|
|
The Afternoon Session
The truth is, they
don't want this information readily available for
E-mail Me - Dawn Nettles Posted: February 23, 2001 |
|||
|
My comments are in blue.
TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION
CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: -- invited guests.
We have a -- Commissioner? Chairman. Oh. We do have
a commissioner -- chair -- or, Mr. Chairman, we're
glad you are -- joined us today.
CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: I would just as soon go ahead and have that information presented now, if that meets with your -- CHAIRMAN CLOWE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: -- your schedule. CHAIRMAN CLOWE: I'm going to ask that Commissioner Sadberry be brought in. That will constitute a quorum of the Commission. Commissioner Betsy Whitaker is out of the country and otherwise would be here with us. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. (Commissioner Sadberry now present.) CHAIRMAN CLOWE: And this is Commissioner Anthony Sadberry, and I would -- then I would reconvene the meeting of the Texas Lottery Commission at 4:34 on January the 31st, as it was recessed this morning, and ask Executive Director Linda Cloud to give you -- the committee a report on our emergency meeting this morning. MS. CLOUD: Mr. Chairman, members. As you know, protecting the integrity and security of our games is the most important job any of us can do working for the Lottery Commission. It is the part of our business that requires vigilance and oversight, as well as timeless dedication and perseverance. I have given each of you and our players a personal pledge to do my part to make sure our games remain fair, that our accounting and tracking systems are accurate, and that when issues arise with the potential of causing problems for the lottery, either real or perceived problems, that I will take immediate steps to provide adequate notification of those issues and to take immediate action to correct and resolve them. By some accounts, today's issue may be considered more a current business practices concern than anything else based on today's practices and industry standards. Let me explain. For the past several weeks, an internal audit has been underway involving some of our instant ticket games. That audit is not yet completed. However, I want to make you aware of one preliminary finding that has been brought to my attention. It involves game information on some credit materials such as this selling sheet which we provide our retailers for each instant game. (Besides the "sell-in-sheet," what other materials are involved?) As you can see, the selling sheet provides an approximate total number of prizes in this block up top for each prize level for that particular game based on an approximate number of total tickets printed. This information comes from game specs or working papers which we coordinate with our vendors. It may be easier to visualize if you think of working papers as a blueprint set of instructions for the manufacturer in order for them to print our games. On Friday evening at the close of business, Texas Lottery Commission Internal Auditor Debra McLeod brought a situation to my attention involving what appears to be variances between the information we are publishing on some of -- for some of the instant games compared to the number of winning tickets we're actually selling at the particular prize levels or winning levels. This is happening because the printed materials are produced before the tickets arrive in Austin based on approximate data, not the actual number of tickets received. (Can't your printer tell you what his "counter" reading is by email, fax, or phone - this shows exactly how many tickets were printed and shrink wrapped as soon as he shuts down his machinery? When security returns from the printer, don't they bring a tape for G-Tech to load into their computer that shows the exact number of prizes for that game?) Since being made aware of this audit finding, reviewing and understanding this issue has become my number one priority, and I am making you aware of all of it as quickly as I could. Based on the internal auditors' preliminary findings, this is what is happening: Information provided in the selling sheets contained data we request in our blueprint or working papers. However, this data is based on hypothetical mathematical models that assumes 100 percent delivery of the tickets requested. Of course, this would require error-free printing without any glitches, dye problems or other manufacturing defects which, of course, is inconceivable. In the real world, this never happens. To compensate, we build in variances or acceptable tolerance levels to allow more or less of whatever variable is being requested. In other words, an acceptable limit may result in a few additional top winning tickets being shipped to us than we requested or a few less tickets. It may also result in a total ticket shipment totaling more or less tickets than the millions of tickets we requested be printed. Where this becomes an issue for us and may potentially confuse our players occurs as the tickets are being sold. That's because every two weeks, we also issue another document that is called "winning tickets remaining" notification flyers that comes directly off the system and is totally accurate information. The data on the selling sheets and the winning tickets remaining flyers for instant games does not match because