A forum comprised of three persons is, and has been, an effective means of arriving at equitable decisions for quite some time. As a result, we have three judge panels in our courts and in horse racing we see three placing judges and three stewards. A few commissions have chosen to appoint a chief steward into that body for reasons that I am unaware of. Experience and observation have convinced me that the chief steward format leaves a lot to be desired. I say that primarily because it limits the contributions the two non-chief stewards might offer to the decision making process. Any decision forthcoming from the stewards must be supported by the vote of the chief steward and one other steward. However, the two non-chief stewards can not out-vote the chief. I believe that configuration amounts to a one man stewards’ stand. Those two stewards are approved by the commission to function as stewards. To then have them work within a format where their opinion on an issue gets no respect if it is not in line with the thinking of the chief steward, makes for a poorly functioning board. That, in my opinion, is not a board of stewards at all. It is a one man stand. If you care to see that demonstrated, read the Kentucky commissions’ own investigative report of the Life At Ten incident.
Operating under the chief steward concept, the associations and the commission could agree on two monkeys from a zoo, have them work with the chief steward and produce results not too different from those coming from that office at present.