million. Okay? You need to consider, perhaps -- and I know this will go against the grain -- but the truth is, is that the lottery, when somebody wins it, they didn't win four million dollars. Right now, according to today's standards, they really won 1.3 million. Not four, but 1.3, because that's all that's in the prize pool. Your sales are down so far that that's all that's there for a four million. And that won't generate four million when it's invested over 25 years. This Commission has made -- since 1997, to get your sales up to make more money for the -- for the Commission, the first thing you did was, you changed from 20 -- you increased from 20 to 25 years, thinking that that would help you earn more money. Okay? It didn't work. People opposed it. Unfortunately, I didn't have a website then and I didn't really understand it, and -- but I took lots of calls on it for the Lotto Report. People were opposed. Y'all know people were opposed. Okay? They didn't work. So then you came back to add four balls the first time. People said no, and you had to cancel it. Then you came back a third time and did get it passed for you to add four balls. All to get the sales up or to make more money. Now, you're attempting to pay the advertised amount as another attempt to make more money. And the only way that it's feasible with the -- with the track record of the Commission for the overpayments that it has paid out more than what was allocated to that prize, the only way you can come out ahead is to earn money from the bigger jackpots. And Linda Cloud admitted it in the May 30th meeting. Okay? Take money off the top, the big jackpots, to offset what they pay on the low ends. Those aren't her words, but close to. Okay? MS. KIPLIN: That was May 30th of '01? MS. NETTLES: Yeah. That was -- oh, yeah, it was -- I'm sorry. May 30th of '01. I had it marked where she specifically said that. "Ms. Cloud: Right. Let me give you another example of that. The four million dollar jackpot, which is our minimum jackpot, we don't have the sales to pay the four million jackpot. So in order to supplement the jackpot at the lower level, being able to roll over an excessive amount that's advertised would be beneficial to the lottery, versus reducing the minimum to a two million dollar jackpot, which is where we would be." Okay? The lottery started at two million. There is no shame in that. At the rate you're going, what -- what are you going to do? Like right now on Texas Two Step, you wrote the same rule into it, and you haven't had enough money to cover the jackpot that's advertised. And it's going to continue to go down. Okay? So what are you going to do? You're going to lower your -- your beginning jackpot 200,000. You're going to have to. Just the same as Cash 5. Two reasons not to adopt this rule. It's too risky for the State, if you running an honest lottery. If you're paying what you say you are and giving back to the people what you say you are, there is no way in hell that you can guarantee to give back 55 percent. It's physically impossible. Okay? The proposed rule with regard to the Scratch Off tickets. That's a good story in itself. The Scratch Off tickets -- as you know, last year y'all were forced, because of the TV cameras in here, to correct your odds that had been misrepresented since day one by the Texas Lottery. Y'all counted a person who spent a dollar to get a -- buy a ticket a winner if they scratched off and got a dollar back. But that -- they didn't really win anything, and it took a long time to get that through. But anyway, you did. Then after that hearing -- or that Commissioners meeting that day, the next thing that you did is, you called an emergency meeting at the Capitol to announce that your promotional sheets were getting you in trouble because you were showing "approximate" on there. And it was not representing correctly the number of tickets printed and the number of prizes and blah, blah, blah, and all this stuff. And so what you were doing is, you were alerting the people that you were going to remove from your promotional pieces how many tickets are printed and how many prizes there are. Okay? Now, you did that. You got away with it. You quit releasing information to the people. Your players are consumers. They should have consumer rights. But we both know that because you're a State agency that's selling a consumer product, it's selling products to the people, but they (we) don't have any consumer rights. We're not protected by the Attorney General. Because the Attorney General does not have jurisdictions over a State agency. But with regard to the Scratch Off tickets, you're trying to delete a paragraph that states that you have to produce an end of game report. Well, we both know that you used to print 50 or a hundred million Scratch tickets. They've been lowered to 50 to 40 to 30 to 20 to 15 million. You even did one the other day that I saw was only nine -- nine