 And I thank you for your patience as I'm a few minutes late here. We're good to go. Thanks. Good morning. This is a meeting of Massachusetts gaming commission. We are holding this meeting virtually. So we will do our local good morning. Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. I'm here. And good morning. Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. I'm here. Okay, we'll get started. This is public meeting number 472. And as our agenda notes, it's a continuation of the evaluation of the application of Massachusetts Greyhound Association in doing businesses, Rainham Park. And it's commenced on June 12th, June 20th. And we had a hearing, I mean, a meeting on August 1st. And then, of course, today, I'll turn to our interim executive director, but in his capacity as general counsel, Todd Grossman, to help set the stage for today's really limited review. We're taking a look at a narrow part of the application review today. Thanks, Tom. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to you and to you commissioners and to all who are joining the meeting this morning. Today, of course, the commission was initially planning to continue its evaluation of the application of Massachusetts Greyhound Association Incorporated's application for a category two sports wagering license, which it commenced at public meetings on June 12th and then June 20th. Then, of course, at a public meeting on August 1st, the commission discussed the applicant's two written requests for withdrawal of a qualifier. The first request is for the withdrawal of Christopher J. Carney as a qualifier to MGA. The second and related request pertains to the withdrawal of the Christopher J. Carney sub chapter S trust as a qualifier to MGA. The commission continued the matter from August 1st to today to give the IEB an opportunity to prepare a response to those requests, which they have. The commission further directed that review of the request to withdraw and completion of the evaluation would take place together, essentially. Since that August 1st meeting, however, there was an intervening event that necessitated a change in the planned review process. The commission was notified that as of August 17th, which is yesterday, American wagering Inc, better known as Caesar sports book, has terminated the operating lease agreement that was in place between MGA and Caesar's. That agreement set out the terms and conditions under which Caesar's would essentially operate the sports book if MGA were to be awarded the category two license. As a result of that termination, as of today, MGA is without an entity to operate the sports book. Accordingly, an adjustment had to be made to the planned agenda. It's also worth noting that yesterday Caesar's itself filed a request to withdraw as a qualifier to MGA. Given the late receipt of that, it has not been marked up for review and substance on the agenda today, though it is worth just noting that it was submitted. Accordingly, based on all of that, it would not be prudent to continue the review of MGA's application as planned. Where Caesar's role in operating the sports book is a substantial component of the submitted application. As a matter of law, it's difficult to envision a scenario in which the application to move towards a temporary license to operate could be granted by the commission. The applicant has, however, submitted a request that the commission move forward on two discrete issues. First, the two requests for withdrawal that it submitted. And second, that the commission rendered decision as to whether the applicant meets the preliminary suitability the standard described in the regulations and statute. These, those two issues have been noticed on the commission's agenda for today and you may, if you so choose, move forward and hear those matters. If you're so inclined, my recommendation relative to the procedure for today is as follows. First, offer the applicant an opportunity to respond to my comments and those that attorney mon handle offer and any process that he would like to see. Second, proceed with item three on the agenda relative to preliminary suitability. This entails a presentation from the IEB as to its findings relative to the applicant's preliminary suitability, including financial suitability. And then of course, the applicant's corresponding presentation and response. No determination should be made by the commission at that juncture though. It'll be important to move to the next step before opining on this one. The third step then would be to proceed to item four on the agenda to review and consider the two requests submitted by the applicant for withdrawal of the Christopher Carney himself and the Christopher Carney sub chapter S trust as qualifiers to the MGA application. This step will also entail presentations from the applicant and then from the IEB. Following the presentations on agenda items three and four, the commission should move into the decision-making process. The commission should make findings on the request for withdrawal of the qualifiers prior to addressing the second issue relative to preliminary suitability. I submit to you that the facts and circumstances pertaining to both of these decisions are nearly identical. So it will be important for the commission to have a complete record for each prior to making any decision. As a practical matter, you will have to know whether Christopher Carney and the trust are still qualifiers to the applicant prior to determining whether MGA and its qualifiers are preliminarily suitable. That this determination will have to be made of course with an understanding that Caesars is no longer part of the application. Our Deputy General Counsel Caitlin Monahan will address the legal principles regulations and statutes governing both the request to withdraw and preliminary suitability with you momentarily prior to commencing either of the evaluation. Before she does that though, I'd like to remind everyone of a few principles that we've discussed previously, but bear noting again here. As always, it's important to recall that any finding the commissioner makes must be the commission makes must be supported by substantial evidence. This term is defined as such evidence as a reasonable deadline might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. So when making a determination as to whether there is support in the record before find a making a finding on a specific issue, a standard or a factor, whether that has been satisfied or not been satisfied, the commission will have to ensure that there is substantial evidence in the record to support that conclusion. For avoidance of doubt, as you know, when determining whether an applicant has achieved final or durable suitability, a heightened standard is applied and that decision would have to be supported by clear and convincing evidence, not just substantial evidence, which is a lower standard in the matters before you today though, we are just working under the substantial evidence standard. Further, we are discussing a category two sports wagering license. You'll recall of course that a category two sports wagering license as it pertains to the present applicant is a license issued by the commission that permits the operation of sports wagering in person on the premises where the licensee is authorized by law to conduct simulcast wagering on horse or Greyhound racing and through not more than one individually branded mobile application or other digital platform approved by the commission. Additionally, as it applies to this applicant, general law chapter 23 and provides that the commission shall issue a category two license to a Greyhound meeting licensee that conducted simulcast wagering as of December 31st 2020 as authorized by law that meets the requirements of chapter 23 and and the rules and regulations of the commission. And then one final thing as with each of the sports wagering applications you have reviewed, the commission may move into executive session to discuss certain sensitive matter. This issue is also addressed in the agenda and we can review discrete matters to determine whether they qualify for such treatment on an ad hoc basis as we have done over the course of all of the commission's application reviews. With that, Madam chair and commission unless there are any questions I'd like to turn to attorney Monahan to present an overview of the law relative to preliminary suitability and withdrawals in this context. Commissioners, do you have any questions for Todd at this juncture? So I do and then I had a chance to speak briefly with Todd at our last meeting on August 1st. The applicant did request to have the withdrawals heard first on the issue of order was as Commissioner Maynard pointed out a topic that took us really two hours of discussion. The vote was for one for to allow IEB to present on the preliminary suitability report first and have the request of withdrawals address. Second, Commissioner Maynard to think it was in the process of our voting or forgive me, it might have been separate apart suggested. Well, what if we move it all to the so that it's so that IEB would have the opportunity to respond to the withdrawal request and have it on the same day and that's why we are here today. I would like to unless in this that I would turn to the applicant, they may have changed their position. I have not. I would like to give the opportunity for us to think about two things. One, we are on the same day. IEB had suggested that it was ready to go and that was critically important for them. Why IEB should be presenting first logically. It's hard for me to imagine how we proceed with a review of the preliminary suitability reports without knowing what our decision will be with respect to withdrawal. We're all working on the same day. From a fairness point of view, I think it makes good sense to allow for us to consider the withdrawals first. And most importantly, from a legal point of view, we have been advised that from a legal perspective, we must vote on the withdrawals first. That was just advised just now. I bring this up now as a good juncture because we'll be proceeding. I understand that I may not prevail. I want to be on the record that I feel strongly about this as we move forward. And I also really want to put down on the record. I don't understand. And this is where I need to help. I need to understand why it is critically important to go in the order that commission decided after two hours of process because that was never clear. And I don't believe. General Counsel Grossman, you're able to explain it to me either. So I think it's I ask and I ask out of respect to this process and to the commission just for reconsideration. Perhaps even IEB might even reconsider its position. Commissioner Bryant. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hear you. I did not hear the representation that you made that we must vote on the withdrawals. The motions to withdraw first. That was not my understanding. That was not my understanding of the recitation that just happened. I don't change the view that I had the last meeting on this that they're inextricably intertwined. We need to go forward. And I did not hear. That we had to procedurally vote motions to withdraw before preliminary suitability. So I think you and I might be hearing different things on that. I may I may I think we should get clarification because I may have overstated that it's maybe it's not a legal principle, but we I do know that as I was working through the agenda and also with I did hear that Council Grossman just now say we should vote and vote in the order of the withdrawals first. I may have this. That's not what I heard or what I understood the law. Thank you. So I commissioner made it as I did. I will right. And yeah, I agree. Commissioner Bryant. I may have misheard. So maybe we should just get clarity around that. Caitlin or Todd. Well, absolutely. I'd be happy to jump in on that one. I know Commissioner Maynard, where you're going to say something now. Okay. Yeah, as a practical matter, it seems to me that you would need to know whether the qualifiers who have petitioned for withdrawal are still qualifiers or not before you decide the preliminary suitability question, which doesn't mean that you can't hear the information relative to preliminary suitability as part of that at the same time, but I think it would be difficult to render a decision on preliminary suitability before you've decided whether Christopher Carney and the Associated Trust are qualifiers or not. So that is what I said. Caitlin, is there any legal concerns from your perspective? I don't know if you're going to address this next on that legal issue. No, I think it makes sense to hear the evidence in the order that is set out on the agenda. So here suitability, the set of evidence for suitability, then hear the evidence and arguments for withdrawal and then the commission, and this is how it's set up on the agenda, then the commission would go into deliberations on those issues and the commission could absolutely decide to decide withdrawal first. It could sort of decide to take the conversation together and then make the decisions at the end. That's up to how the commission wants to deliberate, but that, I think, you know, the way the agenda is set out would make sense. So, Caitlin, the only thing I don't understand is the make sense because I haven't heard the rationale. IEV and legal have not said to me, why is it more sensible to hear the preliminary report that includes Chris Carney's name throughout it without knowing if Chris Carney is in or out? Madam Chair, if I may. Thank you. Ms. Shekana, maybe you know the answer to that. I would rather not have that discussion based on your opinion as to the order of, as to the order of the way we should be looking at this as a whole, as a body. What I would like to do as I believe Caitlin has suggested is to allow the parties to put forth their presentation as to which order should the commission should proceed in. You know, I hear you. I respect your opinion. I'm looking forward to hearing other commissioners opinions on the matter, but again, I think it would be prudent for each of us to hear from the parties before we make a determination. I'm, oh, I'm not. I need to hear from the parties on everything Commissioner Skinner. So you and I are an absolute agreement on that. I'm still just, I'm just, I am actually asking for permission to readdress something we spent time on. So I am begging your, your, you know, sort of your tolerance on this question. I understand that it may have been decided. I just wanted to revisit it. And so if it's, if nobody else wants to revisit will go right ahead. Mr. Maynard, you're unmuted. Madam chair. Thank you. I would like to break the record in front of the applicant as well as anybody that's watching today about the characterization that you started out with. I want to be clear that the way the conversation was trending was to have a conversation around the IEB report that day, but then to not have a conversation about the withdrawal of Mr. Carney. And so yes, I did propose something and I propose that we do it on the same day for fairness. And I try to find a fair way to do things. So it was not Commissioner Maynard who put us in a situation where we are here today. And that was what you said. To point it out. Sorry. My apologies. It was, it was may I finish Madam chair. I often don't get to finish my thoughts. So I just want to be clear that had we heard it on August 1st, the way I believe it was going to happen was we would have had no conversation about Mr. Carney that day. So I do take you know, I take this very seriously what we're doing and I want this to be fair and I do think that four commissioners found that it was intertwined and that the most fair thing was to hear them on the same day. And so now we are on the same day. I'm perfectly fine having a conversation on whether the cart comes first or the horse comes first. But today, but I just want to make sure that the record is clear. I agree with everything you just said. Commissioner Maynard. So my apologies for mischaracterized it. Commissioner Hill, do you have any thoughts? I actually am in full agreement with Commissioner Skinner on how to move forward at this point. I think she laid it out very well and I agree with her a hundred percent. And can I just ask clarification in terms of of what the two parties in terms of order or should we proceed with the agenda? Commissioner Skinner. If we go ahead. Proceed with the agenda is how I feeling. Madam Chair. Thank you. All right, then I am I thank you for allowing me to at least once again address what I thought was going to be an approach we could take today. So with that, now we'll turn to is there any other question that you may have had for Todd? That's a gross man. His gross man. All right, then we turn to Caitlin and thank you for allowing me to get some clarity. Councilor Monaghan. Thank you all. Good morning. So again, before the commission hears from the IEB and the applicant regarding preliminary suitability and the pending motions to withdraw, we wanted to set out the legal framework for evaluating those issues. And I'll begin with preliminary suitability. In order to be eligible to request a temporary category to license statute and regulation require an applicant and its qualifiers to first be found preliminarily suitable both Chapter 23 and Section 6 and 205 CMR 215.01 subsection 3 set out factors that the commission must consider in determining whether an applicant and its qualifiers are preliminarily suitable specifically in evaluating the suitability of the applicant or qualifier, the commission shall consider the overall reputation of the applicant or qualifier, including but not limited to a set of factors. And what I've done when I go through this list is to combine the factors from Chapter 23 and Section 60 and 205 CMR 215.01 subsection 3. So those factors are the integrity, honesty, good character and reputation of the applicant or qualifier, the financial stability, integrity and background of the applicant or qualifier, the business practices and the business ability of the applicant to establish and maintain a successful sports wagering operation, whether the applicant or qualifier has a history of compliance with gaming or sports wagering licensing requirements and other jurisdictions, whether the applicant or qualifier at the time of the application is a defendant in litigation, the suitability of all parties in interest to the license, including affiliates and close associates and the financial resources of the applicant. And I will pause here on this factor to note that the terms affiliate and close associate are defined. So affiliate is defined as a person who directly or indirectly controls or is controlled by or is under common control with a specified person and that's defined by statute at Chapter 23 and Section 3. And close associate is defined as a person who holds irrelevant financial interest in or is entitled to exercise in the business of an applicant or licensee and by virtue of that interest or power is able to exercise a significant influence over the management or operation of a gaming establishment or business license under the chapter. And again, that's defined in Chapter 23N. So now I'll go back into the list of factors for consideration in determining preliminary suitability. The next factor is whether the applicant or qualifier is ineligible to hold a license under there's a variety of statutes and regs, but they're 2-5CMR-215, Chapter 23N, Section 9A or Chapter 23N, Section 60. Whether the applicant or qualifier has been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, whether and to what extent the applicant or qualifier has associated with members of organized crime and other persons of disreputable character and the extent to which the applicant or qualifier has cooperated with the IEB during the review of the application. And the factors I have just listed are not exclusive. The commission may take other factors into consideration in determining whether an applicant or qualifier is preliminarily suitable. To be clear, however, the commission must at a minimum consider each of the factors just described in determining preliminary suitability. And as Todd explained earlier, a finding of preliminary suitability should be supported by substantial evidence. Now, statute and regulation also set out when the commission shall find an applicant or qualifier unsuitable and when it may deny an application. So per 2-5CMR-215.01 subsection 4, the commission shall determine that an applicant is unsuitable if the applicant or one of its qualifiers has knowingly made a false statement of a material fact to the commission, has had a license revoked by any governmental authority responsible for regulation of gaming or sports wagering activities, has been convicted of a felony or other crime involving embezzlement, theft, fraud, perjury, or a gambling-related offense, has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the commission financial responsibility sufficient to adequately meet the requirements of the proposed enterprise or has affiliates or close associates that would not qualify for a sports wagering license or whose relationship with the applicant may pose an injurious threat to the interest of the Commonwealth. And then again, per chapter 23 and section 6E, the commission may deny an application if it determines during its investigation that an applicant has failed to establish the applicant's integrity or the integrity of any affiliate, close associate financial resource or any person required to be qualified by the commission, demonstrate responsible business practices and any jurisdiction or overcome any other reason as determined by the commission as to why it would be injurious to the threats of the injurious to the interests of the Commonwealth to award the applicant an operator license. So before that, that's everything I have to say about preliminary suitability and the standards for that. And before I move on, are there any questions regarding that legal framework? Questions, commissioners? I'll start. Great. Thank you. I'll move on to the standards regarding requests for withdrawal and qualification. So applicants and qualifiers may seek to withdraw their applications pursuant to 205CMR 213, excuse me. The process for withdrawal and whether commission approval is needed varies depending on the stage of the application at the time of the request. Where commissioners approval is needed, as is the case today, the commission must find good cause to allow the withdrawal in order for the commission to determine if there is good cause for withdrawal for the withdrawal of Christopher Carney and the Christopher Carney trust. It must first determine whether Mr. Carney and the trust are qualifiers statute and regulations set out which individuals and entities must be considered a qualifier in the context of an application for a sports wadring license and which may be considered a qualifier. Chapter 23N section 5B states that the commission shall not grant an operator license until it determines that each person who has control of the applicant meets all qualifications for licensure. For purposes of this chapter, the following shall be considered to have control of an applicant. One, a person who owns 10% or more of a corporate applicant provided however that a bank or other license lending institution that holds a mortgage or other lien acquired in the ordinary course of business shall not be considered to have control of an applicant. A person who holds a beneficial or proprietary interest of 10% or more of an applicant's business. If the applicant is a corporation which is the case here, the A, President, B, Chief Executive Officer, C, Chief Operating Officer, D, Chief Financial Officer, E, Treasurer, F, Secretary, G, H, Inside Director, and H, Chair of the Board of Directors. And I'm going to skip over LLCs and partnerships because that's not relevant today. The commission's regulations specifically 205CMR 215.02 subsection 1 further set out who shall be considered a qualifier. And that section states that the following persons shall be required to qualify to qualify as part of the sports wagering license review. If an applicant is a corporation, each officer, each inside director, any person owning or having another beneficial or proprietary interest in 10% or more of the common stock of the applicant or holding intermediary or subsidiary company of such company and and the judgment of the division of licensing after consultation with the Bureau, any person with significant and substantial responsibility for the applicant's business under the jurisdiction of the commission or having the power to exercise significant influence over decisions concerning the applicant's operations on the Commonwealth. And again, I'm going to skip over the subsection related to LLCs and partnerships because they're just not relevant today. The regulation also provides the commission with discretion to identify persons as qualifiers, stating that the commission may in its sole discretion require other persons that have a business association of any kind with the applicant to undergo a qualifier review in determination process. These persons include but are not limited to holding intermediary or subsidiary companies, companies of the requester. The term business association is not a defined term in either the statute or the regulation. So if you find that Mr. Carney and or the trust are not qualifiers pursuant to statute or regulation, the commission may then determine if there is good cause for Mr. Carney and or the trust to withdraw. And with that, does the commission have any questions regarding withdrawal or qualifiers? Looks like everyone's all set. Great. Thank you. Okay. That's Balfair. We're all set now. Council Grossman on the legal framework. Yes, thank you. Turn now to an update from MGA and attorney Jed Nozl as well as attorney Michael Rodizio. Good morning, Chair. Good morning. Members of the commission. Thank you. I believe the attorney Grossman has described sort of the I guess the factual update regarding the termination of the operating agreement. Obviously, we've submitted a filing with the commission regarding certainly how we can proceed today on the on the issues, the discrete issues that have been identified. And we think that that the commission can prove can go through that process entirely consistent with its regulations that includes making a finding of preliminary suitability regarding MGA and ruling on the requests for withdrawal. And as attorney Grossman said, we're not asking the commission to go beyond those steps in connection with the process as part of the overall review of the application that's in front of you. So we are not asking the commission to go further under 218 to make any further determinations regarding the commissions regarding the applicants application at this time. We do believe based on that if we can achieve certainly a suitability finding for preliminary suitability finding for MGA there is a distinct possibility. I'd say more than that. We will be able to revive the agreement with Caesars and I can make a representation of what we've been told and I believe commission staff have been told by Caesars in connection with that. And although the agreement is terminated they have indicated to us that should MGA and its qualifiers obtain a preliminary finding of suitability with MTC they would essentially be able to they would be interested in in a new agreement with the operator and if it's certainly it would be also based on you know any additional their evaluation of any additional licensing conditions as well as you know this overall process and where we land. So under what we're proposing to do and it sounds to me what the commission agenda set up to do today is to make these very sort of discrete findings rule on the request to withdraw rule on the preliminary suitability of MGA allow us to reengage with Caesars after that fact if we achieve those outcomes and then I believe we'd be able to proceed with the overall application if those elements all came together. I did want to offer all just a comment and to the extent that it's appropriate at this time as to the obviously to the order of proceedings and then also the the order of the liberations by the commission as the commission is well aware I won't rehash it now it's our position that the request for withdrawal should be heard initially you know we certainly stand by that position we understand why we're here today we understand the arguments that the commission has made before that but that doesn't change the fact that we think that that's the proper way to proceed and I think now one of the large concerns that I think was part of the thinking previously was that the IEB hadn't had a chance or to consider those you know they've now filed a new 302 page report in response to the to the to the the request to withdraw so certainly they're well prepared