 Go and thank you everyone. We're good to go. Okay. Good morning. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We have a full schedule today. We are holding this meeting virtually, so we will do our roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Good morning and good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. Good morning. All right. We'll get started. Today is the last day of November. It's November 30th. We're starting around 10 at public meeting number 490. I'm going to turn right to Commissioner Maynard for item number 2. Thank you, Madam Chair. The March 8th and the March 9th minutes are not ready for prime time to steal a phrase from Commissioner Hill, and so I would like to roll those over if possible. We'll plan on them for the December 14th meeting. Excellent. Okay. I think you have planned three other sets too, so we'll have a full set of minutes. Thanks, Commissioner Maynard. Thank you to Judy. We'll turn then right to the administrative update. You have a couple of items today. Todd, good morning. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to you, and to you commissioners and to our team, and all who are joining us here today. I do have those two matters that the Chair referred to as part of the update. First, we'll hear from our Deputy General Counsel, Kerry Therese and Caitlin Monahan, who will update you as to recent legal developments related to the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, who have, of course, previously expressed an intent to develop a casino in Tundin. Then we'll turn to our Chief Financial and Accounting Officer, Derek Lennon, who will discuss recent developments relative to the withholding of certain winnings related to sports wagering. Before we begin, though, I just wanted to quickly introduce or reintroduce, as the case may be, our newest Deputy General Counsel, Justin Stempeck, who is on screen now. You'll likely see him over the course of this meeting. So I just quickly wanted to make the formal introduction. As many of you will recall, Justin was with us a number of years ago as an associate general counsel. So he was quite familiar with the commission and its mission and its governing laws and returns to us now, having worked in the sports wagering and licensing space for the past few years. So brings that enhanced skill set to our team as well. We're really excited to have him rejoin the team. So welcome to you, Justin. Interestingly, Anapa was Justin and I, who first presented an overview of the information relative to the legal status of the tribe many years ago. And so now we'll turn to Carrie and Caitlin to continue on in that vein. So Madam Chair and commissioners, if I may, I'll turn it over to Carrie and Caitlin to present that matter to you now. Good morning to you both. Yes, good morning. Thank you, Todd. I just wanna echo Todd's sentiment. Welcome back to Justin. We're really excited to have him on board and joining us again. So with that, we'll turn to our tribal updates. So there's been a recent decision in the tribal litigation. So we just wanted to provide you with a brief update today. I'll give you a little bit of background and then I'll turn it to Caitlin to discuss the decision in a little bit more detail. So of course, as you all know, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or IGRA governs tribal gaming. And under IGRA, in order to offer gaming on its land, a tribe needs to have land interest. The Indian Reorganization Act or the IRA authorizes the secretary of the interior to acquire land and hold it in trust for the benefit of the tribe. And as the legal department has previously presented to you, the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe has been involved in longstanding litigation over the Bureau of Indian Affairs 2015 decision to take land into trust for the tribe, specifically a parcel of land in Taunton. This particular litigation began in 2016 when a group of Taunton residents sued the Department of the Interior challenging that 2015 decision. And the litigation has revolved largely around the definition of the word Indian in the Indian Reorganization Act, specifically whether the tribe was under federal jurisdiction in 1934 and whether the tribe falls within that definition of Indian such that land could be taken into trust for it. So as I mentioned, there's been a recent decision in this litigation. So I will turn it over to Caitlin to discuss that with you. Thanks, Carrie. So yes, as Carrie mentioned, this litigation started back in 2016 based on the Department of the Interior's 2015 record of decision. And there have been several different cases since then. But right now I'm just gonna talk to you about the case that was resolved on October 31st, 2023 in the First Circuit here in Massachusetts. But to talk about that, I need to give you a little bit of background, which is that in 2021, again, after much litigation, the Department of the Interior issued a record of decision finding again that the tribe met their requirements to have land taken into trust and that the tribe could conduct gaming activities on that land. The residents of Taunton, certain residents of Taunton, then appealed the record of decision to the federal district court for the district of Massachusetts, arguing that the decision was arbitrary and compretious. The district court disagreed and found that the decision was not arbitrary and compretious and granted the Department of the Interior and the tribe's motion for summary judgment. So that basically ended the case in the district court. The residents, however, then appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the dismissal