million printed. Okay? Well, that tells the story. You're not selling what you were. You're not earning what you were. And all of these attempts are geared to make more money for y'all. And you are going against your players. And it may work short-term, but it's not going to work in the long run. And in the long run, there is not going to be anything left because you're not -- the word of mouth is going to totally destroy you. Okay? As far as the end of game report goes, the people have a right to that report and to know how many tickets were not sold, how many prizes were not claimed. And we want that available for inspection. Okay? And -- okay. That's the end of comments from me, Dawn Nettles. Okay? I have here over a thousand signatures of people that also say no. These are not store clerks. You have over a hundred petitions with anywhere from 15 to 20 signatures apiece down to one that have been sent to me. Okay? You will find that the person printed their name, they signed their name. I'm -- they gave you their address and they gave you their city, state, and zip. You can find these people. Unlike those surveys that you can't identify, you can find these people. This time, I'm giving you the originals, for if there is a forensic document examiner around that wants to look at them, he needs the originals for the ink, for the pen pressure, and for everything necessary. So this time, instead of giving the Commission copies, I'm giving you the originals. Okay? I have made copies for myself. I did not count the signatures. These were mailed in to me. The people have called me. I've taken many, many phone calls of people saying, please voice this. I have not printed out -- I'm here again and I've done it again, but I have too many. I can't tell you how many e-mails I have. I have a bunch. And I only printed these out. And I have a whole bunch more, but I figured that maybe before the Commissioners meeting, I would finish printing all those out of my computer. But I have so many that don't say anything but no to 16 TAC, and it's just -- it's just repetition of going through and finding them in my e-mail program and all that stuff. But I have all of these. This is at least 11 or 1200 people that I'm submitting to you right now that want on the record. Okay? They want to be heard. They want their names listed. They want to be listed in the Texas Register. When you adopt or don't adopt this rule and you list the reasons, we want these names listed. Because these people said no. They're as good as present in this room right now. Okay? MS. KIPLIN: Ms. Nettles, on the documents, I guess before you finish your comments or at the end, if you'll submit those into the record. And then I want to make sure I'm clear. The documents that you are going to submit are from individuals, not groups or associations? MS. NETTLES: That is -- well, yes. As a general rule, yes. Though as you read these, you will see where people say, our entire office plays, there is 11 of us in the office. Every one of them said no. Okay? There are some groups. There are some pools that did comment. MS. KIPLIN: Pools, but I guess there are still individuals within that pool that feel -- that are expressing their individual -- when you say -- MS. NETTLES: These are individuals. By law, you don't have to list them. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. But what I'm saying is, when you say that there is a pool and every one -- there is 11 in the pool, and every one of them says no, I'm taking that to mean, 11 individuals say no. MS. NETTLES: Exactly. But, I mean, it's 11 -- well, I can only go by what you did the last time. What I know for a fact that you did is, you listed Exxon. There was one store clerk that signed the survey, and you counted that as an "organization." I contacted that individual, and they said, "oh, no, I didn't represent any organization." I said, "well, you're listed here as having done so." "Oh, no. My Gtech rep just asked me to do this, and I just signed it. I don't even know what it was." And I've got all their names and numbers at my office, too, of all those that were contacted. They weren't organizations. In fact, they didn't even play. (But) these people play the lottery. These people pay your salaries. These people vote. Not that clerks don't either, but you know what I'm saying. These -- these are individuals that have said, no, do not do it. And also, Kimberly, I do need to make this real clear, too. These are all new (comments). You told me that you were throwing out all the comments, and so after I verified it, I threw them all out. These are all brand new (comments) . Okay? You will find perhaps some duplicates that commented between May and June before you did that. But these are all new. There are -- there is nothing -- there is -- there is a few that I know of, especially one guy in particular from down south, that he was so angry that he said, I'm so mad at