to respond you know quite substantively to those to those requests as to the order of the liberations I think it's absolutely critical that the commission make a determination regarding the request to withdraw prior to considering the suitability of MGA that it will be determinative of what the commission will have before it for determining whether or not MGA can be preliminarily suitable if not only makes sense I think it's entirely consistent with the way the commission has handled these things in the past and that includes probably the closest on point was in connection with MGM's application and dealing with the Rolling Hills members, local partners through a trust that was also a qualifier and in that particular case the commission did allow certain individuals that were members of beneficiaries of a trust that was associated with that project to withdraw and then made a determination on the overall suitability of the applicant with those withdraws in place and may know other findings regarding the suitability of those individuals so I think not only does it make sense not only is it the logical way to proceed for purposes of deliberations and votes I think it's also consistent with the way the commission has dealt with these issues in the past commissioners I think we know that IEB's position has been stated you've heard now from the applicant we will proceed with the decision that was made August 1st and just addressed again by me and now you've heard from Mr. Nozo I want to give you one more opportunity before we start do we want to reverse the order the next item would be the presentation from IEB I'll start with Commissioner Hill ready to move forward with the agenda as stated Madam Chair Jane thank you Commissioner Skinner same and then I have a question for Attorney Nozo if possible Madam Chair okay Commissioner Mayard I'll set I just want to be clear that and I heard Attorney Nozo say a decision I would not render a decision until unsuitability until I heard both pieces so to be clear I would hear the withdrawal before a decision was rendered that doesn't mean that I won't hear the IEB will hold first so I will not make a decision until I hear both can I ask a point of clarification Commissioner Mayard I think I'm imagining that it will be two separate votes so it would be hearing the preliminary suitability first and I know I'm sure you know this but I just want to make sure we're clear and that as I understand it we would hold on any decision then then we would do the withdrawal and then we would start our deliberations and I think what I'm understanding from both Council Grossman and Council Monaghan and consistent with what I thought I heard from Council Nozl is that we would then start with our deliberations on the withdrawal and make a decision on that and then a decision as to the second piece on preliminary suitability is that what you're thinking too and is that right I guess is that how you're imagining it or is it one vote Todd and K-1 be two votes right yeah I think the way you described it is how I envisioned it but I'd see Commissioner Bryant is not not Commissioner Bryant right I mean I envisioned two votes okay but the question as to sequence has not been determined nor is it mandated as my understanding so that is TBD once we've heard all of the evidence I am I'm hearing something different so we need clarity I'm hearing something different from our Council and Council and then I just want to go back to Commissioner Maynard this was that what you were thinking too and you're going to be first to the Council first back to you for Sam I here's the point the point is I'm not going to make a determination until I hear both things and that's on either either vote right and so I'm not going to make a decision on it so I'm you know I'm letting Council knows all here right now that I I'm not going to make a decision on suitability without hearing the withdrawal and I heard that and I just want to be clear with you that not going to do it I won't take a vote on that anyways and so in my maybe you're saying what I'm thinking I know that from my perspective I have to keep an open mind with the facts before me for through the two presentations is that is that what you're kind of thinking to Commissioner Maynard yes okay thanks I have a question please Madam Chair that pertains thank you thank you the preliminaries suitability determination and I direct this to an attorney nozzle but I think that I'll also need some input from our legal council so it in terms of that it's this determination preliminary suitability aside from MGA improving its standing I guess with respect to Caesars and its relationship what is the rationale for bifurcating the preliminary suitability determination from the overall application review or the overall determination on the application I think I think I'm missing something so in other words if the if the commission were inclined to review the withdrawal request today and and ended it there for purposes of this portion of these proceedings and deferred a preliminary suitability determination you know until such time as MGA reestablished if that's the direction that it intends to go in its relationship with Caesars why wouldn't it be reasonable for the commission to take up those two items that I guess to make the overall application decision on the application at another time I turn to Council Grossman and Councilor Monaghan as well as Councilor Nozl and Councilor I would see you know Yeah, I'd be happy to address that it feels like Mr. Nozl might want to take a stab at that first I think he's already answered that but I think it's a great question and we should be very clear as to why that is so if that makes sense Madam Chair and commissioners I'd like Mr. Nozl address it first I'm happy to state our opinion and I think that's a very fair question Commissioner Skinner it's one you know we've tried to you know address and I think our our our filing that we made with the commission I wouldn't describe it as we're asking the commission to to bifurcate anything there are three rules commission regulations at issue here and I'll you know one specifically deals with request to withdraw 213 that can be done at any time discreetly it's a discreet issue and certainly there's no you know tie-in necessarily to 218 or any you know review of the application it's not part of the process although you know here obviously from a practical perspective it's something that has to be we believe has to be done in order for us to move forward you know the second set of regulations that we are asking the commission to rule on as 205 CMR 215 again a discreet regulation that requires the commission to make a preliminary finding of suitability that preliminary suitability finding then becomes the first prong of what you would consider if we got back to the application and and we think you know we're in a position to make that determination now and not put the commission in any position or at you know certainly not have it lose any opportunity to then take that preliminary suitability determination and consider it within the overall suitability determination under 218 for purposes of the of the application so that's that's the way we're proceeding we're suggesting to proceed it is important to us to have both of those determinations it gives us the the best opportunity to put back our agreement with Caesars which I did indicate to you is predicated not just on the withdrawal of Chris Carney more specifically is predicated on us having a preliminary finding of suitability so while we certainly can proceed just on the request to withdraw at you know at again at any point in the process we do feel we're in the best position to be able to revive or have a new agreement with Caesars if we have both of those determinations done and again I think it's entirely consistent with your regulations I don't think we're asking you to do anything you know outside of those regulations and we think that it's certainly the the best opportunity for this project to to proceed Madam Chair oh no go ahead I would just make sort of to clarifying points on this so one you know we just talked about preliminary suitability and the standards for preliminary suitability to be clear I don't believe that there's a difference between the standard for preliminary suitability under 215 which is the the preliminary suitability regulation and then 218 which is the overall regulation regarding the final decision so basically the commission if it shows to move forward to suitability today would make a decision under 215 and that functionally kind of gets ported in as one of the factors under 218 so just to be clear they're not different suitability standards under the different regs and you know just secondarily it you know it is the commission's decision whether it wants to move forward with suitability today it certainly can it can move forward and make that determination but it also could decide not to and it you know the commission can discuss that again just those two calls those two statements Madam Chair yes commission him I'm going to ask a loaded question and an an issue that hasn't been brought up yet but I just want clarification from our legal council regarding this question I now see this application as incomplete and I see it as incomplete because of the removal of Caesars and what I'm trying to understand and I think we kind of set a precedent a few months ago when we put forward our new course application for someone to do business with a thoroughbred horse racing park here in Massachusetts that we would not have a hearing on that application until it was complete and now before us we're looking at an application that's incomplete so my question is why are we moving forward at all with this application so my job is to to look at the agenda and this was of course an initial question I we all received the submission from MGA through Mr. Nelson Mr. Merzio Council Grossman laid out that there's been a request to be heard on withdrawal of Chris Carney that was before us two weeks ago we gave IEB some time to respond there's also the preliminary suitability report the IEB wanted to go forward on there was a question as to order which we've now hashed out a little bit and so as I think Attorney Nelson I want to turn back to Council just point it out they they can come forward at any time under our reg as an applicant there is a new fact that arose and quite frankly Commissioner Hill this can happen at any point with any of our licensees new facts can can come up and so in many ways we're trying to to address what can be addressed today I think Commissioner Skinner raised the right question I'm looking at it's a subset of our application process moving along and then you know ultimately go back to a decision-making because from my perspective we can't move on the application as Council grows instead of beginning a practical problem things have changed for them you heard Attorney Nozo he's hopeful that decisions that get made today might might render different decision so we can I think as I understand from council who worked to advise us on on setting the agenda with you know with the applicant we can move forward on my perspective the very least we can move forward on the the request for withdrawal under 215 and I'm hearing we can move forward on the preliminary suitability as well it's a fair question Commissioner Hill thank you for the clarification and um I am all for moving forward and trying to make this work if we can so if we can right thank you but you know I'm only the chair that was my response commissioners way in and councillors ways in but I mean this was this was the thinking as we tried to figure out today's meeting the roadmap for everybody today so I have some of that same tension which is why I asked the question that I asked I want to do something today still yet to be determined exactly what that is but I I need to understand the intersection between 215 and 218 because you know I I need to be convinced that the preliminary suitability determination can be made separate and apart from the overall application decision so I'm I'm going to work towards you know getting my questions answered are along the way here may have to have private discussion with legal council but I I'm I'm struggling in in my thinking as to what actually needs to get done today versus what needs to be most owned at a later time when MGA as a more complete application chair if I could just just just offer one other one other thing in and it's partly in response to attorney monahans summary of 215 and 2 18 and I'm not disagreeing with her just pointing out that 215 is a prong of 218 so I think it's contemplated that the 215 decision had to be made in order to incorporate it in but more importantly and I think this may may provide some comfort for the commission we're not going to ask you for any determination of preliminary suitability for purposes of you know obviously the overall application and I think in on in 215 in connection with a preliminary determination of suitability you can condition it very expressly in the wreck and what we would suggest is that any preliminary finding of suitability be conditioned upon us either reviving or entering back into an operating agreement which you then would have separate authority to review as part of the 218 process so again we're not trying to get more out of this then honestly an opportunity to live another day may I just ask a quick clarifying question attorney nozzle when you say you're not looking for a full decision on suitability today can you just explain a little bit about what that means because I'm not I'm not understanding in the context of 218 meaning I'm not looking for you to make any you know final decision in connection with a suitability in contains to the overall application we're just looking for the finding under 215 and again we're willing to condition it in any way so it doesn't you know impact the commission for coming back looking at the operating agreement determining whether or not that new operating agreement if it does exist has you know the adequate components to then allow us to proceed in the process and if it can go ahead I'm just going to say when you's refer to 215 precisely Mr. knows if you could just direct us that would be great the section I think I know but I want to make sure I'm right in connection with the conditions yeah or the what we're looking at what we have to think about for today under 215 yeah so you're looking at essentially the preliminary finding of suitability in section 215 point 01 2 and then the overall suitability considerations are under section three and obviously attorney minehands summarize the the determine whether not the afternoon is unsuitable those are in section four so that and the and the specific ability to condition a preliminary suitability determination is found in 205 CMR point 01 to be and I would just add in this is getting a little technical but so there are also factors for suitability set out in the statute and that section six of the statute and so when I went through the factors for suitability earlier they were included some of them some of them are also stated in 215 but not all of them and so I would I would state that all of those factors sort of have to be considered which at that point makes a decision under 215 and 218 functionally identical I guess my concern is a piecemeal decision under 25 making a piecemeal decision under 215 today and then a different decision under 218 later I'm I'm not sure how that would be contemplated and I certainly wouldn't want the commission to make an advisory decision about suitability that's my struggle Caitlyn I I I'm I'm open to you know to getting us there if if possible but I don't see how I don't see how we make what determination outside of the other relative to the overall application I just don't I don't see that at this point I believe the commission okay so sorry Commissioner Maynard was leaning in but do you want to hear from Caitlyn first Commissioner Maynard would differ it maybe my question will will feed into to that and thank you it's it's for either Caitlyn or for for Mr. Nozzle so essentially I just want to make sure I'm a really simple person what you're say what you're asking for is for us to make a determination on whether you're suitable in so much as what we see today and then make a final determination if we get additional information if you enter into another operating agreement is that a good synopsis of what the request is and then my second question is can you to Commissioner Skinner's point can you get us to where we can do that using the regs in the statute that I can justify doing that because I'm open just like she is to doing that to making a decision on what's before us today as the chair said but leaving a final decision for when we see the entire picture. Thank you Commissioner Maynard that's you know that is our our our position and I would just add we would again in order to make that completely clear even condition any preliminary finding of suitability at this juncture on us coming back with an operating agreement and I think again the way we see that working and I don't hear anyone suggesting that there's something contrary in the regulations is proceeding with the evaluation which includes all the criteria from the statute and from the regulations regarding suitability under 215 making that determination making that determination of preliminary suitability conditional on being able to come back with a full operating agreement and then the commission essentially gets then to make a determination under 218 and determine the MGA's suitability for purposes of the application which I agree with attorney Monahan may be the same it may can consider different factors you never know we may what if we went out and got an operating agreement with you know an entity that you know may raise concerns you still have the ability to to consider I think the overall suitability within 218 and what we're offering really is is you know honestly two bites at the apple for the commission probably not necessarily in our interest to do but we want to be very respectful because of the position that we're in and what we're really you know requesting the commission to do for us and and I think that's the way it all fits together and I'm you know I'm not hearing anything that says that we can't do this and I'm not saying that the regulations were necessarily designed for this but they certainly don't prohibit it and I think what we've offered is entirely consistent with the regulatory scheme. If I could just respond on some of the factors so a determination of preliminary suitability for MGA the applicant is holistic you take into account MGA you take into account all its qualifiers and that would mean that if you're going to move forward with the determination of preliminary suitability today the fact of Caesar's withdrawal and its related implications on suitability and those factors that I discussed earlier would have to be a part of that. I don't think you can sort of take that out and evaluate everyone but Caesar's or Caesar's impact on on suitability if the commission wants to move forward with this determining suitability preliminary suitability today it certainly can but it just has to take all the facts on the ground as they are today and again I don't like the idea of an advisory opinion of any kind I mean things can change if they come in with a new a new be at Caesar's or a different operator there'd be a different contract different there'd be a lot of different factors to be considered so you'd functionally have to redo suitability so those are just my concerns with with doing it in in a two-step process okay and that could have happened you know after full durable suitability Caesars could could change and so isn't it fair to say that we could do something that could condition I don't think it's an advisory opinion I'm going to make sure I'm hearing it right to your point the condition could be also a condition around that we're not assessing the operator as a qualifier because of the change circumstances but we could have that as a condition then to his point return to 218 if they come forward with a new operator I mean can we do that? It's not advisory it's condition we do a lot of conditions but you know I would say that there's a difference between a situation where where an applicant or an operator has been determined preliminary and then durably suitable and then there's a big change you would have to go back through qualification on that particular qualifier and all those situations this is pre that so we're sort of just looking at the initial application and when there is quite frankly a rather large hole in that application into consideration today if you're going to move forward with that today I think I I I also would say that this is a category two application and it is positioned a little bit differently than a category three application and they're so and I just I'll just jump in for one second Commissioner Hill I don't think you asked the loaded question I think you asked an excellent question that's right on point which is that you are not obligated to move forward on this in this this fashion you could find essentially that the application is now incomplete as you described but as the reason I wanted Mr. Nogle to go first was that I and he as he did he pointed out that this is not a traditional kind of application review that we would be embarking upon he identified the reason why he has asked when his app the applicant has asked for this and so you are doing if you choose to move forward we there is a path forward there's no guarantee as to what the outcome is going to be and I I think everyone understands that but this is what they have asked you to do to live another day or whatever the exact terminology was that he is and it may be difficult but this is what they have re re re re re re re re re it's possible to get there and there is a process forward and that's what we're doing here and it again just it's a non-traditional approach but it is within the bounds of the rules and that's why I for one have not raised any objection to moving forward if you are so inclined in this fashion I I'm sorry could you could you specify what fashion you're referring to? Yeah that you would listen to the presentations understand the facts as they've been developed at this point you've heard about the legal principles involved with the regulations say and if the two meld and you say okay there is substantial evidence of that this applicant is preliminarily suitable then I I agree to a degree with Mr. Nozzle's characterization that preliminary suitability is a component of the overall application and that it would have to be re-looked at if they were to secure a new operator or the same operator under a different agreement but that a preliminary finding of suitability could potentially be arrived at today so you would be using just basically the same process that you have used in reviewing the other applications but you would just review this one prong of it which is plugged into 218 as as presented so I just reiterate again that this is non-traditional you have not done it this way before but if you are so inclined to see how this turns out then I think it there is a way to do it and that's what we're doing but Todd my only concern is that your your view does not seem to jive with Avery in what way? I agree with what she said too I I don't think we're in disagreement I think we both agree that the commission could move forward the point I'm making is that if it's to move forward you'd have to you do have to look at the whole situation as it stands today not sort of pieces of it and so that you know that's relevant to the ultimate determination but I agree with Todd you could move forward there's basically two choices today move forward or don't on the suitability question and the answer might just be that they're not they have there's not substantial evidence in the record that they are preliminarily suitable that might be the answer but maybe Commissioner Skinner's point and you know just chime in Commissioner Skinner but I think I'm hearing a little bit of difference in terms of that we we can't we have to make the decision and of course we make the decision based on all the facts that are before us right and that would include exactly the circumstances that have to do with Caesar right in front of us whatever however that's going to be presented but it's not disputed that we could attach conditions and that doesn't make it an advisory opinion we are permitted aren't we to do a conditions we certainly have done that in the course of our application process think we've got a condition out there right now with respect to diversity that component of the application that we have to have we have received a response to from them that we've got to check off our list as we go back to our final decision making on the application but we could certainly attach a condition that they would have to meet before or or not meet before we act on it right I mean is that are you aligned with that the proposal that commissioner I think conditions attorney also mentioned certainly conditions can be attached the specific conditions would be the question whether or not the commission feels comfortable conditioning sort of the entire operator piece is up to the commission but yeah I mean that would be I'll be part of sort of the discussion and the deliberations there could be conditions we've also had circumstances where on various categories we've told the applicant you don't think that you are you've met sufficiency and so there's also a possibility you get to the end of the presentations today and the answer is not up or down with conditions or no conditions but it's incomplete and that's not a no but it's you haven't finished now the applicant may say this is it we've deemed it complete this is what we want that's a different posture than getting to the end and saying the body saying we want these other pieces of information and the applicant saying okay we can get that to you so I hate to throw out another option in terms of a yes or a no but that is a potential posture we may find ourselves and at the end depending on the evidence that we have today so Commissioner O'Brien because I couldn't quite hear the beginning walk me through what we've done in the past we would roll it over then and allow them the ability to complete it may be that we may look at it and say based on the evidence we don't find substantial evidence we may find we find substantial evidence we may also see there are facts out here that to me are not sufficiently before me in the record and the applicant may say we can get that to you or the applicant may say nothing additional can be put in front of you so you know we're we're not asking for more time or able to give you anything beyond the record that's before you today so in terms of that today we're marked up for really that subset so that wouldn't be a vote on the application per se we're not voting on the application I'm talking about just the the subsection that is in front of us today yeah it's like what we did with the diversity piece on some of the category 3 where we sit back and said we need additional information that's right and Commissioner O'Brien I would also say that I could probably make a determination on you know assuming we ever get to the hearings there in the conversation I could probably make a determination on the withdrawal even with that piece making a decision depending on what the applicant once you know says and presents so I mean I could I could do even do it that way Do I dare ask if that's convinced you Commissioner Maynard on the order of things today? You know I just I do feel we should get started hearing the presentations because I think it would be helpful to move the ball and to maybe answer some of these questions as we go well before we before we go there Madam Chair I'm sorry Director Lilios has had her microphone off for quite some time I don't I don't know if she has anything to add to this discussion but if so I'd certainly like to hear it No I'm eager to get forward with the presentation as well Okay if we're ready to move forward I just want to check in with Attorney Nozl are you all set? I am going to ask for a five 10 minute break it's 11-18 we're going to have a solid presentation and I think we can all probably benefit from a quick break grab something to eat Okay I'll set Attorney Nozl anything you want to add? No No thanks Okay it's 11-19 let's return back at 11-30 and we'll get started Hey Dave we can take down the screen Okay Okay this is a reconvening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission we started our meeting we're holding this virtually solved with a roll call Good morning again Commissioner Obray Good morning I'm here Okay Good morning again Commissioner Hill Good morning I'm here Good morning again Commissioner Skinner Good morning and good morning again