or the granting of the motion for summary judgment. That case was in the First Circuit and then on Halloween this year, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in favor of the Department of the Interior and the tribe and in doing so found that the 2021 record of decision was not arbitrary and compretious. So while the Taunton residents can still appeal to the Supreme Court, there's a 90 day window for that appeal. As everyone knows, there's no guarantee that the court will hear the case. It doesn't have to take every case that is appealed up to it. And as such, the litigation over whether the federal government may take land into trust for the tribe may very well be over. So we will know within a couple of months if the appeal has been made. And I will of course update the commission at that point, but at this point in time, this litigation may be done. So happy to take any questions. Madam chair. Yes, Michelle. So as a relatively new commissioner now from when this started, what are the opportunities or options now moving forward? Sure, for the tribe? Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, absolutely. So as Carrie mentioned at the beginning, in order for a tribe to conduct gaming on its land under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, land has to be held in trust for the tribe. So that's what all of this litigation has been about, whether land can be held in trust. Technically, the tribe has had land in trust since 2015, since that 2015 decision. While there has been litigation, the land has been in trust that whole time. So the tribe could have started moving forward with introducing, you know, building a gaming facility, moving through the steps that need to take to start gaming on the lands during that time. But of course it's understandable that that hasn't happened given the ongoing litigation. So basically now that this case is almost done, probably done, the tribe will have much more certainty in its decision-making moving forward as to whether and how it wants to move forward with gaming on the land. And just as a follow-up, should they choose to do that? Is it a negotiation with the administration? In this case, the Healy administration or how do they move forward? Should they choose to do so? It's a good question. So in order to move forward with gaming on tribal lands, a tribe does need a compact with the state. The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe does have a compact with the state. And the compact does address both brick and mortar gaming and sports wagering. And so that compact is already in place. And my understanding is that they would of course, tell the administration that they were planning to move forward and there might be some communications, but they would move forward under that compact. And do you know when the compact was signed? Oh, it was a while ago. I do not remember the date, but it was at least 10 years ago, I think. I think for educational purposes, if we're allowed to see that compact, that would be helpful. Absolutely. We can absolutely circulate that. Thank you. That's all I got, Madam Chair. Thanks, Commissioner Hill. Excellent questions. In terms of the certainty that you mentioned, the expiration of the 90 days, does that provide ultimate certainty or is there a possibility of a different DOI coming in and disrupting? Once they can rely on it, correct? I think they can rely. Once the 90 days are up, which should be end of January, if my math is right. Yeah, the case is done. It has been litigated and it is done. Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions on this? Really important update, Caitlin and Carrie, thank you. And then I guess probably just a tickler to remind us when that 90 days expires. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Todd. All right, thank you both. Well, I believe the compact was signed in March of 2013 for the record, but we'll get that over to you. If we can now turn over to our CFAO, Derek Lennon. We'll talk a little bit about the withholding of certain sports wagering winnings. Good morning, Derek. Good morning, Todd. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. This should be a very quick update. Just wanted to give a heads up to the commission that the Massachusetts Department of Revenue updated their regulations for sports wagering and they are requiring that any bets that are at least $5,000, the return, the win is at least $5,000 and it's a 300 times multiplier of the initial bet requires operators to withhold the 5% income tax and take that from the wager and then the player can work that out at the end of the year when they do their taxes but this is something that was not necessarily clear in March. This reg was filed under emergency reg in July and it's retroactive to July. So Doug and I have a little bit of work to do with the operators to make sure that these have actually been withheld going back to July. So just wanted to give all of you a heads up that this reg went into place. We knew that under the federal law they were required to withhold but under Massachusetts law it hadn't been updated when we implemented sports wagering. DOR had told the operators that they should anticipate this, very transparent about it. So we do anticipate that they have been withholding but we're gonna go back and check with each operator as well as work with our partners at DOR to make sure that they are getting what is owed to the Commonwealth. Thanks Derek, I would just add to that. This is essentially a parallel provision to the one that exists in the casino gaming space on the table game side. It's outlined in a statute. So this was designed to parallel that. Correct, table games have this same withholding and slots are at 1200. Questions for Derek, commissioners? All set. If we've come across anything we will definitely let you know if there are any problems as we start working with the operators but we do not anticipate any. Thank you for your good work. Thank you to Doug. Thank you. All right, commissioners. We're all set then to turn to item number four. Good morning, Mark. We have Mark Vandalinen, director of research and responsible gaming and we have a presentation and Dr. Andrews is on. So good morning, Bonnie. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Yeah, we have an economic impact report examining Encore Boston Harbor's first three and a half years of operation. Dr. Andrews was very much involved with this and working with the research team. So I'm going to turn it over to Bonnie. Thank you, Mark. And good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. It's really wonderful to be here today to introduce this presentation. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has an inter-agency service agreement with the University of Massachusetts Amherst to carry out social and economic research as defined in Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 23, sections 23K, section 71. Since 2013, the team of researchers collectively known as the social and economic impacts of gambling in Massachusetts or Sigma has produced a range of studies to inform the commission and stakeholders about the impacts resulting from the introduction of casinos in the Commonwealth. Through the establishment of the casino industry in Massachusetts, lawmakers provided avenues for the creation of new jobs, revenue and economic growth in the state. The purpose of this operating report is to use casino data to estimate the economic impact of the Encore Boston Harbor Casino on the Massachusetts economy during its first three and a half years of operation. To estimate the economic impact, the UMass Donahue Institute's Economics and Public Policy Research Unit included two key sources of economic impact, casino operations, so spending on vendors, employees and government entities, and patron spending within the casino as well as in Everett and the surrounding region. This report allowed the Sigma team to gain valuable insight into the ways that Encore Boston Harbor interacted with Massachusetts economy as it resumed normal operations after the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings include insights about employment, spending by Encore Boston Harbor and patrons and revenues. It is my absolute pleasure to introduce Dr. Rachel Wolberg, principal investigator of the Sigma study for the presentation of this report and introduction of team members joining her today. So thank you Dr. Wolberg for being here today. Thank you Bonnie. Good morning chair and commissioners. It's a pleasure to be back in front of you with a presentation on this report on Encore Boston Harbor. Just to add a little more context, this is the third report in a series that looks at the overall economic impacts of each of the casinos in Massachusetts. So the Playbridge Park Casino and the MGM Springfield reports, both focused on the first full year of operations of those casinos. However, the timing of the opening of Encore Boston Harbor in mid 2019 and the intervening pandemic meant that the first full year of operations at Encore was actually 2022. So I'm going to very quickly turn this over to Tom Peake. He is a senior research analyst at the University of Massachusetts at the Donahue Institute and a longtime member of the Sigma Economic and Fiscal Team. Tom oversaw the analysis and we're excited to have him present the results to you. And with that, I will turn things over to Tom. Thanks Rachel. Thanks everyone for having me. It's great to be here. I always have to say this is one of my favorite projects and I really appreciate the opportunity to work on this stuff. For this one, should I just share my screen or do you have the slides queued up somewhere? I'm trying to remember how we did this in the past. Commissioners, I think we should have him share because it might be helpful for even the public. Even we do have our own packet, Tom, but I think it will be helpful. Thanks. Unless anybody objects. It just means we won't see faces. Should we, commissioners, should we hold for questions to the end, maybe? Is that helpful? I'm seeing. Sure. Okay, let's do that. Looking forward to it, Tom. Thank you. Thank you. I'll get this started. There we go. So once again, thank you for having me. This is our report on the first three and a half years of operation at Encore Boston Harbor. Like Rachel said, three and a half is kind of a weird number, but the reason for that is that Encore opened up in the summer of 2019 and then 2020 and 2021 were sort of unusual years as I'm sure you all remember. So we ended up the first year where there was really a full year of operation at Encore without any sort of restrictions or closures was 2022. So where we had normally done sort of a first year of operation check-in, that really the first year that we could really look at is 2022, but we did also want to report a little bit on what happened in the meantime and how the various stages of the pandemic affected the operation of the casino. So that is sort of where we are. And so we'll sort of switch throughout the report from talking about sort of time series of how things evolved over time to really talking in more detail about 2022 as the most recent full year and also the first year where they really had like a full year of operation. So summary of findings for 