this, I'm just resubmitting mine. Okay? And I just got tickled at it. You have some that are just individual letters, faxes, phone calls. I don't even have all the phone calls recorded. I figured that what I have here is enough that if you all don't -- if you all ignore these people -- okay -- the players, the people, then you deserve whatever you have coming. The people said no. For the State, it's a bad deal. GETREAL. Back in May, when you made this proposal, I contacted -- I sent out an e-mail at the end of May or the first of June -- it was after my grandmother died before I got to it. And I notified all the members of GETREAL. And they all called me, e-mailed -- or many of them, not all. But most -- most of them e-mailed me, and they said, as the organization and as for what it stood for, when they said they wanted to be included as a member, they all agreed, do not pay the amount that you advertise. You pay what is in the pot. Nothing less and nothing more. We'll take our chances with the allocated amount. I do not have -- I did not mess with it because I thought since it was an organization, that I did not have to bring all the paperwork and go to all that. I did not feel that was necessary. In concluding my comments, our country has just gone through the most horrific, horrible thing I can -- I can't even think of the words to describe how I feel about what happened in New York and to the Pentagon. But we lost so many lives, so many senseless, senseless lives. But what is even more horrible, if you will, is that there is a lady -- and I don't know her name and I intended to find her name before I came here today, which I didn't get to do. She's either with the National Transportation Safety Board or she's with the FAA. But I've seen her on TV. I saw her the day of the tragedy on May the 11th -- or September the 11th. And she was back on TV saying the same thing she had been saying for five years, that I've read about -- my husband is an airline pilot so we -- I don't know if I can turn it off. (my phone started ringing) I don't know who she's with, but she has been going around for five years, lobbying, trying her dead-level best to make the government aware that the security in our airports was not up to snuff. They have managed to pass through guns, bombs, whatever, you know, through tests. Okay? And the government wouldn't change. Okay? There is also a man out of California that was also doing the same thing, but he went a step further than she did. He actually had the nerve to go public and say, it is going to take a massive disaster for our government to spend the money to fix our problems in our airports. Well, he was right. The point that I'm making with that is that Professor Busald came here, has been coming to the Commission since '96 or '97, fighting all these mathematical errors in the advertising that y'all promote. Nothing would get pulled, nothing would get changed. He has a portfolio this thick of all of his contacts. And it finally took him going to the Governor before y'all agreed to pull the inaccuracies that were being promoted about the different games. Then, after that happened, he had a victory, and then one of his students learned that the odds on the Scratch Off tickets were wrong. So one more time, he spent one year coming to this room and testifying over and over and writing letters and complaining about the odds on the Scratch Off being incorrect. Y'all wouldn't do anything about it. Toni Smith went to San Antonio and visited his students, tried to convince them that -- that some people agreed that if you got a dollar back, you were a winner. Okay? Finally, in desperation, he brought in all the TV cameras and he brought in all the newspapers, the reporters, and students asked the Commissioners what did they win if they just spent a dollar and got a dollar back. They wanted to know what they won. It was that day that Linda Cloud sat right there and said, if that's all you want is to add breakeven, well, I just don't see a problem with that. Of course, she was on TV. She was being filmed. And everybody in the State of Texas was going to see, and everybody in the State of Texas was going to want to know, what did they win. They didn't win anything. Okay? Then we came to you -- the players of Texas came to you and they said, do not add four balls or we will quit playing the games. Y'all admitted the players said that, so you pulled the rule. And then you came back and you added the four balls. And the players told you, we're going to quit, your sales are going to go down. You are definitely going to lose money, because I'm not going to play and I know you're not going to have my dollar. Well, your sales did go down. Your sales are down. And that is precisely why you are here trying to write this into the rule, is to make more money for the State. You might have shown a percent increase in your sales, but we both -- we all know that that came