Commissioner Mayer Good morning Okay so we left it that we would start now with presentation analysis to review evaluation of application for category two squirts wagering offer a license with respect to preliminary suitability and IEB is prepared to offer its report and I think Director Lillios you'll be introducing Attorney Cramer That's right Chair Good morning morning commissioners we do have several members of the IEB investigation team here today but in terms of the report that we prepared on our review for preliminary suitability that was filed on the 17th of July Senior Enforcement Council Kathleen Cramer is here to provide a summary of that review so I will turn it right over to Attorney Cramer Thanks Loretta Good morning Chair and commissioners I think I can still say that as Loretta just noted on July 17th the IEB submitted its report regarding review for preliminary suitability of Masasue Greyhound Association or MGA also known as Random Park this applicant is seeking a category two sports wagering license the IEB performed this review for preliminary suitability in accordance with the standards and criteria set forth in 205 CMR 215.01 subsection 2 as a precursor to this review the licensing division in conjunction with the IEB performed a scoping review of the applicant under section 5B of 23N and identified three individual qualifiers and three entity qualifiers related to MGA the three MGA individual qualifiers are Joseph Capucci who according to submissions is the CFO and financial controller of MGA the second individual qualifier is George Carney who holds a 100% ownership interest in the George L. Carney junior trust which is a trust that holds a 60% interest in MGA he's also listed as the president of Random Park Sportsbook in the applicant submission and the last individual qualifier is Christopher Carney who was identified in the scoping materials as the sole beneficiary of the Christopher L. Carney sub chapter S trust which was identified as holding a 40% ownership in MGA as the commission is aware there have been additional developments related to Christopher Carney stated role with MGA and the status of this trust which will be discussed later the IEV also identified three entity qualifiers related to MGA they are Rainham Park Sportsbook LLC the George L. Carney junior trust and the Christopher L. Carney sub chapter S trust the IEV also identified entity and individual qualifiers related to Caesars the IEV's presentation today focuses on the MGA related qualifiers as mentioned the IEV's review was performed in accordance with the reg the governing regulation is set forth on pages five and six of the IEV's report I would note that this review was for preliminary suitability we did not perform a full suitability investigation I would also note that our review has been fluid and ongoing our team was comprised of contract investigators including former members of the state police gaming enforcement unit as well as contract investigators from the firm of RSM the commission previously heard from RSM as to the preliminary financial suitability at its open meeting and an executive session on June 12 and in the open meeting on June 20 the IEV has also attached a second supplemental report to its report regarding preliminary financial suitability dated June 21st of this year as exhibit number three and recently this week the IEV submitted a third supplemental report from RSM regarding preliminary financial suitability RSM's work was performed with the collaboration and the oversight of the IEV by way of background MGA was incorporated on March 30th 1939 Rainham Park opened in 1940 and has been owned by the Carney family since 1966 from the 1970s through 2009 Rainham Park was a dog racing venue since 2010 after live dog racing was banned MGA slash Rainham Park has been conducting simulcast wagering which was previously regulated by the old racing commission and is now regulated by the current commission in addition to its simulcasting business MGA has indicated it owns and operates commercial property in other locations and rents those properties to other tenants MGA's principal place of business is located at 1958 Broadway in Rainham MGA is a family run business according to its submissions George Carney started his career working at the racetrack and has been the president of MGA since he acquired it in 1966 as noted in the IEV report in 2013 George Carney was a qualifier for Rainham Park LLC's application for gaming license the commission found Rainham Park LLC's suitable and noted that if a license were to be awarded to it the license shall include a condition that George Carney remain current on all taxes owed in any jurisdiction where he owned property in 2015 George Carney was a qualifier for mass gaming and entertainment LLC's application for category one gaming license in Regency the commission found George Carney's suitable ultimately no gaming license was issued to either the 2013 or the 2015 applicant neither this applicant MGA nor the two additional individual qualifiers Christopher Carney and Joseph Cappucci have been through gaming suitability in Massachusetts or any other jurisdiction the IEV performed a review of the submissions and information obtained in this preliminary review to determine whether any of the information indicated potential disqualification of MGA or any MGA qualifier under the criteria set forth in general laws chapter 23N section as well as in 205 CMR 2015 01 subsection three and 215 01 subsection four investigators reviewed information disclosed in the application pertaining to MGA self-disclosed licensing history its compliance history and its pending litigation investigators performed an open source check on MGA and each of its individual qualifiers investigators also reviewed certifications relating to suitability that were submitted pursuant to 205 CMR to 15 01 subsections 2A and 2B investigators further reviewed the operating lease agreement between MGA and Caesar Sportsbook the IV previously provided a memorandum regarding that agreement to the commission and the commission reviewed the agreement during its open meeting on March 30th 2023 as noted in the report MGA indicated has no pending litigation Christopher Carney disclosed four pending lawsuits in his initial application materials Joseph Kapuchi and George Carney each disclosed one pending lawsuit in their application materials as part of its preliminary review the IEB located the individual qualifiers in the online public business records with the Secretary of State's office the businesses associated with the individual qualifiers are listed in the IEB's report during the preliminary view information came to the IEB's attention regarding a history of environmental infractions involving the mass department of environmental protection or mass DEP that are relevant to suitability I will provide an overview of these infractions for the commission the first set of infractions relate to one of Christopher Carney's businesses Patriot Recycling which is located at 1958 Broadway in Rainham which is the same location where MGA's proposed sports wagering facility would be this business stores and processes asphalt shingles brick and concrete Patriot Recycling operates as a Recycling facility which investigators learn that there have been a history of violations involving this company's business practices including exceeding permissible quantities of materials to be stored on site stockpiling materials within a wetlands buffer zone expanding its operation outside of the area approved by its permit and failing to comply with its reporting requirement as a result of these violations Patriot Recycling has entered into administrative consent orders with penalties on three occasions with the most recent being in 2019 Christopher Carney signed all the consent orders on behalf of Patriot Recycling the IEB received information from Mass DEP that Patriot Recycling continues to be out of compliance by exceeding the volume of material allowed on site not handling the material in the ways as required and not submitting required surveys on time the IEB learned of additional matters relevant to the suitability involving the Mass DEP wastewater type one sludge and the destruction of wetlands in these matters initiated with a company called EarthSource which was a former wastewater facility that operated at 1950 Broadway adjacent to the site of the applicants proposed sports wagering facility at 1958 Broadway George Carney was the owner and director of EarthSource through 2017 up until disclosure and 2021 EarthSource was owned by a Carney family member Robert Kelly who is George Carney son-in-law and Christopher Carney's brother-in-law the IEB information 18 Mass DEP learned that a type one sludge was being stored at 1958 Broadway and 2107 Broadway for time periods longer than permitted by 2021 Mass DEP had received over 60 odor complaints about the site in January 2022 Mass DEP EarthSource entered into an administrative consent order with penalty that required all of the sludge to be removed from the random sites by December 2022 in March 2022 Mass DEP was informed by the Rehoboth Conservation Commission that the sludge was brought from the random sites to a jurisdictional wetland located at a residential farm in Rehoboth The Rehoboth Conservation Commission issued an enforcement order ordering the owner of the Rehoboth residential property Russell Pry to seize and desist from activity affecting the wetlands buffer zone Mass DEP officials visited the Rehoboth site and observed that land had been cleared fill material with stockpiled along the edges of the cleared areas trees had been cut and had been installed. Information indicates that Christopher Carney coordinated the removal of the sludge from the random sites to Rehoboth. It was reported to the IED that Christopher Carney utilizing his company's equipment transferred between two and three hundred eighteen wheel truckloads of the sludge to the Rehoboth property. The transfer of this material has been reported to have resulted in the alteration of seven acres of protected wetland. As a result of the sludge being brought to Rehoboth Mass DEP entered into a second administrative consent order in November 2022 with EarthSource which set forth a detailed schedule for the removal of the sludge and a plan for the restoration of the wetlands areas. Mass DEP officials indicated that following the November 2022 consent order the sludge was returned to 1958 and 2107 Broadway in Rainham the sites where it was originally accumulating. The deadline for its removal was extended from December 31st 2022 as required in the first January to January 31st 2023. Per both Mass DEP officials and Christopher Carney as stated in his interview with the IEV the material continues to be on site today. None of the matters I just describe were disclosed by the applicant or any of the qualifiers in their initial application materials. As I stated previously the IEV's review has been ongoing and we have received additional disclosures from the applicant since its initial submissions some of which I will summarize for you. First in April 2023. Christopher Carney notified the IEV of two matters one of the matters related to demolition work performed by Patriot Recycling at the former Silver City Galleria Mall in Tonne which is separate from the matters related to Patriot Recycling I previously described. Mass DEP and Patriot Recycling entered into an administrative consent order with penalty in April 2023 in which Patriot Recycling was cited for improper demolition involving asbest for work performed in 2021. Christopher Carney signed this order on behalf of Patriot Recycling. The second matter Christopher Carney disclosed related to a civil lawsuit against one of his businesses. See Carney environmental along with Ursus the Rehoboth Farm property owner Russell Prey and a number of John Doze in the Bristol Superior Court in February 2023. The lawsuit involves allegations of contaminated drinking water as a result of the sludge that was brought to the Rehoboth property as I described previously. This matter is currently ongoing. As part of its preliminary the I.E.B. interviewed Christopher Carney on May 4th 2023. During that interview and in subsequent filings Christopher Carney acknowledged these matters that the I.E.B. described should have been disclosed in his application materials. Christopher Carney's interview was submitted as exhibit 13 with our report for your consideration. Some of the items of note that were referenced in the report include after discussing the April 2023 consent order involving the demolition work when the I.E.B. asked whether Patriot Recycling had any other issues with government agencies. Christopher Carney stated not that I know of. He then stated that Patriot Recycling had probably been the subject of other administrative consent orders and they were probably from way back. With respect to the sludge Christopher Carney acknowledged that he had transported it from random to Rehoboth and back to random where it currently remains. He stated he expected it to be removed by June 2023 and later in the interview stated it would be removed by September 2023. As to our source he stated he took the company over and cleaned it up. He acknowledged that he has been in contact with officials at Mass D.E.P. When asked about his role at M.G.A. Christopher Carney stated he does everything for the Carney family and that he has also assumed a management role. As to his intended role of the sports book at the time of the interview Christopher Carney stated he will be overseeing things and quote the buck stops here. There were other statements related to the financial side that are better reserved for an executive session. Carney in May the I.E.B. received requests from him that he be just de-designated. The I.E.B. informed Christopher Carney on June 7 that after further review it would not disturb its decision. On July 7 the I.E.B. received further information from M.G.A. that it had received a reporting penalty assessment notice and the amount of $500 from the Mass D.E.P.'s Bureau of Air and Waste related to a 2020 notice of not compliance for failure to complete required reports in violation of regulation. As the commission is aware there are additional pending matters that the I.E.B. described in its report that may be better reserved for an executive session. As the commission is also aware after the I.E.B. submitted its report to the commission and the applicant the applicant asked to withdraw Christopher Carney and the Christopher L. Carney sub chapter S trust as qualifiers. The I.E.B. has submitted a response to that request to the commission for its consideration and Attorney Hall will brief the commission later and attached exhibits. We have members of the team that are available for any questions that the commission may have. We also have an update on the preliminary financial suitability and including recent disclosures made by the applicant which is better reserved for executive session. Financial investigations division chief Monica Chang can update commissions when it's appropriate. Questions commissioners. So Attorney Cramer thank you for your report and thank you to I.E.B. for its thoroughness. I understand that you've reserved a few items for executive session. I do have just a question probably have a bunch of questions but one question that maybe we could resolve right now rather than executive session is you started out kept Attorney Cramer with a reminder to us all that George Kearney has been involved in this business for a long time and that MGA started in 1966 I think you said. So I understand that simulcast is not Rain Park is not a licensee is that correct of the Mass Gaming Commission but that we do have oversight authority of the simulcast operations is that fair? That is my understanding but I would defer to Todd and Katelyn if they have any other input on that I know that was discussed previously internally Yeah, I would consider Rain and Park a Greyhound meeting licensee under law I'm sorry could you say it again? Rain and Park is a Greyhound meeting licensee under the law their license has been extended by operation of law instead of the commission reviewing an application but they are still a licensee they're still a licensee and that's important because that's what allows them to apply for this category to license that's right so are they a licensee of the gaming commission or is it virtue pursuant to the statute I guess it doesn't matter the oversight is with us correct? Yes yes and and today so far in your presentation Kathleen I don't think you've spoken too much about MGA but in terms of you really concentrated on Mr. Carney and Patriots recycling but you didn't explore Patriots recycling too much because that's it's not a qualifier correct? Correct we did not do a review of Patriot recycling as an entity qualifier for example we reviewed Patriot recycling in the context of the mass DEP orders that came to to our attention can you just remind me of the amounts of those penalties yes the first penalty was for $3,300 that was what year? 2012 the second penalty was in 2015 and it's for amounts of $5,999 and 75 cents the third penalty was from 2019 and the total amounts of that fine was $33,810 was that broken up into pieces I think I recall something about them I'm not sure and there was some that was held in abeyance it was described in the DEP order that there were some that was held so that means they didn't have to pay it ultimately they agreed I believe they agreed to pay $10,000 of it if they agree it performed the work that the DEP had outlined the DEP agreed to suspend a payment of $3,800 essentially in abeyance to see if Patriot recycling came into the compliance that's helpful and then I know that you touched on you know Mr. Carney saying that the buck stopped with him I wondered if if the commission would allow me to check in with Dr. Lightbound who I don't know if IEB did during its course of its investigation the IEB did not speak to Dr. Lightbound with respect to Mr. Carney's role. I think that she's available I just was wondering if she because she does have some history I believe because she's been doing her job for an awful long time there she is so Alex good morning and good afternoon and and thank you and again thank you for your long service recently we heard from you reminded of the extent of your your work and you started in 1992 is that right yes I started with the state racing commission in 1992 you know and so and at that time I'm not sure the entity has changed but the family business has pretty much remained the same Alex yes it has remained the same chair tonight can I interrupt for just a moment I'm sorry I can't tell affirmative presentation yeah I'm sorry chair I'm just trying to sort of figure out the I guess what's happening here what's before the commission are the IEB reports our certifications and the supplemental information that's that's been filed I I don't recall anything regarding Dr. Lightbaum and IEB has said they haven't interviewed her I have I again I don't want to sound like I think that there's anything Dr. Lightbaum is going to say it's wrong I just didn't sort of surprised about the additional that's there and I guess I I was thinking about the fact that you know literally that we didn't include Dr. Lightbaum in this and I'm happy to have you and Todd's speak with Dr. Lightbaum but I did want to see if she was able to at least remind me who she works with in her job as overseeing simulcasting but I'm comfortable if you're not comfortable Mr. Nozzle I just would like an opportunity to understand what was going to be presented and then we'd have an opportunity to respond again the commission's regulations on preliminary suitability are you know suggest exactly what the commission is to look at it defines that as the certifications the I UB reports which we have in front of us and again I just I just don't have this additional information and I'm not you know trying to be in any way that's I just just want an opportunity to understand what it is here really quickly I would just echo attorney Nozzle as well we would request the same opportunity okay that's that's fair perhaps I can get guidance from attorney Grossman and attorney Ronahan as we go along if there facts I think that Dr. light down would help we could offer that would help my fellow commissioners in terms of something that might come up and I'm happy to defer this this questioning of Dr. light down you know wasn't questioned by I A B even though she has worked with the simul caster since 1992 so okay thanks Dr. light down thank you okay um I E.B. report included um exhibits of newspaper um reports that suggested who is in control um with that perhaps Mr. Mr. um Carney Chris Carney puts himself out as um in control of the organization there's a list of um of um exhibits and newspaper articles I just wanted to from my experience and continued experience um newspapers don't always get it right and don't always capture everything correctly and I just wanted to point out that um in exhibit see if I can find it for K um there's a uh a statement from Sue Roderick that says and this is an a newspaper article it will definitely be the largest sports book in Massachusetts it's not the if not the country so it's going to be something else said Sue Roderick's and describes her as a Rainham resident who used to work at the dog track and Sue Roderick's is in fact the contact that we most frequently use in our work um and so her title I believe is is assistant general manager at Rainham Parr so I just was pointing out that she is in fact more than a resident um Chair just by way of clarification I think you're referring to an exhibit that's actually part of the IEB's response to the request for withdrawal just for clarification for the commissioners Oh it's not but I thought it was also um it was also part of the suitability I thought the title suggested that my it may have been but when you reference the exhibit number that's actually just all the commissioners reference and ease of reference that's in the the packet this um with respect to the Oh okay I got the response so for clarity it's in the second yes that is pertinent to this discussion right um so I'm just Chair I'm I'm a little bit you know again confused uh about the process um and sort of what's being presented pertaining to suitability uh we have the report that attorney um Kramer has just summarized that was filed on July 17 what was filed on Wednesday I think over half of it address suitability and it includes a very particular section in the end as to what the commission should consider for purposes of suitability so I'm trying to I'm trying to figure out sort of maybe I make a mistake that what and when I'm responding to uh to and I guess are there what's being presented chair I just uh thank you attorney knows will appreciate that I just want to clarify that the information in the IEB's response to the withdrawal request uh the supplemental submission on suitability is directly relevant to the withdrawal request the IEB's response to those withdrawal requests so those will be addressed when discussion in front of us the second submission comes after the preliminary suitability report it's responsive to the withdrawal request and the information in that submission is relevant to the withdrawal request yeah I again I guess I'm just kind of looking through the the title of that I am struck by the title I thought it was part of it my apologies um attorney knows well I thought that that the second report was a supplement to the because it is chair it's definitely a supplement to the suitability report and they're all interconnected and I'm prepared to discuss that when we discuss the request for the draws chair if the if the IEB is presenting issues on suitability that we're supposed to respond to you know we're fine to move into the request to withdraw I guess and do um sort of this you're really all all all all covered but that that was filed on Wednesday looking through it goes through this exact same documents that were just listed MGA's licensing submissions other sources of information it contains some new information of course and then it has a whole section from page 13 to to 22 that goes over exactly what attorney Kramer just covered in her presentation um so again I'm just trying to figure out what what and when we're responding to when it comes to the suitability determination and and I don't think we object sort of moving into uh you know certainly with withdraw as part of our uh presentation response but again I'm just trying to understand that and again that that document at the end um has a very clear roadmap on page 29 to 32 of what the commission should consider not in just in connection with withdraw but also in connection with uh the commission suitability analysis and I'm not you know I'm happy to address those I just in this bifurcated you know one presentation on suitability and then another presentation on suitability I'm just trying to figure out to be quite frank when I do that and sure we would object to move into this brawl I do however not want to forget that there is a piece with respect to suitability um uh that would be for executive session that can no creamer noted right um that's right and I just said so I um I need help because I'm not sure if I am allowed to reference this entire second document at the stage I thought because attorney Kramer referenced the comment that Mr. Kearney said um that all those exhibits would apply to that comment but maybe I've made a mistake and my point was their newspaper clippings and they don't always get it right and that was a support for he did make the statement so madam chair what I thought we were going to be doing procedurally was having the presentation of the IEB report as it had been written by August one that to my mind we may be at the point of going into executive session because it sounds like there are certain things that would be more appropriate not executive session there is this mark to the judiciary were not um to hear those matters have a response from the applicant and then we would come back out and be addressing subjectively the motion to withdraw the response any executive or private session that might be necessary and then coming back so we could have the conversation about how we were going to dispense of those two matters in front of us the first report which I I did follow that mostly was in one and then there's a lot that's repeated in the second one but we are not looking at the second one at this time that was my that was my expectation as we would be going through that going the response to that and then stepping into the motion to withdraw but I don't know what the other commissioners were expecting yeah I think the title confused me councillor Grossman help me out absolutely yes the title is kind of a little bit straddling the fence here but the the core principle should be that the applicant can will be afforded an opportunity to respond to any of the statements that are made whether before or after and as Commissioner Brian just noted the decisions will be made after the presentation of the facts so before the commission be in the deliberations so to speak the applicant and the IEB will have had a sorry did I freeze you're breaking up a little bit Todd sorry I'm having some internet issues but both sides will have an opportunity to present all of the information now that being said that being said we should right now stick to the suitability related issues some of them were presented in this updated submission that came in looking yesterday so to the extent that the applicant needs time to digest any of that I think that would be the request that they could make but otherwise we should try to stick to suitability related matters now and then move into withdrawal related facts now the difficulty is and this is why we're having this conversation that there's there's an overlap between those two and that's why I said at the outset that I'm comfortable allowing this to go forward on the the same day because I think they're all very interrelated so to the extent we can draw a line between the two I think that is the preferred course to the extent that they do overlap I think it's okay to allow the IEB to get into some of those issues now and allow the applicant to respond in kind really quickly I just wanted to note that my comment was for a clarification of an exhibit that you referred to we are prepared to go into the preliminary financial suitability piece if that is what the submission would like to do I understand are there questions for Kathleen on the presentation she did and apparently it's limited to the first submission and not the one that's entitled the supplement to that submission if I could just correct something I said earlier Sherry you had asked me about the fine in 2019 and the fact that it was broken up I think I said that Patriot recycling was required to pay around $10,000 that was