one uses approximate numbers and the other uses actual numbers, and there's no room in this lottery for fuzzy math. (The timing here is confusing to me. A "totally accurate flyer" every two weeks? How long does it take to produce and print 17,000 "flyers" once you receive "current information?" How fast do you get it out to the stores? Does this "flyer" tell how many tickets were printed and how many prizes remain for "each and every prize" in the game? Also, if you print a 4-color flyer every two weeks with "current info" on it and you manage to get it to the stores while it's still "current," why can't you do the same thing with the original "sell-in-sheet?" Why do you need to exclude the number of tickets printed and the number of prizes from the sell-in-sheets? In what time frame are the tickets shipped from Atlanta to Austin - then prepared for UPS by G-Tech - and delivered to 17,000 stores? Can't you print one sell-in-sheet with all the pertinent information for your players in that time frame?) As a result of this discrepancy in information and during the duration of this ongoing internal audit review, I am taking the following immediate actions: Number one, in addition to calling this meeting to inform you, I have also brought this to the attention of our legislative leadership. Number two, I have immediately instructed our sales reps to remove any incorrect (Incorrect? Are they incorrect? Don't they say "approximate?" Aren't the odds correct and prizes correct?) print materials from retailer locations, and I have asked our marketing department to suspend production of all instant game information for new games that may be incorrect. Number three, we will begin immediately adjusting any confusing information that is out on our Web sites. (Right now, web site visitors can NOT get any worthwhile scratch ticket information from your site. It's all been deleted.) I am pleased to report, however, I have also been informed by our internal auditor and want to assure you and the public that the overall odds of winning any prize for each instant ticket reviewed, which is the number we print on the back of each ticket, is correct and was unaffected. Audit findings at this point also indicate the overall prize payout percentage for each game was also unaffected. In closing, let me add, based on the audit information I have been given so far, in my opinion, no player has been adversely affected either, and the security and integrity of our instant games has not been compromised. We have, of course, our commissioners here as well as our internal auditor if there's questions that you would like to ask of either of them or myself concerning this. (Ms. Cloud - you did not tell them that all you want to do is print the same "sell-in-sheets" EXCEPT exclude the approx number of tickets printed and the approx. number of prizes. You also failed to tell them how the TLC, in December, asked the Attorney General for permission to keep Open Records from submitting this information to me and now, you are asking these folks too.) CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: The question I would have is, was this confined to multiple games or a single game or is that information that you know yet? MS. CLOUD: It is -- We have looked at all the games that we have that are in an active status and being sold at this time at our retailer locations. There's 65 games, and it goes across the board with every vendor we've done business with. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. So, this is not a problem that's just occurred with your most -- with your current vendor, then. Is that correct? MS. CLOUD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. Are there sanctions in -- contractual sanctions that can remedy this situation with either your current printer and/or your previous printers? Ms. CLOUD: Yes, there are -- CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: In other words, there -- MS. CLOUD: There are sanctions, Mr. Chairman, in the present contract. We put them in this present contract. It was not in the prior contract. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. MS. CLOUD: But we do have the sanctions there. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: The variance -- In the previous contracts, were the variance stipulations there? MS. CLOUD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. So, there was MS. CLOUD: I have a difficult time answering as to why there wasn't. I recognized, when we put out the RFP for the present contract, that we needed those variances in there, and we put them into the contract we have. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: In the present contract, was -- the RFP went out and the contract was awarded within the last two years? Three years? MS. CLOUD: Two years. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. And the previous contract to that was -- or it went -- MS. CLOUD: The previous contract to that was an assumption of a buy-out. We initially started doing business with Dittler Brothers in Atlanta, Georgia, and Dittler Brothers was purchased by BABN who now has a plant in San Antonio. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: And when was that contract initially negotiated? MS. CLOUD: Let's see. '96, '97. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. And then the acquisition was made in -- by the other company. MS. CLOUD: Of the one we have presently? CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: No. The acquisition. MS. CLOUD: The acquisition was in '96. I'm pretty sure -- Well, my general counsel said it was before '99, the acquisition. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. And are there actions that the Commission has under review to remedy the current situation as far as sanctions or is it too early to tell on that yet? MS. CLOUD: It is too early to tell. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN CLOWE: Chairman Heflin, if I might -- CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN CLOWE: -- hope to clarify something there. The audit is ongoing, and the reason that I called for the emergency meeting this morning was to report the results as it stands today. The Commission was notified of this situation which is underway Monday afternoon, and we feel very strongly about the integrity of the Commission in dealing with the players of these games in Texas and the perception, and it was my opinion we had grounds -- and the general counsel agreed -- to have the emergency meeting. So, we're coming to you at some point short of the finish of the internal audit. In regards to the use of the word sanctions, I don't believe there are any sanctions in this contract. It is, in fact, more a provision for liquidated damages and if there is a breach of the contract, and we have yet to determine that and have clarification of that issue as part of the completion of the internal audit. So, I wanted to expand on what the executive director said to you, and hopefully that clarifies it. We expect to have that conclusion of the internal audit prior to our next meeting in February or certainly a report at that time. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: The term sanction was my term and certainly not that of -- CHAIRMAN CLOWE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: -- the Commission or the executive director. So, if there -- If it is determined when the audit is complete -- and by the way, what's the schedule for the completion of that? Do we have that yet? MS. CLOUD: We think we need about two to three more weeks on the audit. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: So, if it's determined that the -- there has been damage incurred by the printer, then there are provisions to recover damages through the contract? CHAIRMAN CLOWE: If there Is a breach. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Right. Right. CHAIRMAN CLOWE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN CLOWE: There are limitations, and we have yet to determine what the end result is. The audit reports at this point some overage in some areas and some underage. So, we're not complete at this point in time. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. Questions of the members? Ms. Luna? Senator? MADAM SENATOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the fact that as a former member of this committee, you're allowing me to sit in. I was not able to sit in on the Senate finance side as we had a committee hearing that my presence was requested at to make quorum, and, so, I wasn't able to ask some of those questions. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Well, we're allowing you to sit in as a senator. MADAM SENATOR: Thank you. We appreciate it. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Does she still get vote? MADAM SENATOR: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: That's another issue. MADAM SENATOR: Absolutely not. Thank you, and let me say thank you to Ms. Cloud and to the chairman and to the committee for addressing this in an emergency fashion. I think that the credibility of the games themselves and perceptions can be just as real as what is actually happening. I wanted to ask some questions about this, and the vendor for our scratch-off games is not listed in the documents, I don't think, that -- on Page 186 on major contracts. Can you tell me who the vendor is? MS. CLOUD: The vendor -- It's all of our vendors. This audit is across the board. We've got all the games on the street that we -- The 65 games we've audited go all the way back to our first vendor. We still have about seven games on the street from Dittler Brothers. We have about four games on the street with BABN. We have Scientific Games which has the majority of the games that we have on the street at this time, and we have some Pollard who is our backup vendor for the present vendor. MADAM SENATOR: Have you assessed from your internal audit where the major problem has occurred? MS. CLOUD: The major problem is occurring, like I said, in the prize levels. The variance for each prize level is 2 percent over or under. MADAM SENATOR: Is that an overage or an underage? Can you tell me, is there any one particular vendor that it seems to be a problem with? I don't remember this discussion coming before this committee or any House committee or Senate committee the last time we were in legislation. MS. CLOUD: The variances have been put into the current contract. It was not in the previous contracts. So, this was -- We did not -- We had not audited this part, and we had not had -- didn't know we had this issue until now, but it is a -- looks like it's an industry standard where it's a problem with all vendors, not just this one. ( She's stuttering ... not prepared. I don't think there's a "problem" - I think this is all just an "excuse" to exclude this data from the marketing piece that is in the stores for players to read.)