2022. On average, there were about 3,249 people employed in any given pay period at Encore Boston Harbor. And over the course of the year, they paid out $206 million in wages when you plug their operations into our economic impact model. The total statewide impact, including those jobs, we're estimating at about 9,917 jobs, $1.1 billion in personal income and $1.3 billion in value added. So that's gross state product, basically. Net new economic activity. That isn't just the jobs that drive that. It's also $85.4 million in spending to vendors for intermediate goods and services. Not all that's in Massachusetts, but a lot of it is. There's $197.4 million in payments to government entities. So that includes the gross gaming revenue, but also just normal taxes that any business would pay. There's $137.9 million in what we are estimating is new off-site spending from casino visitors. Probably would not have been in the area already. But to sort of offset that, there's also about 305.5 million in reallocated spending from the rest of the economy to the casino. And that being said, from our patron survey, we're estimating that 71% of the patron spending was new to the state. I've gone over, this slide's been a number of presentations, but just to sort of show, we're gonna be sometimes having things broken down regionally. We use a regional economic model produced by regional economic models incorporated. It's actually based right here in Western Mass. And it's a county-based model. So we have broken the state out into six regions. These are our regions. So if you see them going forward, this is what we mean. We're collecting employment data, expenditure. We're getting from your website, revenue numbers, and we have been conducting, although this is our, I think this will probably be our last one, but we have been conducting a survey of patrons to get a sense of the sort of behavioral patterns of the patrons. So yeah, as you can see, the actual sort of high point up until very recently of employment at Encore was sort of in early 2020, pre-pandemic 2020. Actually, that is still the high point. There was a drop-off, but obviously when everything's shut down, but Encore, I think, was able to keep a good deal of their staff on payroll, for a while, longer than a lot of the other casinos. So that does affect the economic impact because that's money that those people received during the pandemic to help them out. And that money then found its way into the rest of the economy. When we looked at payroll data, most of Encore's employees are tightly, pretty tightly clustered around the casino, although there are some spread of people throughout Eastern Massachusetts, but it really is the host and surrounding communities are the host to definitely the majority of Encore's employees. In terms of payments to third parties, there were some of these groups really fell off during the pandemic. And if you're not serving food, you're not gonna buy as much food and whatnot, but there were other things, first financial services and whatever that continued to receive a good deal of money. So even during the period where operations were shut down or slow, there was still some money going out to businesses, including some businesses in Massachusetts. And the high, the 2020 represents the most, or 2022 represents the high point so far for vendor spending from Encore. And as you can see, that spending made its way all over the United States including Massachusetts, but also plenty of other states. And then within Massachusetts, there's some of that spending found its way to firms in various parts of the state, although definitely heavily concentrated in Eastern Massachusetts and particularly around Boston, which is to be expected. I wanna go a little bit into our patron spending work. And again, there was a separate report on our patron survey. We use the results of that patron survey to make some assumptions about people's behavior. But really broadly, we have about six different profiles of patrons based on where they're coming from and how they answer some questions. But really the spending is broken down into basically three groups in our approach. So new spending is spending that would not have occurred in Massachusetts if Encore, Boston Harbor had never opened. It's not new to the US or the global economy, but it's new to Massachusetts. So this includes recaptured patrons, which is the word we use for patrons who were previously gambling in perhaps Connecticut or Rhode Island, but who are Massachusetts residents that are now gambling locally, as well as any new tourists who are coming in specifically to visit the casino, who otherwise would not have come to Massachusetts. Reallocated spending is spending that would have occurred in Massachusetts otherwise, but on other goods and services. And incidental spending can really only be offsite, but it's spending that was reported by a patron, but that we decided probably would have occurred anyway. So just as an example, if there's somebody who is reporting that they spent some money at a restaurant in Everett during the course of their visit, but they live in Everett, then there's really no reason why we would believe that that spending would not have occurred. Were it not for the casino? So we just sort of, we don't wanna count that towards the casino's economic impact one way or another. This is a really important thing for us to look at because as I'm sure you're all very aware in the lead up to the casinos getting legalized, this was one of the big, these were two of the big questions, sort of public policy questions driving the debate is on one hand, people, we were aware that there