my error exhibit eight outlines the schedule it was a 30 around a $30,000 fine to Patriot recycling that was broken up in three increments over a year and that the 3,000 that I reference that that amount the 3,800 and change that was the amount that was held in abeyance for them to get into compliance so I apologize for saying that earlier thank you because I I couldn't remember where it was I know I read it and I don't know which document I read it in quite frankly I guess it must have been in the first one that I know that I should be keeping them separate I'll have to rethink things so to to clarify though Kathleen at this juncture it's where you are prepared to go into we have to vote go into executive session on financial suitability we will not hear from can we hear from turning nozzle now on this portion or should we wait and turn to attorney nozzle let's see maybe we should ask him this has been a public piece do you want to in any way respond I think that probably the easiest next thing to do is to go into executive session for purposes of I think dealing with I guess that any additional questions or information pertaining pertaining to this piece you know again the supplemental report raises a whole host of both the same and additional issues pertaining to suitability so it's not the title that's the problem and I shouldn't say problem it's not the title it's the it's the substance of what's included and I guess is the I.E.B the I.E.B sounds like it has additional information on suitability that I'm saying it's difficult for me to try to address if it's going to be held to a subsequent time that's that's all I'm not saying we can't address it or we don't want to it's just when's it going to get presented well Jen can I I want I'm sorry to call you Jen turning nose home when I saw this title I did think it was a supplement to the first report in the course of normal proceedings would you not have expected a supplement to the I.E.B. report is that what you're saying and that you got that on Wednesday night or does it happen where there will be a supplement at this point I'm trying to figure out what your issue is mine is more trying to sort out when I read in two different reports now chair really quickly an apology for Andrew I mean I just want to do know that attorney no little did actually receive the report prior to it going to commission so I just want to make it clear that he did have the opportunity to review that report and there were few questions between I want to yeah again I don't want to start down this road of having a long you know procedural discussion about this I just want to just want to make my point and then we should figure out how to sort of move on and and Attorney Hall like we did receive the report and I am not raising any issue about it the fact that we got it on Wednesday and we're here today the IV is presenting its report involving suitability is it and I maybe I go to you know commissioner O'Brien are they resting and what is this additional part of the report which again covers the failures to disclose and then has a whole analysis of what the commission ought to consider for purposes of suitability I'm just trying to figure out where I'm going to be most effective addressing all these things I'm not saying I'm not going to address them I'm not saying I need to understand sort of the you know the processes and again I if see what commissioner O'Brien suggested I think earlier you know seem to I guess make sense we deal with these we go into the I guess the request to withdraw and attorney Merzio may have some thoughts about this as well. I'm struggling and that's probably why I popped in as to when my when I could ask all my questions so and this is this is where I think probably indicated you know couple weeks ago my I'm having a hard time thinking how to process this this request in the order that we're doing in chair I I have a comment that I hope is helpful for for process so my understanding that we were allowing attorney Crainer to review the present the matter that we initially reviewed in the report that was filed on the 17 so she's now summarized those facts that are appropriate for public session suggesting that we're going to executive session to complete those facts in this initial review the review has been ongoing right there and this has been a fluid situation we had motions to withdraw in the middle we filed the applicant filed a supplemental response IEB then filed something supplemental so keeping it in chronological order of the manner that the reports were filed to summarize in front of you and of course questions along the way are fine but it's also my suggestion that we going to executive session complete the summary of the materials that were presented in the July report move into the withdrawal motions and the supplemental filing by the IEB which speaks about withdrawal and speaks about suitability again in the constant on the context of the withdrawal giving the applicant the opportunity to to address any points raised it's not surprising that that suitability would be raised in the IEB supplemental filing that was the whole point of the IEB suggesting that these matters should be reviewed by the commission in the context of one another Chair I I suggest we move into the executive session we deal with those pieces it sounds then we've moved to the request to withdraw I guess it sounds then after that so we're resting on on suitability now with Kathleen's report and any questions we're not we're not we're not really sure where that came from it's more procedurally and the presentation and the discussion I think we're just going chronologically it's not a resting so much as trying to do a logical presentation of the information that everyone has okay so I'm just yeah we just let's go to the executive session to have those discussions and again I think what we may do is is at least reserve sort of some of our response or a bulk of our response to probably the questions that are getting raised really by the IEB in connection with its supplemental response so I just don't want to wave anything on into the preliminary report but I'm happy to do that all together as well you know maybe after we talk through the request to to withdraw so again just want to understand sort of the rules of the road if I will I will defer to counsel and when we get to deciding what we are allowed to consider for the decisions that we get made and and this is probably why we need to make the decisions in the order that council grows from so we're not just necessarily going to go into executive session we do have process what I do want to make sure is that we can come back in public to the extent that these matters questions for Kathleen that are appropriate for the public versus the executive session we will return that's when I use the term rest Commissioner Brian in other words there will be an opportunity to revisit Kathleen and I know she's looking forward to that in the public on this piece if we wish that that was really when I said the word breasting was more we can revisit I guess the limited review of the first filing or July 17 then we'll put that aside then we will turn to the second submissions and we remember the other point is that we do have a submission from Councillor Nozl that is in response to July 17 at this point though and I do defer to Attorney Nozl here you would prefer to go to the financial the the issue around the only thing I'm hearing if we're going right now this juncture to go into executive session is on the financial piece and we do have to make a decision point on that or is it broader or is it broader to the other piece as well that was more appropriate for an executive session I missed it I couldn't hear you yes I apologize chair there was a section that I did note there were other matters referred to in our report that are ongoing that I think are more appropriate for executive session. I think we have to have a little bit more guidance on that from Councillor Grosman attorney Grosman for guidance on that I do want to go back to Attorney Nozl to the extent that you want to address things that are more public in nature you can do that after the fact or is there anything right now you want to respond to public at this point again reserving that we're going to come back to some of the issues that have been raised in the July 17th I suggest that we go back to the discussion and the discussion. So commissioners we have something we are familiar with has the financial stability piece we have in the past decided to go into executive session for that with respect to the other matters we will need to get clarity from council. Thank you . So we have a section I which talks about information provided that is competitively sensitive so you have to find that it's competitively sensitive or proprietary but I don't think that's the issue here and it's certainly not a trade secret so I don't think it's any of those I think it would have to be so we need to understand what exact information or subject matter we are going to be discussing. As you referenced Madam Chair there is the third supplemental information to the preliminary financial suitability of MGA report dated August 11th it's on RSM letterhead and if that is the general substance of MGA and outstanding obligations and things of that sort then it seems to me that would fall into that category if there are other issues that people would like to discuss I think we need to identify them in some way before moving into executive session to ensure that they fall into the category just for clarification there was also a second supplemental report submitted with respect to the that was submitted as an attachment to the July 17th IEB report so I believe Chief Chang is going to be summarizing those two documents with respect to the other piece there is some ongoing investigation related matters that Attorney Cramer was referring to okay so there's also the investigatory piece and if that's the case then in order to discuss those materials in executive session they would have to be investigatory materials compiled out of the public view by either law enforcement or other investigatory officials and if disclosed would so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be I'd have to look at what those issues are I don't know up and exactly what we're referring to so we need to identify now one tool we have at our disposal just to make this a little easier would be to go into executive session to hear from Attorney Cramer as to what exact issues she would like to discuss when any decision can be made as to whether it falls into the allowable category the same is true for section six IE as well of course on its base of the financial piece we can move into executive session but we do have to govern ourselves once we're in executive session to ensure that we stay within the bounds of what we're there to talk about so at this juncture I think the prudent next step is to move to go into executive session to discuss the finances of MGA as set out in the report and then also to go in for purposes of reviewing investigatory materials and with an understanding that once we move into the investigatory materials we'll have to hear about what the issue is before we get into the subject so Madam Chair as far as if that sounds agreeable I would recommend that you read into the record the if you're looking at the agenda the piece of section 6a that works up through chapter 4 section 7 26f that piece and stop when you get to the section about cybersecurity so you're saying that the privacy exemption could apply to the public I'm sorry we should I think the commissioners need to understand what they're voting on hearing is we're voting on something that's clear the financial and then there's something where we're going to go in and decide if it's appropriate I think we've done that before it's hard to ask folks to describe the issue we would need to know exactly what we're going to be talking about and I think it's okay to go into executive session so I see and I'm sorry I just I was looking at it quickly you should take out the privacy exemption part okay so the commission anticipates commissioners that it may meet an executive session in conjunction with its review of the application according to GL chapter section 6 I to consider information submitted by the applicant in the course of its application for an operator license that is a trade secret competitively sensitive or proprietary in which it disclosed publicly would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage and or section GL chapters for section 7 26 at the investigatory exemption to consider investigatory official disclosure of which materials so prejudiced possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest and for the public's purposes we will be returning to the public session so commissioners for those two reasons do I have a motion Madam chair I move that the commission go into executive session for the reasons specified by the chair specifically related to 6 I and 6 F and on the matters related there too second okay thank you any discussion okay commissioner O'Brien I commissioner Hill I commissioner Skinner I commissioner Maynard I vote yes so in terms of how we move we will go be taken virtually to the public session I vote yes I vote yes is that right yeah yeah okay thank you so much and anybody that needs to be placed into the executive session that has not either been moved over or has been sent a link to join please feel free to let me know I believe I have to move over the MGA team as we speak to the financial piece sounds good thanks very much I'll move them over now thanks thank you you're putting Dave Collette and I in correct yep I'll toss you over right now Mike thank you for the heads up there if anybody else is supposed to be in please feel free to speak up because I think I have everybody that was sent over to me on my list sent over hey Dave it's Zach Mercer with the IAB as well please sounds good Zach thank you Dave also with IAB got you no problem thank you we too Dave whenever you have a chance thanks yep I thought I had added you in but I guess not so I just did again okay I think it looks like we're back thanks Dave awesome okay good okay this is a reconvening of the master's game and commission Friday obviously 18th and we are holding this meeting virtually so I'll do a roll call Commissioner O'Brien good afternoon good afternoon I'm here good afternoon Commissioner Hill good afternoon I'm here good afternoon Commissioner Skinner good afternoon and good afternoon Commissioner Mayer good afternoon okay and thank you everyone for your patience we had a productive executive session and then did take our lunch break and we appreciate everyone's patience and effort contributing to today's meeting so commissioners I want to make sure we return before we move to item three C no four my apologies before we move to that is there anything you want to ask it's appropriate for the public session that you haven't had a chance to follow upon Kathleen is Of course, MGA is ready to answer any questions that are outside our purpose of the executive session. I'm just looking at expressions because I'm not sure if you're looking at notes or you're okay. So you're all set. Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Maynard, you're all set. Thanks. Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Skinner, all set. All right. So then we'll move to item number four. And in this case, as I understand it, we have heard on the preliminary suitability, but we're going to pause. We're going to go into now the withdrawal request and then we'll turn to our discussion and decision making on item number five. So in this case, I believe it was decided that MGA would go first. Is that correct, Councillor Grossman? Yes. I think that's the appropriate approach. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, Attorney Maurizio and Attorney Nozo. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Commission. I'll turn it to Attorney Maurizio to present on the request to withdraw. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members of the Commission and staff, as the Commission pleases, I represent Christopher Connie and the trustees of the Christopher S. Connie Trust. I would like to first explain the rationale that was followed when restructuring our request to withdraw the trustees and Mr. Connie was made from the qualification process. I then wished to outline the law that guided us and that we believe their removal as a qualifier and that controls their removal as a qualifier. Lastly, I would like to be, I would be happy to address any questions that the Commissioners may have. We restructured their withdrawal request so that the Commission with the idea that the Commission could easily resolve their qualification status and move quickly towards MGA's application for the Category 2 sports wagering license. That structure was followed because Mr. Christopher Connie and the trustees recognized that the license is paramount not only to MGA's ownership, but to its dedicated employees, many of whom have worked at Rainham Park for decades. For years, MGA's employees have been closely following the legislative process, which led to the enactment of chapters 23K and 23N. They've also followed very closely MGA's construction of its brand new facility, which began before chapter 23N was even enacted. And those employees have also been following this licensing process that we're now engaged in. I cannot overstate how vitally and important it is to each of those employees and even to MGA's customers, many of whom, both the customers and our employees, have known each other, they've known each other also for three years and are really on a first name basis. Rainham Park for a very, very long time has been more of a family environment, not just family business, but a family environment where the people who work there and the customers all know each other, all enjoy each other's company, and all support one another. And it's that atmosphere, which is very rare in the Commonwealth, it's very, perhaps rare to most in the United States. And we'd like to see that continue, and we believe it's the proper thing to continue. The legislature itself recognized the long and unique history of Rainham Park, Massa Soya Greyhound Association in particular, and its employees and its customers, when the legislature clearly enacted within the provisions of Chapter 23 and that the sports betting license would be issued to MGA, provided it complied with the conditions of the statute and this commission's regulations. The business practices of MGA and Mr. George Carney have been under the content, have been one in the same, since Mr. Carney acquired control of MGA some 57 years ago. Those business practices were also well known to the former Massachusetts Racing Commission, and even to the legislature itself, when it directed in 23N that MGA should be licensed. All of those factors prompted Mr. Christopher Carney and the trustees to instantly adopt the withdrawal structure that we've presented to you, so that any questions whatsoever about their qualifications would be eliminated, removed, and this licensing process could go forward quickly. As the commission knows, and as a matter of law, a person can only be a qualifier if they satisfy the statutory elements for having control over the applicant. The legislature has determined when such control exists by enacting Section 5B of Chapter 23N. The commission, I would respectfully submit, is bound to follow Section 5B and no other standard in determining whether or not withdrawal should take place. We appreciate the very hard work that Director Lilios has done and her IMB staff and consultants in generating their report. It's a very difficult task and we recognize that. It's very easy to secondhand or look at that report or that task and criticize it after it's done, and that's certainly not something that we're trying to do. What we wish to do only is just to point out where there are some errors. The gaming law, of course, all of the gaming laws and including 23N are extremely complex. They're very challenging. And frankly, I know of no other state agency that has the same level of responsibilities that this commission has, including the IEB and its staff. It is a very, very challenging job and we appreciate that. It was in that spirit that we must point out that the factors that the IEB has proposed for the commission to consider in reviewing our withdrawal are not correct, those factors. They're not consistent with law, particularly Section 5B of Chapter 23N, nor are they consistent with the Massachusetts Business Corporations Act, Chapter 156D. I'd like to just take a moment to actually walk through Section 5B so that the commissioners can be calibrated to the law as they then consider the facts that we've presented in our withdrawal application. Control of an applicant, as I said, is defined in Section 5B. The legislature has decided that there are three subsections that apply in our situation because MGA is a corporation. Section 5B1, the first subsection, says that a person is in control of the applicant if it owns 10% or more of the corporate applicant, meaning, of course, in this case, owning the stock. As the commission knows, Mr. Christopher Coney and the trustees are not owners of any stock in the applicant. So the first subsection cannot be an element or a criteria for qualification to continue. The second subsection provides that a person is in control if that person holds a beneficial or proprietary interest exceeding 10% or more of the applicant's business. Mr. Coney, Christopher Coney, has never held a beneficial or proprietary interest in MGA's business. I would submit to you that, and the same is true for the trustees once they divested themselves of the stock certificates, I would propose or submit that an example that would fall within the second subset, a second element of B2 would be the example of the hourway and pen gaming suitability determination that the commission made a few years ago. When that was done, the hourway, the original owners of Plain Ridge sold that entire operation to pen gaming, and in their option and purchase agreement, there was a provision made known to the commission at the time that essentially said that hourway as the seller would share in the profits of that business, essentially in perpetuity. That was deemed to be an acceptable resolution in that case, but it's that type of business arrangement that would be covered by Section 5B2. It's not that you're a shareholder, but rather you have some contractual basis to share in the profits of the applicant's business. There is no arrangement of any such time between, in this case, MGA, Mr. Christopher Coney or the trustees. The trustees have completely divested themselves of the shares, and as we've talked about in an executive session, it is legally impossible for any of the funds or profits of a category two license to work its way back to those trustees. As to Christopher Coney, I would suggest that under B2, he has never been a person who holds a beneficial or proprietary interest in the applicant's business. Trustees, as a matter of law going back to colonial times, are the only owners of trust assets. Unlike corporations which are fictional persons created by statute, trusts are not. Trusts in essence, the Declaration of Trust is really a contract between the grantor and the trustees. Ownership, all rights are held by the trustees themselves. Beneficiaries of trusts do not own the trust assets. They have no direct, they have no right and factual of otherwise to jump over the trustees and assert any rights of control or anything else. In this case, in a chain of stock ownership, the trustees would have no legal basis to step over the trustees. And to make any demands on the corporation itself. So Mr. Christopher Coney has never been covered by B2 and the trustees have divested their interests as well. The last category is section B3. B3, the legislature has specifically stated that to be someone under control of a corporation, the person has to be one of the specifically listed offices. It's not every officer of a corporation, but the primary offices like president and treasurer or the corporate directors. It doesn't even list shareholders. That's the decision of the legislature. That's their decision, their director. And as we explained in our submissions, Christopher Coney has never been one of the enumerated corporate offices. Neither have the trustees and neither the trustees nor Mr. Christopher Coney has ever been a director of the applicant. So by law under B1, B2, B3, the legislature has said what the control of a corporation is. And none of those elements have been satisfied by either Christopher Coney or the trustees. And so therefore, as a matter of law, neither of those two parties or persons qualify to be someone under control and can't possibly be subject to the qualification standards of the commission. I would suggest also that the commission has many responsibilities. Many of those fall into the category of discretionary decisions. You've been doing a lot of it today. And others are non-discretionary. Non-discretionary in the sense that if all of the boxes are checked or not checked, then by statute, action may or may not be taken. And I'm sure the commission has faced those kinds of situations many, many times over the conduct of its students. This is one of those clear situations where none of the boxes that are prescribed by statute have been checked. It is our position that therefore, and it was our design, it was our intent to make this easy, that because there are the legislative directives of what constitutes control have not been met and cannot be met, that is not really a discretionary decision as to whether or not withdrawal be granted or not. It's a directive from the legislature. And so therefore, we respectfully state that withdrawal requests must be granted. Now much discussion has been made about newspaper reports or what someone may have said or not said about whether there's implied control or apparent control by, for instance, Christopher Carney over the applicant. This is a second statute, as I mentioned, I think at the beginning, that also comes to bear. And that's the Massachusetts Business Corporations Act, Chapter 156D. That statute was recently and relatively recently enacted, maybe 10 years ago. After a multi-year process of hearings and drafting by a very select group of Massachusetts lawyers who are very highly skilled in corporate law. And when that Chapter 156D was enacted, it replaced Chapter 156B, which had been the law in the Commonwealth for something like 100 years before. So what I'm saying is the law of corporate governance in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is more than 100 years old. Incorporations are not natural persons, they're fictional persons, and they're only created and governed and regulated through Chapter 156D today. And under Chapter 156D and a whole host of decisions over the years by our Supreme Judicial Court. It is beyond question, beyond doubt that the only parties, the only human beings that have control as control is defined by 156D of a corporation are its directors, its offices, and to some limited degree, its shareholders. Anyone can say anything they want or take any action that they desire. If they're not an officer, director, or shareholder, they don't have control in fact over the corporation. And so what I'm suggesting in response is that for the Commission to say that there's some form of implied control would require the Commission not only to not follow the legislature's directives under Section 5B, but would also require the Commission to ignore the requirements of Chapter 156D. So we ask that those two statutory laws be the actual factors, the actual calibration of this discussion of withdrawal as the Commission goes forward, and not all these other issues that have been thrown around some accurate, some not, they're all irrelevant. Christopher Connie and the trustees do not, and they've never had control over the applicant as an officer or director or as a shareholder, but not the trustees have been a shareholder, but they're no longer a shareholder. So they're no longer, we have no connections from 156D to the applicant. And we certainly have no connection under Section 5B. And so we would hope that this would be a relatively easy decision and that the Commission will agree with us. I acknowledge that they have been removed as a proposed qualifier and therefore then allow the rest of this licensing procedure to continue. I thank you for your time and I'll answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Mr. Mayor at CL, excuse me, for MGA, or for Mr. Carney, I guess in this case, and it would be with respect to Mr. Christopher Carney and the trust. I have a question, Madam Chair. Thank you. I guess directing it to Attorney Mauritio. What has Ms. Carney's formal role been with respect to the