in seven drawings and seven drawings alone. And your sales for each drawing at four, six, nine, and 12 are down compared to what they were. And those are those players that sent these messages right here, telling you not to add the four balls because you were losing their dollars. Well, you did. Okay? You might have had a 19 percent increase, but I don't believe that you had an increase in earnings, net earnings. I don't believe that. So we've come to you one more time. I drove from Dallas to Austin this morning to come here one more time and to say, do not do this because if you do, I promise you, you will lose. This is the worst idea. It's -- it's -- you are taking advantage of the players by doing this, and we've had enough of that. And you stop. Because this time, if you don't, and if this rule passes, I can assure you that I have the financial backing behind me now to put a halt, and we will get rid of the Texas Lottery. And I promise you I will work towards that. Because this is as wrong as it gets. This is worse than adding the four balls. People do not understand that when they win the lottery, that really, all they won was 37 percent of sales. Because they've been led to believe that they just won 20 million dollars or 50 million dollars or 85 million dollars. Please do not do that. I ask you and these people ask you not to do that. And that's all I have to say. MS. KIPLIN: Can you go ahead and submit those to me, if you would. MS. NETTLES: What do you want me to do, give them to her? MS. KIPLIN: No. Go ahead and give them to me, if you wouldn't mind, and we'll include those in the -- in the rulemaking record. Now, are these on both of the rules that were -- MS. NETTLES: Yes. Yes. MS. KIPLIN: I'm sorry. I should have waited until you sat down so you could use your microphone to respond. MS. NETTLES: That's okay. Yes. They -- most of those are -- people are mad, Kimberly. They're real mad. They're real upset at y'all. I believe that shows in your finances. Okay? This time -- I mean, it took everything I had in me to get those comments. Because quite frankly, most people just said, why bother, I'm just going to quit. I'm taking my money to the boats. So most of those are no to 16 TAC 403, 401, 412, whatever the three numbers are, and they cover both. As you know, your Scratch ticket, I don't -- I really am pressing on Lotto Texas, but you and I both know that the State does better on their Scratch Off tickets. And those players are madder than the dickens, and -- I forgot my point. But anyway. Go ahead. MS. KIPLIN: Do either one of you have questions, Mr. Tirloni, Ms. Smith? MS. SMITH: No. MS. KIPLIN: Hang on just one second. I just wanted to ask you a question because I'm -- I'm thinking I'm confused, but I'm hoping you'll enlighten me. You used an example on a game where you -- I think your comment was that the winners are -- did not receive the amount in the prize pool. MS. NETTLES: Yeah. MS. KIPLIN: And you used one where there was 26 million in the prize pool. Can you explain that to me a little bit more because I -- I missed the -- MS. NETTLES: I sure will. I'm glad did you that. Because the truth is, I really fouled up that part. And that's because I messed up my notes here. Okay? And I had intended to cite five very explicit examples. I have -- I have 148 of them, so I can pick them real easy. Let me just go back. MS. KIPLIN: It was the one where you were talking about 26 million in the prize pool. And then you said, 26 plus 26 is 52 million. And I think your point had to do with the investment approach. MS. NETTLES: Yeah. Yeah. Let me find it. Well, I must have not said 26 million, or if I did, I found it off this form. Did I say 26 million? I did. MS. KIPLIN: That's what I heard and that's what I wrote down, but -- but I may have misheard. We can go back to the record. MS. NETTLES: No. That's okay. I can find it. I just have to find it in this other. I was just going to cite five, though I have 148 here in front of me. So but what I was -- the point I was making -- let me find the 16 million. How much -- 32 million, is that what I said? How much was the jackpot? MS. KIPLIN: Well, that's -- that's the part -- you were saying -- I think it was a 47 million dollar jackpot, but I may be wrong. I may have combined two different examples. But I guess the point -- was the point that you were trying to make that -- that the Lottery has said -- your comment -- I'm not -- please don't misconstrue that I'm adopting your comments, but that the Lottery has said that the players on the one -- on the jackpots that are paid out over time, that the -- the interest is paid to the players so that the original investment plus the interest is what the players received. And your comment is that that's not -- that has not been -- that has not been consistent. MS. NETTLES: My comment is, is that I question now whether that has been the case. Because if I said 26 -- if I said 26 