was a lot of Massachusetts residents who were spending money out of state. And there was a thought that you could really generate a lot of economic impact by having those people spend that same money here in Massachusetts. And then on the other hand, there was a lot of concern that people might shift their spending away from various local small businesses and towards the casino. So we do our best to try and account for all of this and count the spending a little bit differently depending. So when it comes to onsite spending, well, so just in terms of spending in general, to start about 65% of the reported spending was gambling spending. That reached its high point in 2022. We did one patron survey. We didn't think it was probably a good or safe idea to be doing patron surveys during the pandemic. So we did have to infer that sort of the shares of spending that we saw in our patron survey were gonna be realistic across the time. And we recognize that there's probably some cases where that is not a perfect estimate, but it is the best data that we have. So yeah, like I said, the majority of the spending was gambling spending. People also did report non-gambling spending on and off site in the course of their visit, which came out in 2022, almost $240 million in onsite non-gambling spending and $151 million in off-site, estimated off-site spending. In terms of that money, about 70% of what was reported spent, total across gambling and non-gambling on-site and off-site, we are estimating about 70% of that spending is new to Massachusetts, which is to say probably would not have occurred in Massachusetts were it not for the casinos, where, and then about 29%, which we think is reallocated away from other businesses. So that comes out to about $326 million in 2022. And then a very small share is just incidental that we just don't really want to count. In terms of the patron survey by place of residents, we found that out of the people that we surveyed, there was a real concentration of people within sort of the 495 corridor. There were some people visiting from farther away. And if we expanded this map out, there were some people from other parts of the country, but really the strong majority of the patrons that were surveyed were close to the casino, which means that the real question in determining what the exact economic impact of these patrons are, are these people who would have otherwise gambled out of state or are they people who are shifting their spending away from other things in the region and to the casino? And as I showed in the last slide, the majority of the spending we do believe would not have occurred in states if not for the casinos. So I know that was a bunch of information, but just here to sort of summarize it as inputs into our economic model. We have the inputs from on course operations itself, so that's employment, wages, intermediate or business to business spending, and government revenue, which we then model as new government spending. And then there's impacts from shifts in consumer spending. So that includes new offsite spending by casino visitors as well as reallocated in state consumer spending. So we model that as a decrease in consumer spending at other businesses other than the casino. When we put these together, we get our total economic impacts. So these were in the beginning, but about 9,900 jobs that we're estimating are created or supported by the casino's operations, including about 7,500 in the private sector. The remainder are mostly government jobs that were created by or supported through the revenue that was collected from the casino. Output, which is sort of common parlance, that's be sales about 1.6 billion and value added. So that's sort of net new economic activity or gross state product, 1.3 billion and personal income of about 1.1 billion and new personal income from, and again, these include the operations of the casino, the direct spending, and then the sort of economic ripple effects that come off of that spending. Regionally, the impacts are fairly concentrated in Metro Boston itself, which is not surprising. It's by far the largest and most populous region with the biggest economic impact. There is some spending that makes its way out and does create or support some jobs in other parts of the state. A lot of that is from the fact that a good deal of gross gaming revenue ends up as local aid. So really most communities are receiving at least a little bit of money from the casino's operation. This breaks it out to see what the various sources of the employment impacts are. So out of private non-farm employment, which is 7,500, you see about half of those are jobs at the casino. A good deal are jobs created by the business to business spending that the casino does. And then induced spending would be if the casino employees or other people who had money in their hands because of the spending, then they go out and they spend money in the community and that creates new economic activities itself that has its own sort of, we sometimes colloquially call like ripple effects. And then again, about 2,000 government jobs that are also created or supported at state and local government levels, either directly by the revenue or by new tax revenue generated from those ripple effects. So that is my presentation. Once again, I really have to say like, there aren't a lot of opportunities for people who do economic impact work to really actually get access to operating data of a company that currently exists. A lot of this is theoretical stuff about companies that we think might exist in the future. So it's really exciting and fun to be able to do these things and I really appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, Tom, for that. And I do want to express my appreciation for your acknowledgement of those individuals who helped from both the MTC and others. So thank you very much. Commissioners, let's ask our questions now and Dr. Volberg is here still too as well as that's on Dr. Andrews and Director Vandal Linden but we can direct our questions to Tom. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner. So very good report and a report that I'm not surprised by the numbers and pleasantly surprised at others. One question that I have that I, you may not have the answer to this but it's something that I certainly would like to look into. When I'm looking at where the money is coming from so we see most of the patrons are from Metro Boston, the majority. And then you showed us a chart, the Berkshires and Southeastern Mass. Any idea through this report or data collection where our Cape Cod residents are going for gaming activities? Well, it's something that we could get. I think the one thing is with our patron surveys so far we haven't collected a ton of Cape Cod residents. So reporting out on them, it's just such a small sample size that it gets a little dicey to report too much on them. But we have some other data collection protocols that we're working on developing right now that should give us a better sense of sort of the geographical origins of patrons. So I think that's something that we're going to be in a much better position to record on in the coming year or so. Okay. As I thought, it's just interesting when you see where the patrons are coming from, there's not a lot coming or at least from what we just saw coming from that neck of a woods. It's coming from different areas. So just a curiosity is more than anything. Madam Chair, that was it. It was a great report. And as I said, very pleasantly surprised at how well the numbers are coming in and where they're coming from and spending and things of that sort. Thanks, commissioner. Commissioner, commissioner Brian, are you all set? Yeah, the only and the only question I'm wondering is the, when you attribute the jobs that are non-casino based, you know, when you say non-farming, I said, can you go a little bit more into the methodology that's used in attributing those jobs in? Sure. We have an extensive section about this in the report that I would refer you to, but I think broadly what we have is we have an economic impact model, which is sort of, I joke sometimes, it's like a big boring video game, where what it does is it uses data from mostly federal government sources about the economic linkages between various industries and the spending patterns of various households to give an estimate of, for instance, if a household receives so-and-so amount of additional income, what do we think that that's going to do for spending in these various industries in the region where they live? It does the same for a big, or for business-to-business spending, but in this case, we actually nullify that because we have their business-to-business spending. So we directly put it in as new spending. What we do is we go through their list of vendors and we assign an industry code to each one so that we can actually say, here's how much money was spent in each industry, in each region of Massachusetts in each year, but then that spending by them is gonna have some downstream impacts in terms of new income for employees, but also they're going to go out and buy new things. And at that point, we do kind of let the model run its thing, but it's a dynamic model. So it has a couple of thousand equations and interlocking variables in it. So when you change one thing, it then will cause every variable that's associated, like that has a linkage to that one, that will then change. And so it then iterates a couple of thousand times in the computer over to sort of simulate how you reach what, to the technical term is like a dynamic computer generated equilibrium. So it reaches a sort of, it basically tries to estimate if a new dollar is spent here, where does that dollar go regionally and sectorally? And then where does it go from there and sort of just iterates on that process to try and get a sense of the full ripple effect. And is there any way to extrapolate from that methodology that you're talking about, what's the most impactful spend in terms of if EVH is kicking up in a particular area of employment, which one kick off the biggest ripple effect in that? Different, well, potentially, when you say area of employment, do you mean like different types of jobs or different? Right, yeah. Well, not necessarily. Like the food beverage versus the gaming versus hack. Right. We could certainly say that for, that's probably something that we could model if we modeled the different, the employment of the different sectors separately. That's not what we've done. So far we just sort of have, this is how many employees that they have and this is the wages that they pay those employees. And these are the parts of Massachusetts that those employees live in. And we sort of run it from there as just sort of flows of spending. And it would be possible for us to model those flows separately. Like here's the flow of spending that comes out of this portion of the workforce, but it's not something that we've done today. Okay, great. Thank you. Brian, it's a really good question. Can I just do a follow-up? I'm assuming, Tom, because of 2022 is our year that we're looking at and Commissioner Hill's point, good numbers on those jobs. I assume that model takes into consideration inflation, that everything that we were dealing with. Okay, excellent. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Maynard, do you have questions for Tom? I don't have any questions. Just thank you for the report. And as always, it is, I enjoy your research. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. No questions. I appreciated it in particular the information about new spending that's non-gaming related because I have been able to meet with a couple of different Chamber of Commerce groups over my last year and a half year. And they gave me the history of worrying about competition and then told me it really hadn't came to them. It hadn't been coming to fruition that it was not hurting them. In fact, some told me it had helped them. And so to see some hard data on what's going on was very, very appreciated. So thank you, Tom. Thank you. I just want to stay for that. It is true that on net, like more spending is getting shifted away from Massachusetts businesses towards the casino than is coming in a new spending in the region on net. That spending is getting distributed though across the whole economy. So I think that it probably, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't feel like a major impact for any individual business or Chamber, but if you're just talking direct spending, it is true that you then have to account for the fact that there's also a bunch of new employees at the casino that are then spending their money as well. And that might partially offset some of that. So it might on net actually be a good thing, but just in terms of the immediate like what goes into the model, we are seeing more money shift away than sort of new direct spending coming in. So if it's good, it probably is because of those sort of secondary or tertiary effects. If that makes any sense. It makes a lot of sense. Okay. So maybe that either helps me or confuses me, Tom, in terms of my question was about, I understood the 70% new or recaptured, and then the reallocated is around 29% with that 1% incidental. Were you able to detect which communities are most affected by that reallocation or is it just across kind of a soft across the commonwealth? Because I understand your information all came from patrons as opposed to from the businesses themselves. So I don't know if you were able to detect, is it the host communities surrounding communities that feels that impact more or is it they're not going to their Essex County restaurants now? Well, that's a great question. And I think you exactly identified why it's tricky is that what we are really doing in that case is we're asking those patrons, if you had not, if this casino wasn't here, would you have been traveling out of state to gamble? And if they say no, then the assumption that we are making is that they would have otherwise been spending their money in state on other goods and services. Now, we could have asked more questions about exactly what goods and services those were or exactly where they were spending them, but people are not generally super reliable at sort of knowing what their sort of counterfactual behavior would be. And so what we sort of chose to do instead is to model it regionally. So if they live in the greater Boston area, we're just gonna assume that they spent less money regionally in the greater Boston area. But whether they would have spent that money in the zip code where they live or whether they like to travel a few towns over to go to somewhere else, we don't have any information on that at the moment. So, and I have one last question and then one comment. So the 70, 30% split that you saw, I know that we're really lucky because you're starting at ground zero with the casino introduction. Did that surprise you from, with respect to maybe what might have been seen in the gambling world? Rachel, you have such extensive experience. Did that surprise you? Is that 70, 30% or are you unable to really answer that question, which would be fair too if you were to look across the country? I think I'm actually, I'm scrambling to pull up because I did this for everywhere or for all three the other day in a different presentation. But I think that it's generally fairly in line with what we have seen when we did the patron surveys in the other communities. It's, I would say, you know, when we looked at it, so at Plain Ridge Park, I think we had about, it was actually a little higher, actually. It was about 80%. MGM was a bit lower than that, maybe about 60%. So I'd say it's in the range of things that we've observed before. I need to sort of go back and double check some of those numbers, but I think, you know, we, I think that it's generally within, or no, I'm sorry, it was about 62% at Plain Ridge Park and about a little over 70% at MGM. So I think these numbers are, they do vary in some important ways, like for instance, some of the casinos have been more effective at attracting out-of-state visitors while others have been more effective at recapturing Massachusetts patrons. For the purpose of our modeling, it's just money that wouldn't have been in Massachusetts. One way or another. So it doesn't really affect our thing, but I would say that in all of the cases that we've looked at in Massachusetts, we've seen that the majority of the money would not have been spent in Massachusetts if the casinos are not open. Most of it is either people who are coming in but wouldn't have or it's people who would otherwise have traveled out-of-state. Great, and Dr. Volberg with respect to outside Massachusetts, it's hard to say, right? Because you haven't had the privilege of that kind of research, correct? Or is there any glimpse that you can offer? No, that's correct, Chair. The work that