applicant? Commissioner Skinner, Christopher Carney's prior activities relative to MGA only began when MGA and its customers and its employees all crossed their fingers and hoped that the Massachusetts legislature would take up sports betting and pass what ended up being 23N. And Mr. Christopher Carney was specifically involved in the construction aspects. That's the umbrella in which he got direction from the company, from his father as officer, to use Christopher Carney's skill and expertise in the construction field. So, you know, for example, for those commissioners that have been to the building, you see a big piece of the building has been torn down as a construction task. Christopher Carney Company did that. Christopher Carney's company made the roadway from where the new building is going out to Route 138, prepared the site, worked with the engineers and the architects. You saw paperwork, I believe, in the IED submission about going before the Rain and Planning Board for site plan approval, which is a zoning function, which was done before Chapter 23N was even enacted. All of that are construction activities. Quite often, it's just the engineer and perhaps a local lawyer that go before Planning Boards for zoning approvals. But in this case, it's the town of Rainham. The members of the town of Rainham, the Planning Board, they all know who owns the property. And Christopher Carney went there during the winter while his father is in Florida to represent the family, to show the family has an interest. He did it with his father's instruction, with father's knowledge, with the corporation's knowledge. But he had Christopher Carney was just there to support the process. Now, we can't control how the Planning Board writes its eventual permit any more than we can control what any other third party does. But the way to understand what Mr. Christopher Carney was doing, it's that he was doing the construction tasks even before 23N was enacted so that we could serve our customers, serve our employees and be ready to go forward quickly once hopefully the commission granted the license. That's his role and was his role. And so your representation today is that the extent of Mr. Carney's, Chris Carney's involvement in MGA business operations is with respect to construction of the sports facility. Yeah, it's construction. For example, I've seen photographs of newspaper reports where Christopher standing by the building, I think several of them with his father, right? That's all about constructing the building. Christopher Carney arranged, as you know, for certain loan transactions that we've talked about, I won't go in those details, right? For the construction of the building, it's all centered on that. Christopher Carney has never been involved, to my knowledge, with paramutual ladering and all the operations of MGA that have been going on, you know, for so many years in that particular area of its business. Of course, he's been walking around that site since he was capable of walking. I mean, everybody knows who he is, but in terms of responsibilities, management, controlling anything, that's been his father. He's been in charge of that business since the day he took it over. No one else runs MGA, but George Carney. So I just want to confirm once again that what you've just laid out as Chris Carney's involvement with MGA is the extent of it. Well, yes, I mean, I haven't gone through a checklist of trying to identify every individual step you may have done. But I'm trying to give you the the. See, the the scope of what he was involved in. Now, I do know, for instance, that during this process, after the commission determined, I believe, because of the Christopher Carney status as a beneficiary of the trust that he was going to be a qualifier, then during that period of time or after that, then, you know, they made decisions internally and they decided to propose Christopher Carney as the chief operator and that was put in and disclosed to the commission. But that's something that happened later. And when that decision was made, it was disclosed and it was put in the organizational chart that was received. I was really directing my attention to most of the. Activities that I've seen in the IEB report, where the inference that was trying to be drawn is that Chris Carney has some form of informal substantial control, in fact, over MGA. And that's been limited only to construction. The COO element is also perspective. It's if they receive the license, then that's what was expected. And of course, like any good businessman, if you think over the next few weeks, you're going to your business is going to be at a particular point and you're going to be a COO. I'm sure you stop planning for that. But that doesn't mean that at no time did Christopher Carney actually run MGA, the applicant. He was simply the proposed COO once he was designated as a qualifier. So I'm sorry to be long winded, but it's an evolution from construction into that role that did take place. I understood. And just a general question. Why isn't Chris Carney speaking on his own behalf today? Mr. Skinner, I couldn't understand the last part of your question. I'm sorry. I'm asking why Mr. Chris Carney is not speaking on his own behalf today to this commission. Well, this is the withdrawal request is highly technical, highly legal, as I've outlined it. So I've been the one who understands it and was able to present it. I'm also the lawyer who, again, with the client's direction to put together a withdrawal package that is everything the commission would probably want to allow the withdrawal stay as far away as possible from the statutory requirements. So that's what we did. We put it together. I'm the one who understands it, but that was the marching orders that that was given to us to me. And that's the way we've tried to present it to the commission. If the commission has a question and wants to ask anybody in this room, of course, the commission is free to do so. We're not trying to control the conversation. So thank you for that. And certainly not expecting Mr. Carney to speak on the legal on the legal issues that you've presented. But certainly I appreciate you offering Mr. Carney up for additional questions should the commission have any for him directly. And I'll yield for now to my fellow commissioner. Mr. O'Brien, thank you, Madam Chair. So the the fundamental challenge that I have with the recitation that you gave to this commission is you take a very narrow view of this commission's authority in setting standards for who's a qualifier and what suitability means. And there was absolutely no discussion about the regs that we under our authority enacted that then gave further color to exactly what that meant and who was captured. The other issue that I'm having is Chris Kelly's own words undercut a lot of you what you said to us today factually. He talks in the first person affirmatively about his involvement at the track, his involvement with the application on the license, that sort of thing. So I'm really having difficulty with one representation that's made on a very narrow statutory basis and a factual overlay on the existing regulations of this commission in terms of who's a qualifier and what is suitability. And when I'm watching particularly the interview that he gave to IED and May. Talking about his role and how he has inextricably intertwined with every business that generates out of that site. Including one that is, you know, entitled in the name of his brother in law, where he self admittedly is in this business and you're the person I'm the person you call and you go to. I am just not buying that he is not someone who under two 15 oh two one a four is not someone who exercises significant influence over decisions concerning the applicants, operations and the Commonwealth. And I don't see anything in what you've said to me today that speaks to that point. Well, let me just mention a couple of different things. One of the reasons why in the presentation I point out so heavily that Chapter 156 D Section 8.01 and if you'd like an SJC quote or citation rather, you can look up Clare V. Clare C-L-A-I-R-E 464 Mass 205, pages 216 to 217, several others that give a very good dissertation on corporate governance and Chapter 156 D. So it is a matter of law in this Commonwealth for more than 100 years. Anyone can say whatever they want, but as a matter of law, they have no control over a corporation period. Second point that I would like to I'm going to interrupt you for a moment because the question I know you wanted to find it is control as you picked it under the statute and the case law. The the regs in the statute give this commission greater authority than that. And the particular area that I am talking about talks about significant influence over decisions of the applicant's business in the Commonwealth. It is not this definition, the statutory definition of control and corporate governance that is absolutely part of the analysis. But what I'm asking you is I don't agree with that analysis. So I would like you to address the motion to withdraw as a qualifier under the guise of 205CMR 25021A4 in particular, because by Chris Carney's own words, he is involved at the drop of a hat historically. And because of the posture of some of the other officers in this applicant's corporate structure, he has been integrally involved. So in terms of looking at their integrity, their history as a company. I have difficulty extricating him. I also have difficulty going forward, saying that he's not a qualifier as someone who doesn't continue to have that. Significant influence. Mr. Frank, could I interrupt before you go on? I'm sorry, just if you could just say this, I want to make sure I'm looking at the same condition that you're looking at. So 205CMR 215.021A4 and in particular, it's not the only one, but that is one of the ones that is most concerning to me. Thank you. To answer that question, thank you for the question, Commissioner O'Brien. Two points. I believe the Commission would agree and General Counsel would agree that the Commission's regulations have to be read consistent with the legislative directive of the of the legislature. The Commission does not have the authority. With all their respect, I'm not asking to argue the point of law. I'm asking you for the sake of an answer here to say if that applies, can you tell me the rationale for why Chris Carney does not fall within that regulation? I will, Commissioner, if you allow me to continue. So the Commission cannot issue a regulation or interpret a regulation that's inconsistent with the statute. So when you read number four, you'll have to read it consistent with the statute. What does that regulation say? It says in the judgment, I'm sorry, I'm going to cut you off again, because I'm not interested in that legal discussion. I think you and I, for the purpose of this question, have to agree to disagree. And I am asking you on a factual analysis basis to explain to me if that is an applicable regulation, how Chris Carney is not continuing to be a qualifier for the purposes of this application. You have to allow me to answer, Commissioner. I'd be happy to, but I'm not asking you to rehash whether or not the statutory minimum that's given to this commission is somehow at odds with that regulation. I'm asking you to give me a factual explanation as to how he would not still fall in as a qualifier under that regulation. I understand the question, Commissioner. So I have to read the regulation and then match the facts to it. Do I not with respectfully? What you've been doing is continuing to a statutory analysis that applies to this commission has created a reg beyond the statutory authority. I'm asking a factual question related to what is a reg that controls qualifiers. A commission, actually, I didn't make that argument. I said the regulation has to be read consistent with the statute. And I was starting to read it so that I can compare it to the facts. I'm looking for the facts, counselor. Just give me the facts. I am. In the judgment of the division of licensing, any person with significant and substantial responsibility for the applicant's business under the under the commission's jurisdiction. All right. Number one, that's not the entirety of it. Oh, but then it falls with us. So you have to break it off into the right. You know, I'm going to withdraw the question right now and I'm going to ask it in a little bit, and I'm going to yield the floor because I feel like this is time that's not well spent by this body right now. Commissioner, Brian, if I could just assist, I think that he was just going would you allow him to just go through one segment at a time? And I think he's going to give back or do you that I'm going to withdraw the question and I'm going to yield to my fellow commissioners right now because I feel like this is not a useful time for the body. Well, I appreciate that. But, you know, I feel we ought to have the opportunity to ask questions when they're presented gives a very poor impression. You have the public listening. I'm asking you to answer a question, counselor, not ask me a question. I'm asking you to answer a question. Well, if you would allow me to, I'm trying to answer the question. I understand you're an attorney as well. You understand that I'm asking for facts in the record relating to Chris Carney. I do not want to have a legal argument. And so that's why Madam Chair, I'm withdrawing the question. My fellow commissioners can ask other questions and I'll circle back to it. May I answer the question? I've withdrawn the question, counselor, there's no need. Commissioners, the commissioner, Brian, is yielding the floor. Do you have a question? Or would you like to follow up with her question? Madam chair, I would like to hear an answer to the question that was asked. So I won't rehash the question, but I'm asking the question myself. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Mr. Maurizio, why don't you proceed? And I think we have the break. Does everybody have the regulation that Commissioner Brian has in front of them? And so if you wish to apply the facts to the regulation, that that would be helpful. Should I now or should I wait for? Yes, no, please. I'm so sorry if there's any confusion, but Commissioner Hill has re-asked the same question. Thank you. I understand. You want to make sure that the commissioners have the regulation available. I think I should have said I think I saw a nodding of heads with everybody. Yeah, OK. Thank you. The first pot that precedes the or talks about person with significant and substantial responsibility for the applicant's business under the commission's jurisdiction. Christopher Conny has not been involved, even if you take all of those letters, all third party double hearsay information and even his own statements. None of it talks about the business under the commission's jurisdiction. Building the building is not under the commission's jurisdiction. Running and being available to the DEP to solve any problems with our source or anybody else is not the applicant's business. And it's certainly not anything under the jurisdiction of the commission. This moment going into the past, the only activity that I'm aware of that MGA, the applicant is involved with that falls under the commission's jurisdiction is the paramutual racing, the simulcast business. Chris Connie's not involved in that at all. So everything that you want to look at that you have in the record, even Chris Connie's very generalized statements of if somebody needs me, I'm here to help is all in the context of, as I've said before, trying to get ready for the construction, building the building, but it is nothing to do with simulcast, nothing to do with paramutual racing. So that's why a first section that comes before the or has not been triggered. The second is having power to exercise, power to exercise. And I've already given the outline of Chapter 156 D. You only have the power to control a corporation if you're an officer, director, and to some limited degree, a shareholder. So all the facts on the table do not with even under item number four of the commission's regulations, do not allow who do not require Christopher Connie or the trustees to remain as qualifiers. And certainly not the trustees, because remember, there's two requests that would draw once the trustees and one is Christopher Connie. The trustees certainly have nothing to do with Christopher Connie directly. So please keep that in mind as well. Mr. Hill, I think where I'm struggling is when you go and you look at his statements, it says otherwise from what you just told us. They're not generalized. They were very, very specific. So help me help me understand what when I'm hearing from Mr. Carney himself in statements that he made that were very, very specific to him being involved in this company. They weren't generalizations. They were specific. Help me understand why I shouldn't take those comments to heart. Could you help me by identifying a comment that you'd like me to to specifically address? Because I haven't read any comment from memory that talks to the simulcast for or having to wait or in business. This was an interview that he made with our folks, and I don't have the specifics in front of me. And if we want to take a 15 minute break, I could certainly find some for you. I'm not sure that that would be the best use of our time, but I can assure you that in the interviews that he made that we were given as exhibitions. I'm certainly happy to offer up an example, Commissioner. How I have a couple of I yield to I would yield to Commissioner Maynard. He's not in a hurry because, quote, he wants to do it right. Exhibit for Jay. This is Chris Carney speaking about when the new sports book was open in twenty twenty three. And again, I understand your trip up here, say that I want to give you an opportunity to explain it in public counsel. You know, this is definitely not a defensive posture. I'm trying to understand it, right? You know, multiple articles have described him as part of the tracks ownership group. I just I'm honestly trying to understand it because if I walk outside and tell people that I'm the owner of Walmart, right? People would say I was insane, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, well, I wouldn't be here, first of all, but people would think that there was a sanity issue, right? So I mean, almost to. I'm having a hard time in the circle, like if I'm not saying one thing, but then legally saying another, I just want to hear your. All right. So again, that statement, thank you for that, Commissioner Maynard. That was a statement about the sports betting facility. I think we all agree on that. And that statement was made when he was the proposed C.O.O. For that sports betting facility, if in fact we got the applicant got the license. So what I have said is entirely consistent with your interpretation of that statement. He was going to be the C.O.O. That doesn't make what his role was before he was the proposed C.O.O. We have to keep these buckets of time, may I suggest, organized because before 23 and even existed and only for maybe six, eight, ten months ahead of time before it was passed. Chris County was focused on the construction requirements, hoping that the law would be passed, not doing anything else, construction. Then if the law gets passed, at some point, this commission goes through the information that was submitted and it decided because of the Chris County trust that Chris County had to be a qualifier. It's at that point in time, the group got back together and we said, OK. All right. Chris County is going to be a qualifier. He knows a heck of a lot about the building. He's been spending a lot of time making that facility move forward. He'll be the C.O.O. And we provided that information so his role changed. But then you can't, with all due respect, I'm trying to explain that before that period of time, he had no involvement other than construction. Then he's going to be the proposed C.O.O. I'm sure he makes a lot of very generalized statements, but he's going to be the C.O.O. And his trust is a shareholder. That's how he's an owner. He's not a lawyer. He doesn't understand trusts and corporations. He just knows his trust is a stockholder. So when he says he's an owner, that's what he's referring to. And then we come to the point which I explained in our presentation when it becomes some question about whether or not getting into Chris County's business practices is going to slow this down. So we decided to go in the opposite direction that we went in when you made him a qualifier. You made him a qualifier. We went forward, brought him in. Now it's an issue that's slowing us down. So we brought him completely out in an odd view so far out that he's clearly not a qualifier. That's just the way we've done it. So I think everything I've read in the IEB report is entirely consistent with that. And that's what happened. Again, we can't lose sight, respectfully, of the law however. As you said, you could go say you're an owner of Wal-Mart. It doesn't make you an owner of Wal-Mart unless you have the stock. So I have a quick follow-up. And it's really, I appreciate your candor. That was very candid response. I'm going to ask the question that really matters most to me today. And then it's, is the helpfulness of Chris Carney over when it comes to this form forward, right? Is this truly a severed relationship? Then we get a, on the record, you know, that this is, this is it, right? Like this isn't supposed to come back up in three months, six months, 12 months. It is. But let me, let me answer the question also by pointing something out. MGA has been controlled by Mr. George Carney for some 57 years. Racing commission has never had a problem. The old racing commission, everything to my knowledge in all that period of time that we, that the company has said it would do, it has done, has never been Mr. George Carney and the company has never been accused to my knowledge of ever not doing what they say they will do. Ever. The legislature recognized that when it passed in 23N, it says, thou shalt license MGA. They knew George Carney was the guy in charge of MGA. They knew his reputation. They knew his business reputation. He's the last one standing of the Charlie Sockers and Wonderland, the Suffolk Downs operations. He's had interests in all of those operations in the years past. Plain Ridge exists where it does because George Carney consented to move it from Foxborough to Plain Ridge so many years ago because he had control over that so many years ago. The legislature understood that. So when George Carney says that this is the way it's going to be, trust me, that's the way it's going to be. And whatever the commission wishes to put down in it is a condition. We're more than happy to accept in terms of Chris Carney. We've never been a secret organization or group in that sense. An open book. And again, as we've talked about Chris Carney's business practices, and I urge the commission, if they wish to, speak to the DEP directly. They're never going to tell you that he's difficult to deal with or not truthful or anything like that. And it comes from, he learned it from his father to be quite frank. It's the moral standard of this family that I've had the pleasure to be around for 30 years. Mr. Maynard and Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Hill, you're touching on, as I was preparing for this review, the issue that raised what has been Chris Carney's role. And that's why I started with Alex. Councillor Grossman, I'm not sure you did call me to give me a briefing on in terms of whether or not Alex's input could be applied in this discussion. But given that the MGC does have oversight of the simulcast business, we have worked cooperatively with them on roundtables during COVID, during the assessment of the licensing landscape. I thought about who does, and I know at one point Dr. Lightbound reported to Commissioner Cameron and now she reports to you, Commissioner Hill, and has reported directly to the Executive Director. So there's been so many touches. Dr. Lightbound is very much fully integrated into our communications and our work that I wanted to hear from her. And Councillor Grossman, I know it's outside the scope of the IEB report, but I did think it's important to have it on the record if it's permissible. But I'm not sure how you work that out with the other, with the applicant. Chair, before we go there, can I ask a follow-up question to Commissioner Maynard? Sure. It was kind of meant to be a follow-up too, but I'm sorry. No, no, I don't know. I think it's more process, but it was intended to be a follow-up on this issue in terms of Chris Kearney's involvement. But yes, Commissioner Skinner, I yield. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Attorney Maurizio, what I'm struggling with is your representation that Mr. Kearney has had no formal role on behalf of MGA all these years. But the perception, anyway, is that he's so ingrained in the culture, the operations, the family. How does he just turn that off? In other words, what is stopping him from continuing on the way he has been, right? Not in a formal capacity, but in this informal capacity. What assurances can you give? What should this commission be looking for to be assured that it won't be just more of the same? Commissioner Skinner, and I appreciate the question. I think it's something that the commission should be thinking about. Keep in mind that the day-to-day operations of the sports betting operation, sports wagering operation, are significantly different than what the simulcast wagering has been in the past, as the commission knows better than I do. There will be on-site, as I understand it, on-site representatives of the commission at all times. Hopefully, we're going to be able to bring back our actual operating partner who will be quite significant. They have a great deal of control, independent control, independent from MGA, and I just would point those out that it's an entirely different situation. Different people. There's a lot of eyes there. It's almost like back in the old racing days when there were state troopers assigned and there were slime judges. I forgot now some of the names of the positions, but there were a half a dozen or so racing commission employees on the property at all times. All times. They had complete. To be frank, I'm not interested. I mean, I'm not concerned about the physical appearance on the property. I'm more concerned about the back-of-house type of interactions on behalf of MGA. Signing documents, leases, brokering transactions. That's the kind of activity I'm specifically asking about. I'm not as familiar with the application and the new structure that's proposed as he is. Thanks, Commissioner. On behalf of MGA, I think that's a fair question. Actually, at the end of the day, MGA has got the most risk here if, in fact, what we're telling you is not going to be the case. That is because it would be and it would jeopardize the license. I think in general and certainly, as we've said, in multiple pleadings and multiple filings, anything that we are representing regarding the future role of Christopher Carney where we are certainly expecting will be conditions of licensure. I also want to point out, from a corporate perspective, MGA is also going through a transition. We obviously have shown you a new organizational chart. We've got new folks who have joined the team, everything from security surveillance. We've got folks at this table who are taking on more significant responsibilities. Importantly as well, your own internal controls, which we will have to meet, require us also to make changes internally from the corporate perspective. I want to point out, especially one particular change that I think goes directly to what you're saying. Under the internal controls, MGA has now created and will have to implement both a compliance committee and an audit committee. The operations of MGA, in addition to what we talked about earlier, having to do audited financials, are going to be run essentially in a very, I don't want to say, different way, but under a level of scrutiny internally that is going to now need to meet the requirements of the internal controls. If this is a question of, okay, you're telling us all these things, not only are we willing to put them into the license as conditions regarding Mr. Kearney's involvement, not only are you going to have a physical presence there, all of this is going to be under a level of record keeping that certainly is going to give the commission an ability to have insight into whether or not those things are true. Again, from MGA's perspective, the downside to this is, in my mind, the loss of a license. Mr. Kearney knows of the loss of a license. That's the risk. Thank you. So I think to my point, the IB's report didn't talk about the ambiguity issue, and I just thought it was important to, given our responsibilities that right now we oversee the simulcast work and our Director of Racing implements that responsibility, and I wanted to just turn to Councillor Grossman to see how we can address the inquiry that I'd like to be able to address, but I'm not sure if I can. I think this public meeting, I think if you're interested in hearing from Dr. Lightbaum, she is prepared to answer questions as to her historical interaction with Reynum Park, if that's your question. Right, and we can ask the questions, or I can just summarize what I've learned. I don't know if which is which. It would be better if you ask her directly than- Okay, as long as it's not too disruptive. But I want to check in with Attorney Nosal and Attorney, I don't see you. Is that okay? Attorney Nosal, are you comfortable if I pursue some questions? I understand the general context of what this is. I guess I would just have to definitely reserve an opportunity, certainly, to respond. So, given that this is a public meeting and right now Reynum Park is conducting summer casting, I presume as we speak, I did want to check in with Dr. Lightbaum because she, as I earlier said, has been working since 1992 with Mr. Carney and his company. And so, Dr. Lightbaum, I got a chance to speak with you last evening, as I thought about these issues and I thought I knew your history, but I wasn't positive. You came in originally, you were with the Racing Commission? Yes, I came in in 1992 with the State Racing Commission. And one of the tracks that we oversaw was Reynum Park. And I did start going there as a veterinarian. And Greyhound Racing was still allowed at that point? Yes. And so, that was one of your responsibilities and it was Reynum Park and Mr. Carney and his business was conducting it. And then it shifted to DPL, Division of Professional Licensure at some point and you went with them there. And 2009, that's when Greyhound Racing was made illegal, correct? Yeah, at the end of 2009, live Greyhound Racing ended in Massachusetts. And the middle of 2009, I had become the Director of Racing for the State Racing Commission. And when we were moved over to DPL in 2010, I continued in that role until we moved over to the Gaming Commission at the end of 2012 for three and a half years. And then at that time, the racing, so the Reynum Park was open where the track was. And that was the facility you would visit for your veterinarian practice. And then it shifted to simulcast oversight after Greyhound Racing was outlawed. Starting in 2010, yeah, continuing on. Right. And the reason why I asked this question is because I really didn't, I've been with the Commission now close to five years and I didn't have any memory of any concerns. And so I thought I would ask Dr. Leipzig about her history. And if you wanted, I know that there's been opportunities for input from the public over years. I think Reynum Park was at one point, a category one casino licensee. And that was a category two casino licensee. Do you recall anything that was negative about or anything that was concerning about how Mr. George Carney was running business? No, I don't. And all through that time, the 31 years, as far as I knew, George Carney was the one in charge. And the people I dealt with a long time ago, it was Gary Temple, who was his main man. So if we had any questions at all, we'd go to him. Obviously, more recently, it's been Sue Rodgers. And then we also deal with Joe Cappucci on the money side, as far as reconciling and billing, things like that. And then occasionally Mike Maurizio on the legal issues. And it hasn't been Chris Carney. It hasn't been Chris Carney. And I think I asked yesterday, if you could remind me what Sue Rodgers' position is. Assistant General Manager. And the General Manager is... I'm not sure who the General Manager is, to be honest. I think I know the answer, but I'll let Mr. Maurizio tell us. It's George Carney. There's no official General Manager, I believe, but it's George Carney now. Gary Temple retired. He was a great guy. And I thank you. And I do this mainly because we're conducting our own business as we're going through this. And I thought it was pertinent to today's discussion. So thank you, Dr. I don't know if anybody else has any questions, but you did help me know right where we are as of today. And I appreciate that. I appreciate your work. Thank you. Chair, could I just ask a really quick follow-up question? Sure. Alex, I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. Did you say that you don't know who the General Manager is? Right. I didn't know if anybody was in that title. Okay, thank you. I've always... And if it's George Carney, then that makes all the sense, because it's either him or Sue, or one of the other people in there, more specified roles that I would deal with. And that's who you've worked with, is Mr. George Carney over these years. Yes. Really. And Sue Rodgers. And I had a memory of that. Director Lillios from our work with COVID. And of course, Ms. Rodgers does appear in front of us once in a while along with George Carney. So thank you. Any other questions for Dr. Leipzig? Not for Dr. Leipzig, I don't know. Thanks. Thank you for hanging in here today. So when did the General Manager that was there retire? Mr. Tempel, is that a thing? Gary Tempel? Gary Tempel, he's unfortunately passed. I would say 10 years at least, close to that in a while. And he was the General Manager the last sort of identified General Manager? Yes. I did want to refer Mr. Carney, Chris Carney, to one of the statements that he made when IUB sat down and interviewed him, particularly when he talks about how he's there to help in any way he can on the family businesses. He talks about plowing the parking lot in that interview and then says, I have a management role on the inside of the facility for the last two years. And then further reiterated that to your timeline talking about putting in more hours over the last two years as well in the application process, the license cleaning up the property, which I'm assuming he's going to say was the talking about the application for in anticipation, I guess, of a sports betting license, but that's only been legal for less for about a year. So I want to know what he meant by the management role for the inside of the facility for the last two years. The property where you have to say it. Commissioner, could we just have a moment? Yeah, sure. Well, we can take five minutes. I'll set things. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for the opportunity. I'm good to go. Thanks. And we'll do a quick, quick, quick roll call. This is a reconvening after a very short break of Game Commission. Commissioner Brian. I am here. Great. Commissioner Hill. Great. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. Great. Thank you. And Commissioner Maynard as you're joining. He's almost here. Commissioner Maynard. And Commissioner Maynard, real calm. I'm here. Excellent. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And we'll get started then. And I'm sorry, I believe it was a Commissioner O'Brien question and answer. I can answer that question. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Inside. Be reminded of the question, please. Certainly, I was referring back to Chris Carney's interview with IB. At one point, he stated, I'm always there to help, whatever way that I can. I call the parking lot now. I have a management role inside the facility in the last two years. And the question that I had was, please describe the management role that you've had inside the facility for the last two years. And I don't know if Mr. Carney is available to answer that question himself or other than Council. He's available inside the building. Could he answer the question directly? Commissioner O'Brien, I do want to pause on that. I need to be careful about that. Councilor Grossman, can we insist on that? Yeah, this isn't a criminal prosecution. There's no Fifth Amendment privilege or anything. He can be asked questions. Okay, I just wanted to check where he has council. I just wondered, okay. Also, I just want to point out this isn't an adjudicatory hearing either. So that's great. We want to be cooperative, of course. He can refuse to answer and the Commission can consider how he wants to do that. Over the last couple of years, I've been trying to get the facility up to Snuff to take down part of the building and get the other property up to Snuff to sell. So my management role has been limited to the outside services. I've plowed the parking lot since I had a license or even before that. Whether it was a clogged toilet or anything else, that was my job. I never got paid, but I loved it. If I may explain about the asbestos activities you had to do inside the building? So when we took down the building, we had an asbestos abatement company as we did in the mall. And we took down the grandstand. It was over 100,000 square feet. We had an asbestos abatement company come in called VaynerEnvironmental. They came in. The state did several inspections and we were allowed to take down part of the building to start demolition of the building. I was always fearful of the building catching fire because the vacancy of the building and the size of the building and the age of the building. And can you tell the Commissioners about the reviews that went on under your control about looking at the heating ventilation systems when you start tearing down one part of the building and how it affects the rest of it? Well, the old building was intertwined so much that we knew we took down certain buildings. We didn't know if we took down certain water lines. And at that point we didn't know at the winter time what pipes were freezing, what pipes wouldn't freeze. They spent many nights there with broken pipes after the thaw and mocked up, screened up and anything like that. What about the roof? The roof leaked many times over many years. Many times we get up there over my lifetime and shovel the roof because it's flat roof. It was built in 1939 and we took shovels and went to the edge. What about elevators? Elevators, we had two elevators, one still currently operational in the old building. Another one we deemed unoperational. We took down the building so I worked with the state's elevated department to get it deemed to be taken down. What about the tow board? The tow board, many electrical lines run through the tow board, so we've left the tow board up right now until we get the property ready to sell to the next person. Fortunately, we got our meter permits yesterday, which is a huge victory and would be off the races, hopefully by sometime mid-January. We're going to change the configuration of two buildings in the parking lot to five buildings and we'll be going back to the town for future consideration sometime September. What about the old actual racetrack, all the railings and what happened with all of that? We took the old railing out about 13 years ago. We've been docked 14. We grass-throwed. We had a couple small concerts there over the last few years, nothing recently, and then I took down the old kennels to make way for the new sportsbook that's fortunate enough to walk around. I hope you feel it's as beautiful as I do. And before the kennels were ripped down, did you do construction work out there? I've done construction in Brockton, East in Taunton, Rainhill. At the kennels? Oh, yes. We took all the buildings down. I think there was 14 buildings in total from the old kennel areas and took them down, braided it, raised the heights and elevations. I worked in general construction my whole life. I run a transit facility that takes in a thousand tons of demolition a day. So when it gets back to, I think there was a previously questioned by Commissioner O'Brien asked, you know, or one of the commissions that asked, you know, on the fines, one of my transit facilities has about 15 million years as my construction business does another 15 million a year. I employ over 100 plus people in a daily and that's the purpose I've been on my whole life. Fortunately, I've had a love of my father. I've been with him since I was born and, you know what, I've enjoyed one of the best lives. So I have another part of the interview that I'm looking to get further explanation on. At another point, Chris Carney states he could have closed the place years ago, but I felt obligated not only to my father but to the employees. It's a legacy thing. I want my kids to be able to be in it. I didn't think I would ever be able to afford the opportunity to get there. The wisdom of the legislature, I was fortunately happy enough to get it. And I'm curious to know what the authority was to have closed the place and what exactly the place is. Well, the place is the dog track. And we've, we haven't ran live racing. Like I said, for 14 years, we have our average employee, my father's average employee, I feel like I'm so close to them because I'm 55 years old. We have some people that are working there for 52 to 53 years. My father, you know, has wanted to carry this on because we're the little guys with underdogs, whether nobody's were not a big trade, we're not a publicly traded company. I wanted my kids to follow in my father's footsteps. One, fortunately enough, they'll have time in their lifetime that maybe they can go into the company. Unfortunately, at this time, I'd like to step, step aside and let the management team that my father's had in place for many, many years as Alex Leibbaum described, you know, to continue on. And but as, as attorney, attorney nozzle has, you know, talked about the policies and procedures that will be in place to, to take care of making sure the right people run the business. And so at another point, you talk about being sort of the go-to person for the family businesses and talking about your father's age and saying, you know, if there's a problem, you kind of call me. So can you band upon that? Well, I think anybody and everybody that has contact with me as the back of my watch says I never say no. You know what, if you need to get in touch with my father, he only had a cell phone, I don't know, 10, 15 years ago. He wanted to call me, call the office. He's old school. He doesn't have an email. Nobody want to have an email. As I myself, I don't like it either. As far as like if you need to get in touch with my father, you want to have a meeting. I talked to my father as I have for a lot of my whole life 15 times a day, you know. So, you know, I make no, no regrets about what I did to my father. Don't worry about anything. I did help him. I love him. Understood. Thank you. Questions, commissioners? Questions from Mr. Ritzio? Mr. Nozzle? Commissioner Maynard, I think you asked a really important question. And I think it should be perhaps revisited as we think, as we go into the next phase. And that's about, you know, assurances. And I think, I think the follow-up on that will look for some guidance from Councillor Grossman, perhaps. So, this is, I believe, or at the got to switch documents, everybody. The conclusion of item number four on our agenda, unless there are further questions regarding the request for the draw. Yes, Madam Chair, I think the IEB. Yeah, now I'm going to turn to IEB. I'm sorry. I was just going to say IEB will need to respond and also give its report. But I think we're going to then need some, as I just alluded to, Councillor Grossman and Councillor Monaghan explaining again our decision-making standards. Chair, can I just add or suggest one other thing? We've never responded to the supplemental report. So, we'd like an opportunity to do that if it's going to get presented. Yeah. Yes, and I appreciate that because it is integrated. So, now you're responding strictly. Heather, or who is the, who will be the lead? Yes, so you can force our Council Hall. Okay, and it will be strictly on the pages relevant to the response to the request for removal. Yeah, that would be the submission that we did on Wednesday. Wednesday night. But it's labeled, and this is, I think, Mr. Nozo's point. It is labeled as I was the one who got confused with the supplement to the suitability. Right. Thanks. That's correct, Chair. Thank you. It is labeled supplemental suitability because the information that we have been provided in that document is relevant to the request to the draw. So, we'll make sure Mr. Nozo gets the opportunity to respond. Okay. Let's go. All right. Thank you, Chair and commissioners. Obviously, this has been a long day. There's a lot of information that the commission has to consider. Council for MGA have a job to do. They've been doing it well and we respect their roles. The IEV also has a job to do. The IEV has presented information to the commission that it expects we'll assist it in deciding some important questions. I'm not going to go into every detail of our submissions because, like I said, I know it's been a long day. There are two primary questions that the commission is addressing. One is suitability. One is whether the applicant has good cause to withdraw. MGA council says that it's really simple. It's not that simple. It's a bit more complicated. But I do think that it can boil down to a few key points. First, like we've discussed, MGA has the burden to demonstrate good cause. And in deciding whether there's good cause to withdraw, really the key question is, has the applicant demonstrated sufficiently if they have disentangled from the individual or entity from which they wish to withdraw? There are certainly some questions for consideration that the IEV has raised for the commission. And I think one of the core questions is, what has Chris Carney's role been? And what did they say in their submissions related to Chris Carney and his role? So I guess I would start with the scoping survey. And I would just note that that asks the applicant to identify any executive employee or agent having the power to exert significant influence over decisions that are concerning the applicant's sports wagering operations. And I also would just note that that scoping survey is very important to the IEV because it helps the IEV determine who is actually running the company, regardless of what titles are provided. And I think I would also point the commission to, I know this was referenced earlier, to the regulation that wasn't referenced by Attorney Maurizio, an apology by mispronouncing, it's 215.02, 1A4, which speaks to the following person shall be required to be qualified as part of a sports wagering license review if, in the judgment of the Division of Licensing After Consultation with the Bureau, any person with significant and substantial responsibility for the applicant's business under the jurisdiction of the commission or having the power to exercise significant influence over decisions concerning the applicant's operations. So against that backdrop, this applicant didn't reference Christopher Carney as someone who had his influence and miscibility in the scoping survey. The applicant didn't reference Chris Carney in the MJPHDs as an officer, director, or even an employee. Nonetheless, and as the commission has heard snippets of today, Christopher Carney did represent himself as having more of a significant role. He appeared at different boards in random, and it's not just that he appeared on behalf of MGA. He actually made statements at those proceedings that reflected that he had a significant influence at MGA, that he had at least some kind of managerial role. There's been some discussion also about media articles, and I think it's kind of important to touch base about some of those. Now, certainly we understand that media articles aren't necessarily always completely accurate, but I think the media articles that the IED has provided are, I think, worthy of consideration by the commission. There are several, and they demonstrate or they show different things. One of them or several of them I should say refer to Mr. Christopher Carney as an owner of Rainham Park. One that I think may have been referenced earlier refers to him as a third-generation Carney running Rainham Park. There's another one that I also think was referenced earlier that talks about how Christopher Carney said, I want to do it right, and I just want to point out for the record, and I believe that was the one from Commissioner Maynard that, I believe, Attorney Marizio, if you think correct me if I'm wrong, indicated that the timing of that was around the time when they had decided to make Christopher Carney the, I think it's a chief of operations or operating, I'm probably getting the title incorrect, but it was actually, that article came out in October, so that timing I think is important and that clarification is important for the commission. That timing was right around the time that they completed the scoping survey. It's also just a little bit before the applicant filled out the applications, and actually now I remember it's, I think it was Chief Operating Officer is when that designation by the applicant was suggested in March of 2023. So, I think there's another one that the chair mentioned that talked about Sue Rodriguez, and we looked at that chair, and I just, I believe it actually said that Sue Rodriguez was former employee of the DAWTRAC. I don't think it said that she was a president. She was a resident, a resident, and I said, no, she's actually the assistant general manager. My point was, you know, they didn't quite get her role right, and maybe they didn't quite get the other role right. I don't know, but I know that it was not president, resident. Thank you for clarifying my mind, Ms. Smith's hearing. So, I also wanted to just note that Attorney Grisio spoke a fair bit earlier about Chapter 156, which I believe is a chapter governing some corporate regulations. Over the course of today, we actually, the IB has obtained a filing from the Secretary of State's office that was filed in 2020, pursuing to Chapter 156, actually, that actually indicates that Christopher Carney is a Vice President for MGA. We didn't have that information until today. We recognize that that's new. Nonetheless, there has been some other new information considered today. If we were doing a full investigation, we would verify all the information in the MJPHD and the VEPs, but that is certainly something that we could supplement and provide to the Commission. The other piece I think that's relevant with respect to going back to some of the media articles is that, you know, after the scoping survey was completed and then after the application was filed in or around December of January, in January, there were multiple articles related to Christopher Carney's role, basically being at the center of the negotiations with Caesars. So, these are certainly factors, I think, for the Commission to consider. Could I just ask the last word, the negotiation with whom, I'm sorry? Yes, sure. With Caesars regarding the operating needs agreement. Yes, absolutely. And those are all in the IB submissions for the Commission. Those are actually provided in the exhibits. I believe they're exhibit four and then a bunch of sub-exhibits. So, you know, we have that information and then we have the IED interview. And, you know, I just would know, and I think this is obviously in the record that nobody asked about the designation until after the IED interview. There were several statements made. They've already been discussed. I don't need to reiterate the ones that have already been discussed here. You have the IED submissions. You have the transcript. You have the video recording of the interview. So, it was only after that point that the request for the designation was made. So, that request, you know, the IED director declined to alter the designation. And then later, the IED submitted a report. And at that point, Christopher Carney and, yeah, we can also ask that Christopher Carney, the Subtractor S Trust, be withdrawn. And so, I think, you know, when we're looking at this, it's not simple. I think MGA would have it be, this is a simple carve out. But I think the job of the Commission is to ask itself, is Christopher Carney and is the Christopher L. Carney, Subtractor S Trust sufficiently extricated? Or is it perhaps that there is some residual influence? I think when we're talking about how to assess that, and again, I'm not telling the Commission how to do it, but there are certainly, I think, considerations that relate directly to the seriousness with which MGA and Christopher Carney in particular have taken their responsibilities with respect to regulatory violations. I know that Attorney Maurizio spoke quite a bit about, and I won't get into the detail because I believe some of this was an in-depth discussion, about the environmental matters. And I think there's some disagreement with respect to Mr. Carney's role and, you know, they certainly have a position on that. Nonetheless, I do think it's important that the Commission expects that whether one agrees with a regulatory action or not, it still needs to be disclosed. So I think in assessing, has this particular qualifier then sufficiently extricated, all of these things come into play. And if we look at the lack of disclosures on the environmental matters and the lack of designating or identifying Christopher Carney as having a particular role in the submissions for the Commission, I think that can perhaps be something to consider when the Commission asks itself, well, we know that Christopher Carney is sufficiently extricated. So all of those pieces are relevant. And if we don't know exactly what Christopher Carney's role is, I think that is something that could perhaps also go to this entity's business practices. You know, what is Christopher Carney's role? I think that's the question for the Commission, and how that interplays with MGA's interactions with him, and whether he can be sufficiently extricated at this point. I don't think I have any more prepared remarks, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Commissioner's questions for Council Hall. I see Commissioner Hill saying no. Commissioner O'Brien, what are you thinking? None? Commissioner Skinner? I guess the only... I just have one follow-up question about the document that you said you got today. Was there a request made of the applicant or Chris Carney to produce any of that, or is that done in the course of your due diligence on the suitability? That was just today. Commissioner, that was not necessarily something that we asked for them. That was something that we looked at today, and it's actually a... it's called a statement of change of supplemental information, and it's pursuant to Chapter 156D. Okay. And on that list, it was dated... Yeah, I've got to stop. So, I.E.B. found it. I.E.B. found it today. Right. So, was it... yeah, that's why I asked. So, this is something that came up basically during the course of us sitting here today. Yeah. Okay. Attorney Nosa, did you want to respond to that or no? Respond to the document I haven't seen yet? I can't. Point well taken. If I may respond a little bit. May I have a small check? Oh, yes. Actually, right now, I cannot see who's asking. Thank you so much. A little bosses. My apologies. It's of course very difficult to respond to every statement made by Councilor Paul. I would just point out a couple of facts. I did address quite thoroughly. The Commission's regulations are 215.021A4. And I pointed out in particular that the Commission's regulations about significant and substantial responsibility is also only within the context of the applicant's business that's within this Commission's jurisdiction. And you saw at this county's colloquy that he was very precise, very knowledgeable, very truthful, very open, that his involvement has been all around construction. That's his expertise. And that is certainly nothing within the Commission's jurisdiction. We've made that point many times. And this element of that section, which is power to exercise, I pointed out Chapter 156D, which is not a regulation, as Ms. Hall described it as. It is the statute which creates corporations. Corporations are fictional purposes. They only exist because of Chapter 156D. And there's a slew of case law going back 100 years that states that. So Christopher Conny has never had the power because look to 156D and 156D specifies who has such power. Overall, I get the sense that at times, and I'm saying this is improper, I'm not saying that, but at times I get the feeling like I'm arguing a motion in front of a judge where I'm hearing the other side talk about the evidence, if you will, the facts in the way that's most beneficial from their point of view. I didn't believe that that's what we were doing here. I hear a lot of characterizations of what was said and done, as opposed to the precise words. And one of the examples that keeps coming to my mind is this scoping document that begins this process. I have very specific questions in that scoping document. And I would ask the Commissioners, if you have any doubt, look at the scoping document question. Look at the specific question that was supposedly not answered correctly by not listing Christopher Conny. And keep in mind, not only the Commission's own regulations of our power 156D or activities within the scope of your jurisdiction, but look at the questions. There isn't a single question that asks for, that would ask or suggest to anyone knowledgeable that they should have listed Christopher Conny. Christopher Conny, as we've already said, I won't go over it again and again, came to the COO position after he was deemed a qualifier. He began thinking like he'd be a COO someday. And so to use his interview and his statements and then try to make the argument, which were after he was the designated COO, and to use those very generalized, very relaxed, very honest statements, but very generalized, and try to characterize them as applying to what Christopher Conny was doing before he was a qualifier, I think is more an argument than an adversarial position than it is simply reporting the facts. And I don't think it's accurate. I know it's not accurate. So I would just ask the Commission to view it in that light. Please remember the timeline and please remember Christopher Conny's own words that you've heard here today about what he's done. And I think those are the best evidences of what the reality really is. Thank you. I did just want to add in connection with the scoping survey, Mr. Conny was identified in the scoping survey in connection with his beneficial interest in the trust. And in fact, he was designated a qualifier as a result of that. So our issue is with the IUB supplemental report that they are suggesting that he should have been disclosed in connection with other sections of that report in connection with both control and then, and also the functional table of control. And as Attorney Murizio said, that was not the case at the time of the scoping survey, but he was identified as the beneficiary of a trust that owned 40% of MGA's stock and he was designated a qualifier. I do have a... That's great. Attorney Nozl is right. I don't just see that. I just want to know for the Commission, you know, it's all the facts in the submission, but right around the time that that scoping survey was submitted where it didn't identify Christopher Conny as having like a significant management role, there is an article from the Herald reflecting that he is running Pan-Park. So at the time that scoping survey was submitted, Mr. Carney was not an officer, director, or shareholder of MGA. The questions in the scoping survey were answered accurately. We identified his beneficiary interest in the trust which owned stock and it wasn't responsive at that time for us to answer the remaining questions, including Mr. Carney. That's our position regarding that. I'll defer to the Commission to look at the language. Can I ask a follow-up question? Sure. Commissioner Skinner, yes, please. So I'm not sure the article, Attorney Hull, you referenced, I'm not sure the date of that article. How does that date relate to the date of filing of the document you retrieved from the Secretary of the Commonwealth's website today? And I want to be careful because I know that there is a concern about Attorney Nozzle, you and your team not seeing that document. I haven't seen it either. I don't know how the other commissioners feel. I see Commissioner Maynard, he's not shaking his head, not like Commissioner O'Brien's. I haven't seen it either. With respect to the question though, if it's not a fair question, in light of that, then I will withdraw it. But if I could hear from legal counsel on that. I'm sure you understand. I think they're asking Councillor Lee Smith. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Yes, I mean, obviously it's important that this be an equitable hearing. And the fact that information has come in at the 11th hour is not, it wouldn't be fair to make a decision based upon that. If this is important enough, we could obviously pause the proceedings to give everyone time to review the document, understand its implications, and then consider it. But yeah, I don't think it would be appropriate to just use the document that I haven't seen myself. So I don't know what it says. Fine. I withdraw the question. I think it would be helpful, Madam Chair, if you would agree to have that document circulated. I would like the question answered though. And whether that's this evening or another day, it's fine. Commissioners, I'm not sure. I don't know what Commissioner Skinner is asking of me, but I'm not saying that we should proceed on that document. And I'm not saying we should pause. So I want to be clear. I'm not asking to pause. So maybe it'll help if I clarify. I'm not asking to pause. I am asking that document. Go ahead, Commissioner Brown. Yeah, I think we're looking for the same thing, which is distribution of it. Because I think Council for Mr. Carney probably doesn't know what they want to take as a position until they see it. So that would be step one, really. Yeah, understood. But I am saying in reserving for the record that I would like an answer to the question, ultimately, once they have had the opportunity and we have had the opportunity to review that document. Can I get back to where we are right now? There is a request to withdraw. This applicant is asking for us to consider their withdrawal of application on two qualifiers. Can I get some guidance? And I also know that we want to make sure Attorney Nozzle is able to respond with respect to the rest of this document. But Councillor Grossman, there's been different references from commissioners and others on which regulation is controlling. I think that right now you could probably all just use a little bit of structure to our thinking. Commissioners, is this the right time to get that from Councillor Grossman? And just some clarity as to what we're supposed to be thinking about. Our next decision in deliberation is on this issue. Madam Chair, I think for me you've talked about assurances a couple of times. Commissioner Maynard talked about assurances. I had a follow up question around assurances. I think all of these questions naturally go to the answer there. I think even Attorney Hall referenced in her presentation how important that will be. All of these questions I think are fair when we're trying to ascertain and answer the question as to whether Mr. Carney has sufficiently disentangled himself with them from MGA. Could you just say the last part because that's the part maybe I'm struggling with that has sufficiently done well. Has sufficiently extricated himself from the affairs of the applicant. So I can jump in if that's okay. There's a couple of things. I would ask Ms. Marni to jump in on the actual regulations. She has those ready to talk about. But can I get to what Commissioner Skinner just mentioned and a few others have as well? And that is what kind of assurances are there going to be and how do we make sure that the representations are enduring and things along those lines. It seems to me that the commission has actually engaged in this type of consideration in the past and on a equally large stage. And that was when the question before it was if Steve Wynn should be de-designated as a qualifier to the Wynn Resorts application. And in that case though it's a totally different situation. There were a number of principles that emerged there and I would just like to mention a few of those before we ask Attorney Monaghan to go through the legal principles because I think these will be helpful to kind of focus on as you're listening to the regulations that are in play. In that case, and there was a written decision that describes all of this, the commission ultimately focused on a couple of things. They focused on whether he was a close associate and whether he had a business association with the company. And there were a number of things that the commission looked at in order to satisfy itself that neither of those things were in existence or could be in existence. And in our case, both of those considerations I would submit are relevant. The term close associate appears in Section 6 of Chapter 23N. So it will be important I think even the applicant would agree that Mr. Carney not be a close associate in order to be effectively removed from consideration. And the second thing is whether he has a business association and as will be described momentarily, that term comes up in the context of the 215.02 subsection 2 where I know this will be repeated but I think it bears repeating again. The rule is that the commission may and its sole discretion require other persons that have a business association of any kind with the applicant to undergo a qualifier review and determination process and that there's a similar regulation on the casino side. So how did the commission go about addressing those issues in the case of Steve Nguyen? Well the first thing it looked at is his ownership interest and whether he still had an ownership interest. The commission was satisfied at that point that he no longer had any ownership interest. They also looked in his involvement in the financing of the construction of the facility and whether he owned any stock or whether there were any ongoing agreements between he and Nguyen Resort and things along those lines. In his case that all of those the commission was satisfied were seven. And certainly it was also important to note whether he had any ongoing involvement in the day-to-day or at any point the operations of the business. And the commission was satisfied in that case that he did not have any ongoing involvement in the operation of the business. And equally as important and a bit more amorphous but related to both of those terms was whether he was having any communications with the officers or directors of the company on an ongoing basis. And the commission recognized in that decision that it would be nearly impossible to establish a condition that said that he's not allowed to have any communication. So instead what it did was it essentially said that any such communications between Steve Nguyen and any officers or directors shall be minimal and unrelated to the operation of the company and any future endeavors. And that to the extent he does have any communications that they shall be reported to the commission in that case through their counsel. And so based upon all of those factors and guardrails if you will the commission ultimately was satisfied that Steve Nguyen was no longer a qualifier. If it's helpful we can get to this perhaps after Attorney Monaghan speaks. But the commission also essentially defined the term in some ways a business association. The term is not defined in a regulation or statute but the commission has a find on it in the past. And we can get into exactly what the commission said about what a business association looks like and its ability to make that determination if that becomes helpful moving forward. But with all of that in mind it may be helpful to ask that Ms. Monaghan now kind of walk through the governing regulations and statutes that determine good cause and whether with the standard for withdrawal. Thanks Todd. Yes so as we discussed earlier there is a statute and a regulation that both address qualifier status. Chapter 23 and section 5B sets out the three or four mandatory I'll just I'll say that you know the following shall be considered to have control of the applicant. And those are the factors that Attorney Maurizio went through previously. They include a person who owns 10% or more of a corporate applicant, a person who owns a beneficial or proprietary interest of 10% more of an applicant's business. And then if the applicant is a corporation certain titled roles president chief executive officer etc. So that's what Attorney Maurizio had walked through previously. There is however 205CMR 215 and 205CMR 215 was promulgated by the commission and does also apply to mandatory and discretionary qualifiers. Section 5B certainly is a statute the legislature did enact it but it is a floor not a ceiling. And so it sets the minimum standards for who has to be considered a qualifier. But the commission is well within its rights to have 205CMR 215 which sets out some additional parameters around qualification. So under 215.021 the following person shall be required to qualify as part of this board's wagering license review. And for a corporation that's each officer each inside director. Any person owning or having another beneficial or proprietary interest in 10% or more of the common stock of the applicant or holding intermediary subsidiary company. And then in the judgment of the division of licensing after consultation with the bureau. Any person with significant and substantial responsibility for the applicant's business under the jurisdiction of the commission are having the power to exercise significant influence over decisions concerning the applicant's operations in the Commonwealth. And that's the factor where there was discussion a little bit earlier today. And then finally when it comes to discretion the commission may in its role in its sole discretion require other persons that have a business association of any kind with the applicant to undergo a qualifier review and determination process. So that's not mandatory but it's discretionary. The commission can decide in its sole discretion to incorporate people as qualifiers who have a business association of any kind with the applicant. And again the term business association is not defined but Todd may have some helpful case law or previous decisions of the commission to add in there. Sorry I missed that last point. I believe Todd said he may have some additional remarks on business association. But other than going back to the windmatter is business associate anywhere in our regulation current regulation for this particular 23 in. There is not a definition of business association in the statute or the recs. Right and so we'd be going back to a case under 23k right. Yes you could look at the ways in which the commission has used the term or interpreted the term previously. But again the commission can today based on the facts determine what it sees as a business association. I guess what I'm wondering when you say business associate is it in our current reg that right now I've been looking at or is it because it's been brought up under the steve windmatter? No no no sorry this is in 205CMR 215.02. So this is 205CMR 215.02. Yeah and I'm sorry because I was reading I'm reading memoranda and regs at the same time. Thank you. There's a lot of regs. And memoranda okay so 1502 say it again please George. It's 205CMR 215.02 subsection two. Subsection two. Not one two two. Thank you. And it says have a business association. Got it. But that's not in any way a defined term under our progress. Correct. Okay. And then the other was the 215.02 1A4 that we referenced before. I believe that's right. And then the statute that Ms. Moritzio went through with us because point wasn't necessarily that we didn't have the authority but it had to be consistent certainly with the statute. Okay. Well and I would just I would say the statute and the and the regulation are different. I don't believe that the I don't know what it means to be consistent with the statute. There are two different sections sort of the statute stands and then the regulation stands. So if we were to be walked through how to think about this we would right now how are we in agreement that except for the two provisions that Caitlin has raised that otherwise there's I don't I'm I'm losing track of what we need to decide if we're going to go forward today on a decision. But we would have to they have to show cause. Would I would say yes. So under 213 the applicant has to show good cause for which all or the qualifier has to show good cause for which all but because of the regulation and the statute in order for there to be good cause they would have to not be a qualifier. So the first so once the commission is done hearing evidence and it moves into deliberations to the extent it wants to move forward today what I would suggest is walking through the factors that we are the statute and the regulation those those bullets that we just discussed you can decide if they apply or don't apply as you go and then once you get through them all you'll basically have a decision on qualifier status. Do they apply based on the representations that are made about to support Mr. Carney's their representations of Mr. Carney not having any more control all the different things that have been represented I'm saying in a very high level. I think it's up to the commission to hear the evidence decide the weight that it wants to give the evidence and then decide sort of on a going on a going on a going forward basis. So so I think on a going forward basis you would determine as of today does the qualifier have these financial business associations etc. or you know do you believe that they have these these business associations. Okay commissioners you want to I think we're looking at two separate provisions. I want to be respectful and make sure that Mr. Nose and Mr. Marizio have the opportunity to speak. I I did know something that I thought was of interest is that in for 215.02 1A4 it's significant and substantial responsibility and it's significant influence. I heard on a Councilor Holland I don't know if it was purposeful but you did use the word residual you did not say significant. Well I think actually when I said residual that was actually from the wind decision. That was a phrase that they used this you know in the question of whether you know someone is kind of sufficiently extricated it's is there any residual influence this one one of the pieces that they that that that the commission looked at in that context and I just really quickly with respect to when I would just note that in that matter before the commission it was clear what Mr. Wynne's role was was the CEO chairman of the board that was very clear so who was the CEO I'm sorry. In that particular matter Steve Wynne was it was it was very clear that Steve Wynne was the CEO. Let's not talk about Steve Wynne. Let's focus on Chris Carney now putting out a difference because I guess I'm going to follow up with this question. I'm having trouble based on everything that's in front of me today and that includes and I know that Mr. Nose still hasn't responded to the full second document. I'm having trouble based on everything that I've heard today and I want to be very respectful of both sides. If I am to assume the representations made to me today on both sides I don't see where Chris Carney has significant influence and significant and substantial responsibility for the applicant's business. Now currently the Sonocast business that we oversee and what I understand is perspective and I also don't see where he would have significant influence over decisions. I do see perhaps Mr. Carney being a little loose-lipped and the loose-lipped is a little bit different than this very serious governance standard that I understand. I guess what I need I need from IEB I need very very clear facts. Where does he have significant influence over the business? Okay well I think also we have a statement but in addition to the statements there are articles from January of 2023 that reflect that he was at the center of the negotiations with the deal with Caesars. There is also an MOU in the record and I'm not going to get into every detail in the MOU but it's related to the sale of the Brockton Fairgrounds and one of the sellers is MGA and that is signed under the very end it says Christopher L. Carney and in that document it indicates that Christopher Carney has the authorization to represent MGA. Now it is signed as attorney in fact but his name is on the bottom of that document. That was from July of 2023 and it's our understanding that that document was signed I believe it was July 14th which was three days prior to the IEB submitting its report. Madam Chair if I may in the interest of time we keep on forgetting to read the entire section under that paragraph 4. It's not just significant and substantial responsibility for the business but that responsibility for that portion of the business that's under the commission's jurisdiction so for example it doesn't matter whether Santa Claus signed an MOU to sell some land in Brockton that's not within the commission's jurisdiction so if Santa Claus signed it on behalf of MGA then that would be the question and that's what that's under your jurisdiction. It's not under your jurisdiction. Respectfully attorney Mauricio this commission looks at the totality of the evidence that is reported so the question is the totality of the evidence that this commission has to decide upon. If you're going to apply the regulation I'm only asking that you apply the regulation as written instead of back and forth sometimes applying the whole regulation sometimes not let's just be consistent otherwise we'll be here for a week. Well with respect to the attorney Mauricio I think some of us had different interpretations of the regulation than you do. Well and Madam Chair if you were looking for an answer from your fellow commissioners. If you have jurisdiction if you have jurisdiction over a sale of real estate in the city of Brockton that's not used for gaming. This commission has jurisdiction over the licensees and there's a jurisdiction to adjudicate applications. At present Chris Carney and the trustees are qualifiers and we are here for dual purposes and we look at the totality of the evidence before so my question for Todd or Caitlin also is in terms of the if good cause is required to be shown can you just remind me what the burden of proof is? Just one moment Commissioner O'Brien I do want to allow I asked a question and Councillor Hall answered with respect to the and it's the MLU which is in our our materials right and so that's and that's that was an example that you gave and then attorney Mauricio I want to make sure you are able to respond in full. Should I be now or later? I think Commissioner O'Brien if you could just hold for a second I know I'm hearing your response but I don't want to cut off Mr. Mauricio. Thank you. I'm just making I'm just trying to make the point that if the conversation at the moment is about the Commission's regulation and we use issues that don't fit the regulation then I don't understand why that's the case we're talking about withdrawal of my clients not the suitability of the applicants this is a very discreet question right now Christopher Connie and the trustees have asked to be withdrawn as a qualifier this regulation of the Commission has been pointed out reading the regulation is not ambiguous it's business under the Commission's jurisdiction the MLU in Barakton signed by attorney not Christopher Connie that deals with a land deal in Barakton doesn't fall under the plain language of your regulation so it shouldn't be relevant considered why I would respectfully say pick up any more of the Commission's valuable time on the issue of Christopher Connie's withdrawal and the trustees withdrawal if for some reason the Commission thinks it's pertinent on suitability of the applicant a bigger question that's another matter but it doesn't apply to our request to withdraw that's the point I'm trying to make thank you. Mr. Chair for this quick point of two points of clarification and without getting into a lot of detail because I know some of this was executive session the land deal with respect to MGA in Barakton has a connection to the promissory note that was submitted in support of the withdrawal the other piece I just want to know is that it's my understanding and you know Attorney Ramizio knows I'll think correctly if I'm wrong and my recollection is that with respect to the Chris Carney trust Mr. Kukuchi who is CFO of MGA is actually still a trustee of the Christopher L. Carney trust and he's an officer for MGA I'm just making sure that the Commission is aware of that it's all in the documents but I just want to hold that in terms of the connections. I'm not entirely sure what the relevance of that is and I'm I guess it seems like we keep adding something else something else something else we're trying to address and I'm responding Attorney nozzle I'm responding to Attorney Ramizio I just want to refer to the Commission here's the IEB's and make sure that they're aware it's a lot of information so I'm just highlighting some of the key points. The pain off of the promissory note by whatever means is not relevant to the withdrawal request of Christopher Carney and the trust that even behind E.B. has acknowledged that transaction the withdrawal of Christopher Carney stock from the trust is finished done. Whether or not George Carney ever pays that promissory note is irrelevant to the question before the Commission that I'm most interested in which is the withdrawal requests. There's nothing within the Commission's jurisdiction to address the promissory note is it a good note is it a bad note Lisa V was brawled it is a legal document it's enforceable it's valid the sale has happened the stock has been transferred the Christopher Carney trust is no longer a shareholder that's an indisputed fact it's also a matter of law as well. So whatever connection there may have been between that trust and the jurisdiction of this Commission we purposely tried to break it to make this easy. Christopher it's done it's over and these ancillary matters like whether or not Chris Carney was running the show in 2020 2022 has no relevance to what we've now done and given to the Commission to demonstrate as of this moment in time going forward. He doesn't meet the qualification standards he has no control over MGA so he should be allowed out and then that part of the process is finished when you move to suitability and qualifications for instance of the applicant then you can start examining what protections you think are necessary what restrictions are necessary all of that but that doesn't have and do all respect that has no relevance to our request to withdraw. I'd be happy to jump in Madam Chair if you can help me. Thank you Councillor Gresson and I appreciate it. Before you get to the legal there was one piece of the information on the document that I did just circulate that was pulled today. I'm going to pause that document is I am I cannot read an email while I'm doing this that document may just be circulated but I'm not unless all the fellow commissioners say let's start talking about it I can't open it up right now I can't do that and conduct this. Madam Chair I hear you and I agree with you on that and I think that the moving parties in front of us should have a right to look at it and respond. I have looked at it I think it's relevant to the broader question which is under the totality of the facts of the veracity of the representations made to us today and we answer the question in front of us so looking at the hour that we is and I am loath to do this but it's five o'clock and we have a roll over date on Monday so unless we're getting ready to the point of voting or looking at that document I would suggest we talk about scheduling for Monday. Can I also add to that I agree with the latter part of what Commissioner O'Brien just said. I think Attorney Moratio's most recent statements kind of it brought some things focused a little bit more for me and it highlighted you know a discussion that we had on August 1st and the difficulty it was to bifurcate these two issues because there's such overlap. I can appreciate that Attorney Moratio's position is that we get to the withdrawal first decide that question and then move on to preliminary suitability and a lot of the things that we're talking about in connection with the withdrawal may be more relevant to the preliminary suitability discussion so I think I'm back at square one essentially in that I don't think we've heard a whole lot today on arguments from either side as to why we should be hearing the withdrawal argument before the preliminary suitability argument and so I know Attorney Grossman initially in his opening remarks made some some comments that practically it makes sense but I'm still you know I still need to be convinced I still want to hear from both sides as to whether or not for instance whether IEB has changed their position from August 1st. You know I don't think that MGA has changed their position but I think there's still a little bit of discussion on that initial question that threshold question that is yet to be had. Councilor Grossman I think I'm not sure if I heard and I'm sorry about the barking dog it's the we have a broken pipe in our office here I am. He's a good dog. Councilor Grossman you started today with the framework indicating and I'm not sure I understood Commissioner Skinner's point entirely because I'm you know just trying to process a lot. You started with the idea well not the idea but the principle that we should resolve the issue of withdrawal first. I have been advocating for that. I am not sure and I have not yet heard ever about legal reason why we would do the opposite. I know it's a position that IEB has adopted. I've heard something about entanglement. I