The Maryland Legislative Session
Are the race tracks going to support the slots referendum?

by Nancy Hill

Each year, as the General Assembly session progresses, it always becomes more interesting, and this year is no exception. It would seem that our elected representatives were taken by surprise by an unexpected downturn in Maryland’s economy, which is partially due to the mortgage crisis and less-than expected revenues. This has prompted them to look at ways to cut state spending. Since they’ve already raised our taxes, any additional tax increases are out of the question – for now.

During last November’s special session, the governor and legislature not only raised taxes but also came up with some new or enhanced programs, such as expansion of health care benefits, additional money for the Chesapeake Bay, and education. Funding for these programs will likely either be cut completely, cut back, or postponed for several years. As you may recall, one tax in particular has incurred the wrath of many Marylanders and that is the sales tax on computer services. This additional tax was sprung on everyone during the special session as a means for the state to realize approximately $200 million in revenues. During this current session, legislators have introduced 16 bills that would either repeal that tax in full or in part. Thequestion they have to answer would be, “where does the state get revenue to replace that $200 million?”

Another surprise has come in the form of "emergency” legislation entitled, Statewide Phase-Out of Electronic Gaming Devices.” SB 959/HB 1576, was introduced at the end of February and would define electronic gaming devices and seek to prohibit the lease, sale, purchase, licensure, or operation of these devices (with certain exceptions). Another bill, SB 838, would require the Attorney General of Maryland to determine the validity of approximately 1,000 video gaming devices currently operating in St. Mary’s County and to determine whether these devices should or should not be considered slot machines.

Apparently, the state feels that it is not in control of these machines and is also concerned, if the slots referendum passes in November, that these machines will be too much competition for the slot machines that the state of Maryland will own. It’s really quite an interesting scenario to watch. What makes the slots issue even more interesting is that potential stakeholders, i.e., the owners of Laurel Racetrack and Ocean Downs, have indicated that they may play a minor role in campaigning for passage of the referendum in November since they are not guaranteed to host slots facilities. The referendum is facing an uphill battle as it is and the chances of passage diminish if these stakeholders don’t back it.

There is some good news! The state of Maryland seems to be increasingly interested in encouraging agriculture. Quite a few bills have been introduced that address the importance of agriculture in Maryland. On the upside, these bills would provide monetary incentives to farmers. Thedownside is that providing monetary incentives would consequently decrease state revenues at a time when the state is looking to increase revenues. Therefore, these bills stand little chance of passage at this time.

The number of bills being introduced is down to a trickle at this point. The deadlines in the Senate and House to introduce bills have long since passed but that doesn’t deter some legislators. The Senate has seen 1,004 bills introduced and the House has 1,616 bills introduced thus far. The total number falls about halfway between 2006 and 2007 bill introductions.

As is usual, the pace picks up in the last month of session, the last day of which is Monday, April 7. Bills begin to either move forward rapidly or face the axe and changes come quickly. Because the end of the session is nearby, any bill information that appears in this April issue will be, by definition, out of date, so check this space for a session wrap-up in the May issue and an analysis of what the new legislation means to you as a horse person!

I would like to close with my favorite bill of the entire session: HB 1215, Task Force to Study Task Forces, Commissions, Temporary or Ad Hoc Committees, and Related Panels. As the name indicates, this bill would establish a task force to study all task forces, commissions, ad hoc committees and related panels that have functioned from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2007. Got to love it – a task
force to study task forces!!!

Foxchasers Nip Proposal To Extend Trapping


The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has announced that it is withdrawing its proposal to extend the gun hunting and trapping seasons for red and gray fox due to overwhelming opposition. This potentially harmful change was stopped dead in its tracks thanks to the efforts of many people who took the time to send their comments to DNR. Particular thanks go to the Maryland Association for Wildlife Conservation (MAWC), which spearheaded and organized this successful grassroots effort!

Why Can’t a “Sufficient Score” Be Sufficient for Moving Up?
Another Way To Look at the Proposed Standards for Dressage
by Carolyn del Grosso, Dressage Trainer (and Equiery staffer)

In January, The United States Equestrian Federation Dressage Committee proposed to the USEF Board of Directors a rule change that would require certain standards for performance in dressage before a rider can move up to the next level, similar to requirements in Germany. The Committee proposed that riders would be required to earn a certain number of points by achieving scores of 60% or higher at recognized shows in order to advance above second level. The uproar was so intense that the Board tabled the proposal until next year, noting that it supported the concept but charging the Committee to bring back a more detailed proposal, which - according to the PVDA Newsletter - is due out this summer.

The reason for the proposed rule change is that judges felt that bad riding constituted cruelty to the horse. Statistically, however, less than 3% of the rides being scored were less than 50%! So either the rides are not really that bad, or the judges aren’t scoring harshly enough for bad riding. I think that putting the burden solely on the judges to give bad scores, thus preventing riders from moving up, is not fair to the judges. Low scoring judges will become unpopular and will not get asked to judge again, or they will get so many complaints at the USEF that they may lose or drop their licenses.

I also believe by imposing any such requirements, dressage will be irreparably damaged. No one will want to show or join USEF or USDF, and this will eventually trickle down to the Group Member Organizations, such as PVDA, and then down to the instructors, lessons, etc. Unlike the MidAtlantic region where we have many shows within easy reach to achieve our minimum required scores, many riders in the mid-west and western states do not, thereby making point chasing onerous and unreasonable. The fastest growing segment of the USEF will be gone! Furthermore, riders do not wish to be told they cannot move up. If they want to ride at a certain level, they will, whether they are ready or not; this is the USA, not a fascist regime!

What if we looked at this challenge from a different angle? Rather than requiring that riders achieve a certain number of points by earning certain scores before advancing (which could make an impossible goal for the ordinary rider on the ordinary horse), instead simply prohibit them from moving on unless or until his or her average score is at least 50% for the highest test at that level. After all, a “5” does mean “sufficient.” This proposal would remove the onerous “point chasing” and provide more opportunities for riders to learn and improve.

I do agree that riders who cannot achieve an average of 50% or higher should take a look at themselves and their horses before moving up!

©2008 The Equiery