MADAM SENATOR: Okay. I wanted to ask you, if it's an under-redemption, then it's clearly a case where we are not meeting -- our folks who are buying, our customers, we are not right -- If it's an over-redemption, then the State loses the revenue. If it's an under-redemption, it's clearly not meeting what is printed or what the expectations are of the consumers that buy the game. Is that true? MS. CLOUD: No, ma'am. MADAM SENATOR: Okay. Explain it -- MS. CLOUD: If you'd like my internal auditor -- I can explain it. MADAM SENATOR: In other words, if you -- MS. CLOUD: Say you have shorter that's on the print run which has caused the prize levels within those print runs to be reduced as well. The overall odds of the game and the overall prize payout remained the same. This has not affected our players at all. They have still got the same amount of prizes in the game. It's not in the format that we put out on the street, but it -- they still have the same prize -- MADAM SENATOR: So, there's a disconnect between the information and what's actually occurring? MS. CLOUD: And that's what we're concerned about. (The TLC is looking for a legitimate reason to keep from releasing how many tickets were printed and how many prizes there are for each prize level. Please don't give it to them.) MADAM SENATOR: Okay. Thank you. REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Representative Luna. REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: I'm just a low, little old coastal girl, and I don't follow. I just need to question that a little bit further. How is it that the players are not being affected? I just don't follow your argument. MS. CLOUD: You have -- You -- When we sent out the working papers, we tell the vendor how many tickets we want printed, and in the printing process, they have to pull any pack that has any defects whatsoever. They all -- This is major procedure for all of them. When they get through with the printing process, they end up with less -- in some cases, less tickets than we put in our blueprint. We ask for 20 million tickets, we got 19. And that million tickets had prizes in them, and because of that, the prizes are also gone from the game. So, in checking the inventory that we actually received and the number of prizes that came with that inventory and coming up -- you come up with the same prize payout, overall prize payout that we had in the game, and the overall odds of the tickets don't change. REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: You're suggesting that -- MS. CLOUD: But -- REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: -- if you ordered -- How many millions, let's say, do you order in a typical run? MS. CLOUD: 20 million. REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: So, if you order 20 million and you're shorted 1 million tickets, you just didn't have any -- you're just certain you didn't have any winners in that 1 million tickets -- MS. CLOUD: No -- REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: -- or the odds aren't changed with the remaining 19 million that are put into circulation? MS. CLOUD: They did have winners in the 1 million. REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: But your -- Is your argument, then, that the odds don't change? Is that what you're suggesting, because you have 19 million out there and you still have the same percentage of winners? Again, I apologize. I'm just so slow. MS. McLEOD: That's okay. That's okay. My name's Debra McLeod. I'm the -- REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: I hate to tell you this right now. I'm just going to tell you, I mean, whenever we have something like this occur, the perceptions -- when we already have, I think, in many instances, the public that questions the existence of the Lottery, what are we really generating from the lottery, this is, to me, a very serious problem, and, so, I just have to tell you that's where I'm coming from. MS. McLEOD: To help you understand -- I'm the internal auditor. My name is Debra McLeod. What we've done is look at the volume of tickets. For example, if you had a pool of 100 tickets that we were selling, 60 of those were winners. So, you'd have a 60 percent prize payout. If, in fact, the vendor had only shipped us 80 tickets and we had 48 winners, you still have the same 60 percent variance, 60 percent prize payout. So, that's exactly what has happened here. When the vendor sells us or gives us less tickets, they also give us less winners in that pool. So, the percentage is a correlation between the winners and the overall number of tickets delivered. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Representative Puente. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: The numbers we're talking about, 20 million and 1 million -- or 19 and 1 million, are those numbers that are actually occurring in your sample? MS. CLOUD: In the variances? REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: Yes. MS. CLOUD: Yes. They're -- Each one -- Each game is maybe a different number, of course, but that's the correlation we're looking at. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: People that play the scratch-off versus people that play Lotto, am I right in assuming that people that play scratch-off play because they anticipate a better chance of winning, for example here, $21,000? MS. CLOUD: Yes, most of them play for the top prize. (Is Mrs. Cloud trying to find a way to keep players from verifying how many top prizes there are in each game?) REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: Okay. And as opposed to the Lotto, it's just a home run or nothing? MS. CLOUD: Right. Although our players are pretty dedicated at just winning a prize in our instant games, they're pretty happy when they win $20.REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: So, these odds that you're talking about that -- the 1 million that are faulty or not, they have the same percentage of winners and losers as the other batch. MS. CLOUD: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: But that's in theory only. Correct? In other words -- MS. CLOUD: No. That's actual. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: But that, by chance then -- say, by chance, the big pot, the big prize may be in that batch, that 1 million ticket batch? MS. McLEOD: No. The answer to that is no. The reason is because they randomly put the number of winners throughout the whole print run. Then they go back -- The instant ticket vendor goes back and makes sure that you have "X" number of high tier winners, what we call mid tier and low tier. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: So, if we're talking about 1 million and 19 million batches -- MS. McLEOD: Right. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: -- in the 1 million batch, there should be one or two 21,000-dollar winners, and in the other batch, the rest of them? MS. McLEOD: Right. Right. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: There should be, and they're supposed to be, or is that by chance? MS. McLEOD: No. There is, because somebody has gone back from the instant ticket manufacturer and verified that, yes. What we find, though, is -- For example, this game, I believe, was -- REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: Well, I'm not coastal, and I'm not a girl, but I'm confused, too. REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Ms. Luna. REPRESENTATIVE LUNA: But I guess to take it one step further, I guess I'm not convinced, and if I'm not convinced, how is the general public going to be convinced, at least from what I've heard so far? And I have to echo the senator's remarks that I'm -- I appreciate that y'all are treating this as an emergency matter and that you convene in an emergency meeting. Now we need the emergency recovery to convince the public so that this doesn't further affect the lottery sales which have been declining in our state. Actions taken by the Lottery Commission in the past or by the executive director or whomever has periodically caused some serious detriments to the lottery in the public's eye. So, not -- I mean, I may be silly up here and say I'm confused. It's further than that. Maybe I'm just not convinced. (YES, you're on target! This action, if approved, will cause serious detriments to the Texas Lottery. The TLC must make this information readily available at the retail level for players who inquire. Just the same as sellers must disclose mileage on a car before selling it. Mrs. Cloud hasn't told you that in November 2000, I posted the odds and a complete breakdown of how many tickets there were for each and every prize. After posting this information on my web site, my Open Records request for scratch off info started arriving without the information I had requested. To try to correct this situation, in December 2000, I made another Open Records Request for their "Instant Game Tenative Schedule." Their response - they've asked the Attorney General to "excepted this document from required disclosure." The TLC failed to send me requested "sell-in-sheets" for upcoming games claiming they either "forgot" or "didn't have a sheet or a start date.") MS. CLOUD: We track our sales on a daily basis. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: In other words, there's a reporter right back there (indicating). He's just scribbling away. When the stories hit tomorrow that there's a problem, can we see an immediate drop-off in scratch ticket sales the next day? MS. CLOUD: I'm going to -- Well, I don't know that it shows up quite that quickly, but we would see it probably within the week. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: And have y'all decided as a -- in the meeting that we're in now, what -- how you're going to correct this problem? Not the actual auditing problem, but the perception problem that's out there, to ensure the people that participate in the lottery that we have a game that is fair and that there is a true chance of winning? CHAIRMAN CLOWE: I think that our first step was to have the emergency meeting this morning and to have the report that was forthcoming. The media was at the meeting, and they were notified and asked to be there, and I think Linda said what she was taking in the ways of steps to correct the perception of information that's going out in the sales slips and information on our Web site. (I'm a media but I was not notified) REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: I mean, but people that buy scratch-off tickets, I don't know if they're going to run to the Web site to see what's going on. It's a very -- to me, a very fickle player that, if they see that it's happening, they might choose to, you know, got to the Lotto, play the Lotto or play some other game of chance that doesn't involve the Texas Lottery. So, have y'all decided how you're going to let the public know that it's still a good game? (Only 30% of the population have computers and internet access. I think by not disclosing the number of tickets printed and the number of prizes at the retail level by way of that "sell-in-sheet" for the players who inquire, is a willful and intentional act of deceiving the public.) MS. CLOUD: We emphasized that in our meeting this morning with the media there. Also, this selling sheet goes to the retailers. It doesn't really go to the players. It does go -- Some (most) of the retailers do put it in their play stations where the player can see there's -- the makeup of the game, but, you know, we're telling the truth when we say the odds didn't change, the overall payout didn't change, and it had to do with the correlation of the inventory being over what we ordered or less than what we ordered, and the prizes fell into that same -- Prizes within that overage or shortage was the same.(Then why do you want to change anything? It's been this way since start up. What is your point here?) REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: Are you having both problems, overage and shortage? MS. CLOUD: Yes.( Printers generally have "overs." Not "unders." They have "overs" due to "make-ready's." That's pre-press runs to get everything lined up and the press ready to roll. My experience has been that I get "unders" when the job gets damaged somehow.)