don't necessarily see that entanglement in the same I haven't heard evidence that convinces me of the order but I have heard I have heard from our lawyers that it is recommended that we decide the reversal first and so I'm going to turn to Caitlin and I'm going to turn to Todd to say why did you recommend that and that's why it's written on the agenda in the way it is. I'm happy to address that. It seems to me that if you are going to make a determination as to whether the applicant has established its preliminary suitability IE whether there is substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that this applicant is preliminary suitable that you have to know who the qualifiers are that you're looking at and you have before you a request to remove certain of the present qualifiers from the calculus and it seems to me in order to be able to render a full decision where you have all the facts before you you have to know whether Christopher Carney and the Christopher Carney trust are in or out before you can make a judgment as to whether the remaining applicant and all of its qualifiers are suitable or not it seems to me based on all we've heard that it could affect the outcome of that decision. Now I think that you can do it the other way but it gets a little bit more complicated. I think there is overlap in the facts but the judgment as to whether a qualifier should be in or out is a discrete decision that can in my opinion should be made beforehand. Now I was very comfortable with the idea that you would hear all the presentations at once because I think all the facts are the same basically and Mr. Carney's involvement historically whatever you think it is based upon these facts is relevant to whether potentially relevant to whether MGA has achieved preliminary suitability or not so even if you were to determine that the qualifiers should be allowed to withdraw all the facts you've heard are still relevant to your decision as to whether to award a preliminary suitability to the applicant. I think if I had to just synthesize everything I just said if you determine the qual the withdrawal issue first you will be left with a cleaner record upon which to make the second decision and that's why I am recommending that you do it that way. Thank you Councillor Grossman is that helpful Commissioner Skinner? It is very but you know I think that's that's what we started with essentially and so if I could hear from IEP relative to their position on that. Thank you Commissioner I think it was critically important that you heard all of this information today that was very important to your ability to see the whole picture and have all of the information that IEP has gathered to assist you to assist you in making both the withdrawal decision and the decision on preliminary suitability. So the most important thing to the IEP was that you not consider those two questions in isolation and by hearing all of this information you're not going to be I expect you're not going to be considering them in isolation because you will hear everything that's in you know both of the IEP reports both of the applicants you know the applicants response and all of the discussion today. Councillor Nosal are you leaning in aren't just listening I can't tell. Listening we certainly you know take the position that there's a and I think this is what Director Lillios is is talking about there was a difference between presenting information and facts to the commission and the sequencing of that with the actual deliberations which I think is a secondary issue which I think Attorney Grossman is now summarized you know very well and it's certainly our position that that the determination regarding the request to withdraw should be made prior to considering the suitability of MGA and then once that's completed we're certainly then back in front of you to answer any questions you have regarding the suitability of MGA when it's come to any of the actions that it's taken in connection with its applications and in fact we can go through sort of question by question in the back of that report and provide you essentially answers to those issues that the IEP has suggested that you look at but we really need to make a determination about the scope of what is actually in front of the commission when they're going to ultimately determine the suitability of the applicant. Can I just jump in on process for a second so what had been anticipated I believe in the agenda was hearing all the evidence on suitability and then withdrawal so the evidence is heard right once the evidence is heard the commission then deliberates and that's just the commissioner so there's not you know unless the commissioners have just great questions that they want to put back out to the applicant or Mr. Carney or the IEP they're not sort of engaged in that deliberation so just so just so I think everyone's on the same page I would anticipate all the evidence needs to sort of what I think was supposed to happen is the evidence is supposed to get out and then it's closed and then you move into deliberations. You know I think that's really interesting though because it's not in a judicatory hearing you know I guess I see it differently but it's going to be public right I'm not saying I'm opposed to that but as we sort out process and as I sort of leave the discussion in my role I'm struck by that. You know I think we were trying to create a process that was as close to in a judicatory hearing as possible and also just just to keep it organized right so that at a certain point it's just the commissioners having their deliberations obviously you can you can do whatever you'd like but I was just I just wanted to say that that was what I think from the legal perspective we had envisioned looking at the agenda that was set today so it's just helpful to know going forward how it's going to go. It's discussion and decision because I was going to say the word deliberation I signed up and I was part of these discussions and I knew the word deliberation wasn't used okay and that's probably what caught my ear just now I want to be you know just mindful that I understand this is a public meeting it is not an a judicatory hearing I understand our reg doesn't require it to be an a judicatory hearing I I just want to pop that up so commissioners it isn't it isn't like we're deliberating in a in an a judicatory hearing wanted to make that clear. I have a quick question ma'am Jill sure and it's forming believe it or not I'm finding the sign what to do. Having old ear trouble today forgive me everyone so it's my ears not forward not backwards I'm really trying to thank you I don't know and this is probably for Caitlin and Todd is there any mechanism for a withdrawal motion to be granted with conditions? Absolutely I think that the Steve Winmatter was a withdrawal motion with conditions that's exactly thank you and I believe Attorney Nozzle led with that if I recall it was I think this very day but it's starting to feel like tomorrow so. Commissioner Chair it's provided in the regulation 250.01 I think 2d1 if the commission finds the applicant or qualifier preliminary civil and deems the relevant applicant eligible to request temporary license the commission shall issue a written determination of preliminary suitability of the applicant or qualifier the determination may include conditions or restrictions that's to preliminary suitability again I don't see any reason why we can't do anything in connection with the request to withdraw either. 213 does contemplate conditions too. Yeah 213 thank you thank you and it does it does yeah. Yeah 213 and it's um it's right in 213.012. I'm good then. No two uh four right we don't know. 213.013. 233 and so it's withdrawal of application we've had that where it was withdrawal of application but of course it applies to these on the request for the withdrawal on this case application for a qualifier so where are we um and Commissioner Bryan I'm going to quote you because I I always know when you say low because I know it really is um us your your strong word when you're using it your lows to have it carry over because of the time of five and having to go over and I know next week is a vacation week Commissioner Skinner though she has reserve Monday morning for carry over. I'm going to turn first to my AB I'm going to then turn to our the applicant and commissioners last uh we can continue on into the evening that's a choice or roll it into Monday morning. Madam Chair I would make a recommendation that we roll this over till Monday. It's been a lot of information given a lot of notes being taken and I for one need to digest it and I think moving forward at this point for me is not going to be beneficial so I'm asking that we do roll it over till Monday please. I did just want to check in with um the applicant and IEB Commissioner Hill because I'm not sure about any significance in terms of rolling over uh for some IEB. Thank you Chair. I will defer we will defer the commissioners however you prefer to do it. Let me go to on the applicant then. Uh Commissioner certainly um you know uh you would like to get a decision done on uh in connection with the um requested withdrawal of the discrete issue of that uh obviously uh I'm not going to uh um yeah suggest uh absolutely that should be done tonight at our own uh peril so if it's the um commission's wish and it's going to be more comfortable to do that on Monday we certainly understand that I do again in connection with the um the issues raised in the supplemental report to the extent that we get through the request for withdrawal we do have a few responses in connection with suitability of MPA that we'll still need to uh present as well just for you know scheduling purposes so I think we're going to Monday on that piece uh regardless. So we would start with that because that's finishing up um you know what we had rolled over before we start in the decision making process of the withdrawal. Councillor Crossman um so sorry Mr. Mayor it's my fault. Thank you. Thank you um I echo what Attorney Nozo said except I think uh the discrete issue of having Chris Connie and the trustees withdraw um there really isn't any additional information I do recognize Commissioner Hill that there is a you may want to look at a lot of this but we would certainly agree to any reasonable conditions on withdrawal that will give the commission the comfort that we're not going to undo what we've agreed to do and I think if you the commission pleases and would take on that very discrete issue you will then be able to spend time Monday on all the more complicated issues that still have to be addressed. I'm very fearful that if you go to Monday without having to you know resolve the withdrawal issue we'll spend many more hours on withdrawal and God knows how much longer all this will take. So I for one would ask the commission set your conditions to make sure the withdrawal is solid we tried to make it solid we thought of everything we could think of to give the commission the comfort that it would want that's why we put it together as I've said before the withdrawal is disrupted the way it is so as counsel for those parties I would ask the commission to please take up withdrawal today. Madam Chair. Now I'll turn to my fellow commissioners Mr. Ciel. Hey Commissioner Hill. I can appreciate your comments. I want time to understand what those conditions might be and it's going to take me a little bit of time to put that pen to paper. I am at a point now Madam Chair where I want to roll this over to Monday. Cut and dry and to a point. I understand Commissioner Hill. Commissioner O'Brien. I agree for a couple of reasons one of them is to honor my fellow commissioners request and the other being that the document that was forwarded I would like the applicant and the petitioner on this motion to have a chance to respond before I make a decision on the motion to disqualify. Not a part please. I'm sorry. Motion to withdraw qualifications be disqualified however the term is that you want to use. Yeah okay thank you. Commissioner Skinner. So I don't know if I'm repeating what Commissioner O'Brien said. I didn't quite hear it sorry but I am okay with rolling this over to Monday but I do think to you know to respond to Attorney Maurizio's request that we decide the matter of the withdrawal first. I don't think we can do that because as Attorney Nozzle indicated he has a response to the IEB's supplemental preliminary suitability report. So I think the chair said it earlier I think we've got to close that out first because the the whole idea of rolling this over to today from August 1st is to hear all of that evidence at the same time. So I want there to be a clear understanding that on Monday morning we are starting with giving you your opportunity to respond to that supplemental documentation and information before we launch into the withdrawal determination. I can hear him. Yeah sorry I just there are two separate motions and again my points that if you look at even the way the IEB supplemental responses structure has got two sections on what you're supposed to or proposed which we have disagreed with on how to assess withdrawal then it goes separately into the considerations that you want to take up for purposes of assessing MG Massachusetts Greyhound Association's suitability. So I'm merely suggesting that the to get to that piece you can still you know certainly and we think most appropriate decide the request to withdraw. In fact a lot of the questions that the IEB has raised are based on the predicate that Mr. Carney is going to be withdrawn. Carney although I do understand your position but I think this commission has already indicated that it would like to hear all of the evidence on those two distinct matters at once and so if that includes if the evidence some additional evidence on preliminary suitability includes your response to IEB's report the most recent one trying to get a date August 16 then I think we need to hear that as part of the overall as part of you know honoring the overall request that came out of the meeting on August 1st. Again the discussion on August 1st is about the sequencing of how things were going to be essentially presented not decided. So I think you know we're suggesting the decision elements we made on the request for withdrawal then we can move to finalize the decision on the preliminary suitability of MGA. Okay Attorney Nozo I must have misunderstood you then. I thought you said a couple of times today that you had you wanted an opportunity to respond to the IEB's August 16th report because there are some things included in there that you haven't had a chance to speak to. So if I'm wrong about that then absolutely let's go right into the determination as to the withdrawal but you know again it would be disingenuous of you to suggest that the purpose of combining the presentations or not combining them but hearing them all at once was not the goal for today. I think you know Commissioner Maynard started this conversation. I distinctly remember his comments in terms of him not being comfortable making a decision on either matter without hearing presentations on both. So I'm of the same mind. So if you're again if you're telling me that you don't have anything more to present on preliminary suitability then that's fine. I do have additional information to present on preliminary suitability as it pertains to MGA and a very discreet and small issue pertaining to George Carney. Nothing on Christopher Carney. Well but we're not we're not discussing suitability of Christopher Carney so that that's that I don't understand the relevance of that statement. Until Christopher Carney is withdrawn as a qualifier. That's right. Right so what Attorney Nozzle is saying is that he has no comments to make on the issue of our request to withdraw. So we're ready to have the Commission vote on our request to withdraw. We said all we need to say we believe on that discreet issue the IEB is you have the record I have no desire to respond to the August 16th supplemental IEB report any more than we've already addressed it within the context of the withdrawal requests. Right. So we're ready to go if you will. Right I understand all that I just did I just don't understand the IEB's report the August 16th report to be speaking to Chris Carney's suitability exclusively that encompasses MGA's suitability so I don't I don't know if I'm confusing myself here but I do think that they're related. So let me see if you have evidence that you would like to present on preliminary suitability for the applicant then I think you have to do that before we get to a determination on the withdrawal and I'll stop there because we're with circular now but I have an understanding you have an understanding and if we need to continue this discussion on Monday we can do that but I've already said where I stand very quickly as it may help for clarification I understand fully suitability issue of MGA the applicant may need to deal with Chris Carney but the reverse is not true the withdrawal request for Chris Carney is not influenced by MGA or any of the suitability questions from MGA because we've severed unquestionably all connections between Mr. Chris Carney and the trust with the applicant so that's why we're asking it to be recognized the withdrawal request to be recognized as a discreet issue there's nothing that attorney knows who can say on Monday about MGA and the applicant that I'll have any relevance to our withdrawal request. Mr. Merritt say I'm going to help you out here I think that commissioners and I think I can exclude myself on this because I have had trouble thinking about this from the start but I think the other my fellow colleagues would like to hear everything and anything that's left to be said about the submissions before we start deciding even though your point may be one that they may in fact be agreeing with I can't tell I think that under process even if you're in agreement with you they still want to have everything said before we go into the decision mode on withdrawal um and so commissioners am I interpreting that correctly or do you I want to offer Mr. Merritt say I'll up something else because if I could answer the first question my own chair yes and I think commissioner Skinner said what you said I would I'm in agreement with that and then there is that discreet document that was produced today and I just want to know if there is any response or supplementation to it in connection with both the motion to dequalify and the suitability okay now I'm going to ask another question and it may not because I know suitability is ongoing um do we all agree after this piece of you know documentation that there will be no more and it's not evidence because it's not an adjudicatory hearing no more introduced until we decide I mean I know I am having trouble where you know what do we do if it's continuing work on either side um how do we how do we manage this commission may not help me out I um I I just I feel like I can't abrogate my duties let's let's say something totally came in this weekend right I agree I can't hamstring myself no we can't we can't I guess either side okay so everything is just you can continue and produce and we'll just have to keep on figuring this out um it is different I haven't had it happen in the course of one of our proceeding so um it was it's it's different for management purposes commissioner Maynard so I agree we can't hamstring that's not fair um I mean I think the fact that there's so much push and pull about whether that evidence gets presented before we make the withdrawal decision I think that's that's quite telling I mean what what is there what is there that you know we should know I'm not I don't think what I'm saying is what what is there that we shouldn't hear from MGA's perspective before on preliminary suitability before we make the withdrawal I think we're on agreement I think I think we're all in agreement that we'll hear fully that the response and then in terms of documents I understand there's something that's being circulated we're going to see that and my only question was you know I don't know if we'll see more new material before Monday morning um and I'm hearing from commissioner Maynard saying we can't hamstring and I respect that um I want I just want to be mindful of our practice that during public meetings typically we do give ourselves a little bit of notice and time to digest things this is not an adjudicatory hearing um so uh Mr. Maurizio I think that we'll start with um Mr. Nozzle and um we'll hear also on this document and then we'll go into decision making I would ask that um parties remain available for us to be able to ask questions commissioners unless you disagree with that could you repeat that chair I'm wondering if parties remain available meaning both IEP and the applicant remain available for us to ask questions during our decision making or if um if that's a problem I want to make sure that it's truly our deliberations Madam Chair so I would not recommend they sort of be active participants and listen until we decide we want to hear from them well are we deliberating that's the fundamental question that I have I mean I know this wasn't marked up as an adjudicatory hearing all of the other application reviews were um unclear as to why this is not um so could someone shed light on that there is a there is a regulation on point and that and that was something that Todd was able to clarify with me commissioner Skinner in advance I did ask that same question counselor yeah actually none of them have been done in adjudicatory proceeding they're all been public meetings but this is consistent with them deliberations there's no deliberations and that's why I think the chair made that point earlier it's not technically a deliberation it's really just a discussion okay we reach a conclusion I mean the term deliberation takes on different context under the open meeting law it is a deliberation because you're making a decision but it shouldn't be confused with the type of deliberation that happens in an adjudicatory yeah you're right I'm thinking back we did make determinations on preliminary suitability in a public meeting thank you there's no constitutional rights at issue here so there's no requirement that there'd be an adjudicatory proceeding I guess my question isn't answered though I heard commissioner Brian say no but I am not sure if I'm prepared to just agree with her I would I guess I would welcome parties being available that's going to be helpful for us on back questions that may arise Chair just just for full disclosure um Christopher Carney is scheduled to be out of the country you may be able to dial in but I just wanted to let the commission know that for Monday the rest of the team certainly will be available and that your deliberations are covered under 218.064 which are not adjudicatory and in a public meeting we're not under 218.064 so that's not really the second section I will actually not be in state either I'll be not out of the country but I'm not sure what my Wi-Fi six duration is going to be Monday morning I will make every effort to be here but I'm not sure I'll be able to I I couldn't hear you Todd but I'm hearing something about your spouse which makes me very concerned I'm going to be out of state on Monday and next week I will certainly make every effort to be available I'm not sure what the Wi-Fi situation is where I'll be but I will do my best well we're going to need you Todd I hate to say it um that's a game changer for me I don't know if we recognize we realize that when we reserve Monday um I'm sure I can at least I I am feeling um I I am not a Grinch in real life I am not a Grinch commissioners help me out from five of us I know Commissioner Hill is ready to leave we are ready to roll this it is going to be rolled over now the question is is Monday the right day it sounds like Councillor Grossman is out to be um I am not comfortable going you know so I thought he said he could at least call in even if he couldn't be I think that was Chris Carney I'm not sure did no I thought Todd said the same thing did you say you know I'm I will make every effort to be here I have no reason to believe they don't have Wi-Fi where I'm going but um I'm just not sure exactly what the situation is this Wi-Fi and cell phone the same thing phones yeah I'm sure I can call in you can get old school and call it on a landline yeah I yeah um I I just pointing that out just in case I'm late or something like that I'm not sure but it should be fine I'll I'll deal with it and we'll figure something Councillor a Commissioner Maynard I just had an image of Todd on a payphone on the beach in my cottage it is a um a phone that's attached to the wall so I appreciate that I'm going to respect my wheelchair actually I I don't think you got around to me I I was I was going to I think I made up my I think I made up my mind I think I know what I'm going to do but I've got to respect my fellow commissioners I've got to um I'm going to continue to serve with these distinguished folks long after this decision is made so definitely I'm going to respect that I do want to take a second especially Christopher Mr. Christopher Carney is not going to be here on Monday to say thank you for this thing turning Marito and Jed Nozol council hall and and the Bureau this has been a very difficult long day but it's actually been very informative I highly appreciate the candor and your willingness to to engage in the process for this for this peerless privilege thank you for that Commissioner Maynard I'm very important um and so but I what I was turning to you was are we comfortable would you like to have um uh the parties available during our decision and I ask that only for their planning purposes both IAB and the parties does it matter to you honestly it does not matter I will make a determination the way I'm okay um I just want that feedback a little bit Commissioner Hill would you like them to be available um I feel the same way as Commissioner Maynard okay um and Commissioner Skinner would you like them to be available yes that would be helpful to me okay Commissioner O'Brien um it would be helpful to you possibly okay so thank you I know that's a that's a further burden and perhaps we'll be able to excuse you as we proceed um so we'll start off in the morning with Monday morning with the updates from the applicant uh Councillor Holly you'll be available we'll make sure we get all the information ahead of us and then we'll proceed to our decision on the withdrawal first and unless that's debated on Monday but right now I understand that is our general council's recommendation so anything else except um I I echo um my fellow commissioner Maynard's thoughtful remarks it's been a long day everybody here has done their their best and I appreciate that um all parties it's um been a difficult day and I do also um appreciate uh Chris Carney being willing to speak on the record today and I'm not sure if we saw Mr. Carney uh George Carney there or not um but I um I appreciate all the um there I George Carney's here with us yeah yeah thank you I thought so appreciate all that we're in attendance on behalf of the applicant and to um my colleagues in IEB have a good weekend you did some really good work today so thank you everybody can I just have clarification on on something you said about starting with the withdrawal first on Monday I did say we may discuss it further okay okay okay it starting with the withdrawal determination uh making that decision first um I might agree makes sense to me um but again I would request that that be after the preliminary suitability evidence has been exhausted we're going to start with the preliminary absolutely everybody all the evidentiary stuff is going to go first and then I think right now it's just reiterating what was recommended by counsel Grossman as to starting with the decision around uh the um request for um we we move on withdrawal I guess I should say we'll we'll try that in our minds we'll see if that proceeds but that it's the plan as in accordance with our agenda an agenda was filed for Monday and I think it reflects that uh Commissioner Skinner so but uh to your point all the all the information is going to come out first okay and in that case move to adjourn if you're calling for the motion right now thank you so um um with my thanks for everybody again and I know I say that on behalf of all the commissioners do I have a motion to adjourn is this a motion to adjourn or are we uh continuing this on to Monday this is I believe the way that we've done this is motion to adjourn we have a full another agenda yeah so motion to did somebody move yes indicated it already yeah oh I thought I had heard of sorry uh Commissioner Skinner okay and then second Commissioner Hill any other discussion I'm going to pry my ears for Monday again my my sincere thanks uh Commissioner O'Brien I Commissioner Hill I Commissioner Skinner I Commissioner Maynard I vote yes thank you everyone I