million -- I was trying to find the 26 million dollar jackpot, is what I was trying to do, because I can cite it exactly. Oh, I know. MR. TIRLONI: You cited a 47 million dollar jackpot in February of '98. February 4th, I believe, is the date that you cited. MS. NETTLES: That one, I have right here. I can explain that. Okay. On February the 4th, you advertised a 47 million dollar jackpot. The winner -- there was one winner. He was out of San Antonio. There was 26,169,779 in the prize pool. The Commission only invested 25,371,634. He was -- there was another 798,145 dollars that was not given to him or invested on his behalf. Not only was he short-changed -- okay -- but my second point to him, not only do I question this -- I can prove the shortage. Okay? But now that I look back at it, I realized that there was 26 million in the prize pool. And this is back in 2-4-98. Okay? It was at a good interest rate. The winner before him and the winner after him both required approximately half to get an annual payback. Okay? But here, he has way more than half. There is 26 million in the pot. 26 million and 26 million, it seems to me like it ought to be a 52 million dollars, and he should be collecting close to 52 million -- okay -- give or take a few cents. We're talking large sums of money here. So that is my point, is because there was 26 million in the prize pool, why is this man only getting 47 million? Okay. And to boot, for sure, he did not receive 798,145 dollars, period. And I've got those papers in the car. Okay? There are 13 like that, that were underpaid for sure, since September of '96. I do not know the count on how many I would question where you're talking about the 20 -- did you say 26 million? I know you said 16 million. Which one did you quote to me, Kimberly? MS. KIPLIN: The example of 26 million in the prize pool. MS. NETTLES: Okay. 26 -- oh, in the prize pool? Oh, that's what I'm doing wrong. I'm going to get off the 26 million because I'm going to cite another one here. On 8-20-97, you had a 38 million dollar jackpot. You had three winners. Two were annual pay, one was a cash value option. The two annual pays, you invested 6,482,501 dollars for each -- for two of them. That third winner was a cash value option, and ironically, he collected more than the other two. And yet you paid out -- you added 220 -- 220,233 dollars to the prize pool to even make it good. But you turned around and paid him more. I mean, I really wonder about that one. Okay? But okay. I'm still -- 26 million. Okay. Here it is. I found it. No. That is the 47 million dollar jackpot with the 26 million in the prize pool. Yeah. That's the one. Okay. No wonder I couldn't find it. That is who you were referring to. The one that I messed up on was a 40 million dollar jackpot -- oh, that's this year. Okay. I remember which one that is. Okay. That's that couple out of Richardson that also ironically bought their ticket at an Albertson's in Richardson, just shortly after Albertson's testified at the Commissioners meeting that it would be great to add those four balls, it would be great for them to keep more money, and how much they would love to sell the first big winning jackpot ticket. And they did. I thought that was really, really something. But on that 40 million dollar jack -- or it's a 60 million dollar jackpot. MS. KIPLIN: What was the date of that? MS. NETTLES: I'm sorry. I have two lists here. That was 9-8-00. The winner -- it was a 60 million jackpot. It was Lois Lowden and John Osorio, O-s-o-r-i-o. It was a 60 million dollar jackpot. There was 34 -- 34,121 -- 101 dollars in the pot -- 34,121,101 in the prize pool. Y'all paid him -- he was a cash value option -- exactly that figure. But 34 and 34 -- and y'all even were known to say -- is 68 million, which is equal to 68 million. But the man collected the correct amount of money because he got everything that was in the prize pool to the penny. Of course, y'all started paying to the penny from the day I put this on my website, too. Before that, it was kind of hit and miss. But that's the 60 million dollar jackpot. And I think what I failed to do, I really failed to get this one, and I don't understand my own notes. Oh, okay. You had a 40 million dollar winner, and I don't have the date marked and I have to go find it. But you had one 40 million dollar winner. The advertised pot was 40 million. He collected exactly 40 million, down to the penny. Yet the amount required to get a return was less than the amount in the pool. If you only did what the rule says to do, which is to pay the amount that's allocated to the prize, you shouldn't be -- there -- you shouldn't be having this. You shouldn't have me sitting here quoting these numbers to you in these wins because the six of six winner is only entitled to 37.532 percent of sales today. Prior to the four balls, he was entitled to 32 percent. And whatever was invested, you take that money, you