MS. CLOUD: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: And all vendors? MS. CLOUD: All vendors. REPRESENTATIVE PUENTE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: One question. This information is the point of contention. Is that correct? MS. CLOUD: Yes. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: If I wanted to -- Let's just say that the audit has been completed on Game No. 210, The Hot Hand, and we knew what had actually been delivered. Okay? Then would it be a matter of altering the number of prizes by each denomination here to make it accurate? MS. CLOUD: Yes. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. And, so, I might find that instead of having 515 hundred-dollar tickets, there might be 503? MS. CLOUD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: I might find that in instead of 40,080, 25-dollar tickets, there might be 40,076 or something. MS. CLOUD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: So, this is the kind of information we're talking about? MS. CLOUD: This is the document we're pulling back from the retailer, and we're making the correlation to the Web site of the actual prizes that were shipped. (This is a catch 22 - First, the printer knows the minute the press shuts down what the count is.
And the computer knows that very second how many prizes there are too. The TLC doesn't plan to "print on paper" anywhere how many prizes or how many tickets were printed. They just plan to post this data on their web site. What they "probably" plan to do is to create one sell-in-sheet for their web site showing this data knowing that people don't click on the sheet. Ask her specifically.) MS. CLOUD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: Okay. Then the Commission -- the agency will have the ability to send a second sheet with corrected information once all the tickets have been delivered. Is that right? MS. CLOUD: That's correct. That's the intent, but what we intend to do with the initial shipment of the selling sheet two weeks prior to the game going out on the street is to leave out totally the number of tickets in that prize level,just send out to the retailer from this point forward the amount of the prizes that are in the game, and then after the game is received by us and we have the end of production information, then we'll send out a new selling sheet that will replace this one. (I'm confused. "Game is received by us" or do you mean "game is received by the retailers?" Won't this plan cost twice as much money? And at this point, hasn't the game has already been selling so for players who want to know the number of tickets printed or the number of prizes PRIOR to purchasing tickets, then the information would not be available for them? Isnt' there a law that says you have to disclose this kind of information - before selling it - to the public?) CHAIRMAN HEFLIN: And then as you send out updates showing the remaining tickets in a particular run, based on what's been cashed in --(What you don't know is that this particular sheet only shows the top TWO remaining prizes - notice how she lets it go unstated? Is she hoping you don't catch this tidbit?) MS. CLOUD: Right. (By the way, tell them the "as of" date shown on the "flyers" that's currently in the stores today?)
MS. McLEOD: Just to make a point of clarification, I have not audited that portion yet. So, that's the very next thing. We felt that the players' perception issue was the most important. We started there. Second to that is the vendor issue, and then third, of course, will be the State revenue. So, with each facet of this, we're working as
expeditiously as possible.
(I suspect that's all this is about - they just want to exclude invaluable info from the sell in sheets. ) MR. ATKINS: No, there shouldn't be any
reason we left it off. I'd have to go back and double-check the database to see why it's not in there.
(EXACTLY - so why were you using the "sell-in-sheets?" - They are just a simple marketing piece that very clearly says "approximately?" - How could this sheet be involved in any kind of audit?)
Click here to find your Senator Click here to find your Representative To go back to the "Help Me" page, click here. |
||||
|
The Lotto Report |