invest it, and that winner is supposed to get everything. But I have now learned that y'all don't do things that way, that you invest whatever, you get your money each year, and then y'all turn around and have checks cut to the winners for whatever you say to pay them. These investments are not made on behalf of these individual winners at all. And I was under the impression for many years that when there is a winner, you buy securities the next day if he's an annual pay, and every penny goes to him. And I don't think that's the case. And I think that the Lottery is under enough scrutiny right now that the only safe thing for you to do is to do what the rule says, pay the allocated amounts to each and every winner. There is no risk. You're home free. You can't be out or lose money overpaying winners. There is no way for you to lose. If you take 45 percent of Lotto Texas sales right off the top, how can you go wrong? You just want to make more money. But not at the expense of the players anymore. If you take advantage of the players on this one, I promise you, we will invest the money and do everything and lobby to cut out the lottery. Go ahead. MS. KIPLIN: Is your -- is your comment -- I'm just trying to make sure I fully appreciate and understand. Is your comment that the Commission ought to -- ought to not pay jackpots over time? They ought to -- they ought to just pay the cash value option so that that's the amount and we all know that amount? MS. NETTLES: My comment is that the six of six winner should just get his percentage of sales. If he chooses the cash option, that's the amount you owe him. That's the amount you've been paying him in the last year. That's what he's entitled to. That's how the game was originally started. If they choose the annual pay, then I say, still you -- he -- that that winner still won the same thing, he won his percentage. Buy his securities in his name and let him collect his own money, whether it be close to four million, over million, or close to 20 million, or close to 36 million. This is a game. This is a pot. You play for what is in the pot. And whether it -- you need to start -- of course, the Commission is going to have to start advertising properly, too. Because we both know that you're not doing that. There has not been a four million dollar jackpot since 1996 or '97. But you refuse to lower it, thinking it's going to hurt your sales. Well, I've got news for you. That's not what is hurting your sales. What is hurting your sales is your word of mouth, people losing. They write the Commission in the Ask the Director page, and they say, hey, why can't you make more winners instead of fewer, or why can't you spread the money out. I understand some reasons why you can't and the game is designed that way. And the Commission answers, well, we can't control how many six of six winners. That's not what the people are saying to you. They're saying, let us win smaller prizes. The more we win, the more we're going to play back. Because they give it all back. I don't understand. Y'all need to go against the grain and quit copying other states that have all failed and all gone downhill. Texas could have been a leader. Texas could have been a leader. Texas could have used to the advantage those odds on the Scratch Off tickets. If instead of denying all of this was taking place when this was pointed out to you, if you had said, you know, Gerald and students, you're right. Maybe -- maybe just because the other states do that doesn't mean we have to. Texas wants to tell the truth. We want it known. We want our advertising to be accurate. You could have used it, and then you would have had national coverage that Texas was the first lottery to come out and tell the truth about the odds on the Scratch Off and not have to follow suit with everybody else. But Texas is too interested in following suit, and all these suits that you're following are losers. The Power Ball, they pay the amount that's allocated. They don't pay the amount they advertise. MS. KIPLIN: I had a couple -- two other questions. One had to do with the four million dollar jackpot that you had just mentioned and the fact that it -- it -- from your perspective, it -- we weren't hitting four million based on sales. Is that -- is that what you're saying? MS. NETTLES: Uh-huh. MS. KIPLIN: What would your suggestion be? MS. NETTLES: I would recommend that the Commission lower the starting jackpot, what they've been fighting to not do since day one, to two million. Tell the people the truth. Take the money and divide it more equally. Give -- get rid of the reserve fund to allow you more money to pay out in prizes. If you want to do away with the three of six prize, do it, and make your four of six bigger, however you want to juggle the funds. But what I'm saying is, you need to start giving back 55 percent of the sales to the players. If you will create winners, take away the four balls, lower it back down to two million, your sales will jump. Restore faith. There is none. Your -- there is -- you know, lower it. People don't care. Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, a successful show. Everybody jumps in there to be -- to get a million dollars. What are you going to do on the Texas Two Step? You did the same thing on it. It wasn't a game, didn't care about it. I mean, I posted it. Everybody laughed at it and said, oh, we're just not going to play it, period. We're not going to play -- do business that way. You have a pari-mutuel game, you do it pari-mutuel across the board. So lower your jackpot. MS. KIPLIN: And then on the organization GETREAL, how many members are -- are part of that organization? MS. NETTLES: Kimberly, I don't remember. And the bad thing is, is I got that virus on my computer last week that you heard about on the news. Actually, I got two viruses. When I was talking to y'all, I think I told you I only had one. But come to find out, it was two. And I lost 130 files on my computer. Because what it does is, it -- if it gets it and you can't fix it, it deletes them. Okay? And of all things, the only thing I lost of value was my GETREAL list -- okay -- out of my e-mail database. And that really got my attention because I didn't know it at first. I knew I lost the file, but I didn't know I had two different viruses. And I had been working in that file. And I know that we started out two years ago, and it seems like there was like 1,100 people that e-mailed and said, count me as GETREAL. Speak for me and you can use my name and provide my name and address any time you want. It seems like it was 1,100. I did not send out 1,100 e-mails, though, when I did the mailing in May. I only sent like 500 or 400 because I didn't want to overdo my account, my e-mail deal. I didn't want anybody to think I was spamming. So I only did 500 and I only did one mailing because all this turmoil was coming up here. And so out of that, I heard from about two or three hundred of them, and a whole bunch bounced back because the addresses were changed. So I only heard back from like two or three hundred of them that said, yes, speak -- speak on my behalf. I speak for GETREAL on this one, too. MS. KIPLIN: So you're thinking -- MS. NETTLES: Two or three hundred. MS. KIPLIN: -- two or three hundred. MS. NETTLES: Well, that's not my membership, but that's how many responded. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. Well, I was really going towards the membership. MS. NETTLES: Towards membership? Okay. Membership was in the 1,100 range by the time that I finished it, is where it was, if my memory serves me right. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. And so you're here representing GETREAL, an organization or association, to say, GETREAL is opposed to the rulemaking -- the proposed -- MS. NETTLES: As well, yes. MS. KIPLIN: -- amendments to -- I want to make sure I understand because there is -- there are amendments that are cleanup amendments. There are a bunch of different amendments, especially in Subchapter D, game rules. Is GETREAL opposed to the act to going to advertised jackpots and the deletion of the game reports? MS. NETTLES: Yes. Yes. GETREAL members oppose paying the advertised amount. They oppose the scratch -- the deletion of the Scratch Off ticket information. They oppose no consumer rights for access to this information prior to purchasing these tickets in the store level where they buy them. MS. KIPLIN: Is part of the rulemaking, though? MS. NETTLES: No. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. MS. NETTLES: No. Not to my knowledge. I -- I'm not sure real sure what you wrote in that rule, but I know that we're opposed to deleting paragraph K. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. MS. NETTLES: Okay. Because we want that report. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. So -- so for my -- for me, for my understanding, out of the rulemaking, there -- the association is opposed to going to advertised jackpots for Lotto Texas and Texas Two Step and opposed to the deletion of the game report requirement after -- at the close of the game on Instant games. MS. NETTLES: Yes. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. MS. NETTLES: Except I'm going to go back on Texas Two Step. You designed that game that way. Okay? It was designed originally that way. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. MS. NETTLES: Even though you designed it that way, the first person who won still got the amount in prize pool and not the advertised amount, which I found very strange, and then every winner after them has received the advertised amount. So even though it was written in the rule that you were going to pay that, people just opted to not play the game. We chose not to. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. So it's more correct -- it's more correct to show GETREAL opposed to the -- to the change to Lotto Texas going to an advertised jackpot. MS. NETTLES: Yes. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. I have no further questions. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify the comments so that I understand it. Did my -- did the -- my questions and the responses raise questions for you all? MS. SMITH: Oh, no. You actually asked one I had in mind. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. All right. It is now 11:20. For the record, I have received no additional Witness Affirmation Forms. I see Ms. Nettles maybe wanting to make another comment, but I'm not sure. And I'm glad to allow that to occur. MS. NETTLES: Thank you. You may be sorry you did this. When I -- MS. KIPLIN: I'm never sorry to receive comments. MS. NETTLES: Okay. You know when I concluded my deal and I mentioned the three things about the odds and the advertising and the four balls and now this, and I failed to do something else that I intended to make a point of. I understand that the Commission does not always do what the players want or what we may think is smart and this has been shown very clearly to us by going on and doing the things that people have opposed. But just recently, I read on your transcript from the meeting about the new drawing studio where there was a controversy over the two companies fighting over the bid -- over that bid. And the Commission opted to let the contract go to Kentucky, which cost Texans money. And it was my understanding from what I read, if I read it correctly, that the two bids that Texas -- the company in Texas lost the bid because they were too high. Okay? But yet, they were bidding on digital equipment, state of the art stuff, and they were bidding on live drawings. But Linda Cloud decided or wanted or y'all recommended that the commissioners vote to go with the company out of Kentucky because they had the better deal. But yet, they didn't give you digital. It cost Texans jobs, and they didn't give you live drawings. When I read that, at the time, I thought, this is going to be real interesting. I can't wait to see how this works out and if it shows or not. And my comment is, is that y'all made the wrong decision because what you have to show for accepting a lower bid, you did not compare apples to apples, and what is on your website now, you don't really have live drawings like you said. The other company was bidding for all live drawings. And the quality, you can't even see the numbers. And I have a very good computer. Okay? And very fast and all that stuff. My husband keeps mine really up. And the quality is so horrible that I think it's a disgrace that Texas would allow that to be there. But you get what you pay for. And I think that this is another lesson hard learned. MS. KIPLIN: I appreciate those comments. And I don't see the relevance to the rulemaking, but -- but you can tell me how they are relevant. MS. NETTLES: They're relevant because my point in my conclusion was that the people have spoken to you. Okay? And y'all don't listen. MS. KIPLIN: Okay. MS. NETTLES: Okay? You didn't listen to your local Texas company and sent the money out of state and cost Texans jobs. Then we had this horrible disaster which causes more. And I thought that the Texas Lottery was to help Texas, and it's obviously not. And the decisions made and not comparing apples to apples shows lack of -- of good business sense, in my opinion. I think whoever is totally responsible for all of that, something is wrong to -- I mean, you know, you just -- that's like comparing a hamburger and a steak. You know, a 99 cent hamburger or 50 dollar steak. Well, yeah, the steak is going to be a little bit better and you're going to pay a little bit more. You're going to get more class. And I don't think that the -- I don't think that y'all are really doing a really good job at making some of these decisions, is my point. And I hope you will do better for this proposed rule because we're attempting one more time to ask you not to adopt it. (Which in the end they did not do because the TLC still asked the Commissioners, on Oct. 9, 2001, to adopt the rule that allows them pay the amount advertised. Linda Cloud does NOT care what the people want. Her goal is to make more money even if it involves not paying the players their rightful winnings. And even if it means not paying all of the money the winnings earn over the 25 years. That's the "specific" money she's out for - the interest earned off the securities purchased for the players. The Commissioners are considering this issue now - 10-14-01) MS. KIPLIN: Thank you for your comment. It's 11:25. I have no additional Witness Affirmation Forms. I've not been receiving any calls that anybody intended to come that was not able to come at 10:00. With that, I will conclude and adjourn the public comment hearing on the rulemakings that were noticed for today. Thank you. |
|
|
|