we've been able to do in Massachusetts, particularly with the patron surveys and with the operational data that the casinos have provided is really pretty unique, I would say, around the world. So we don't really know, over my 40 years of experience in the gambling research field, this is really the most detailed look that we've got at what the economic impacts of a new casino are. Yes, so I think like Virginia is just about to bring on casinos, am I right? Yeah, Virginia, opportunity to do some comparative studies, Dr. Volberg. Well, that's assuming that they have money to- I know, I know. Before the research. We are very lucky in Massachusetts that the legislature offered this. And finally, the only comment I wanted to make and Commissioner O'Brien and I would recall this, maybe more clearly, because we were and we were working with the casinos during COVID, but I do want to emphasize Tom's reference to Encore Boston Harbor for keeping their employees on longer. Commissioner O'Brien, I think you'll agree with me that they actually did extraordinary work because they did keep their employees on for months. And that allowed them to those employees to have an income stream and to Tom's point be able to continue to impact the larger economy in a beneficial fashion and also just being able to pay their bills. And that was an extraordinary gesture by the parent company for their employees across the board. I think I've got it right, right Tom? Yeah, so just again, acknowledgement. We certainly acknowledged that at the time they were just in a position to do that and they exercised that capacity. Anything else, Commissioner? Mark? Yes, if I may. Thank you, Madam Chair. To me, this is that these types of economic reports are great reminders of the main drivers behind the expanded gaming act that it was about economic stimulus and about creating jobs. And as Rachel, Dr. Volberg said, there isn't the opportunity in any other state to use multiple data sources in order to have a much clearer understanding of what has been the economic effect of Angkor, Boston Harbor, and the other casinos. So this really to me gets at the heart of why the expanded gaming act was passed and holding us accountable to make sure that we're seeing that through and how we can improve it. I also just wanted to, you know, Tom and Rachel have done great work with this, but the rest of the Sigma team and UMass Dhani Human Institute, there it goes several people deep in creating a report like this. I also just wanted to acknowledge Angkor, Boston Harbor, they to pull this data together and deliver it to the team. We take it very seriously. We wanna make sure that the data that we receive is right so that the information you're receiving is as accurate as possible and that takes a lot of effort. And then finally, you know, we have a small research team at the gaming commission, but we rely on some really talented research reviewers. And I think we had three research reviewers, independent research reviewers that go through every single report, including this one to make sure that it holds the academic rigor that you would expect that we would expect. I'll turn back then to Dr. Andrews, Mark, is that okay? Yes, thank you. Thank you, Bonnie, for I believe you did the research snapshot. You're translating that knowledge for us and that's a key piece of work that Mark was really focused on to help individuals like the commissioners who haven't had the benefit of following on the research. It really was helpful. How do you wanna close up, Dr. Andrews? Thank you so much. I just wanted to, again, thank the Sigma team for their wonderful research and we're, yeah, again, it's wonderful working with them and we're looking forward to more upcoming reports in the coming months. Good. Commissioners, are you all set? Thank you to the team. Dr. Bulver, great to see you, Tom. Great to see you and hello to Dr. Melnick. So thank you so much. Thank you commissioners, appreciate it. Okay, so I'll turn now to Dr. Lightman. I hope that we're able to accommodate Steve's schedule. We have a racing item. Good morning. Good morning, yes. Thank you for accommodating Steve's schedule. Steve O'Toole is on this call as well. So on September 11th, there was a deluge of rain at Plain Ridge. The track crew worked valiantly to try to get the track back in shape after the first race was raced to go ahead and race the rest of the day, but it kept raining and ultimately it was decided to cancel the day of racing. And I used the authorization that the commission had updated just a few days before that. So thank you again to the commission for all their work on that. So this will bring Plain Ridge's number of racing days from 108, which they originally applied for to 107. And that does still leave them well over the 100 days required for simulcasting. So part of the authorization to the director of racing states that any change in the length of the season will be brought back to the commission for their ultimate approval. So that's where we're at on that. Any questions? Right now, that's what you're asking for. I'll check in with Steve. Are you all set Steve or do you wanna add? I think Alex said it perfectly. That particular day, a lot of times we are able to repair after a bad rainstorm like that. If there's enough time left in the day, it definitely was enough time left in that day, but it just kept raining hard for the remainder of the day. So we were up against it and for the safety of all involved and the judges myself, Alex, everyone agreed that that was the best way to go. Commissioner Hill. Madam chair, I think for the reasons that were given by Dr. Lightbaum and Mr. Rowe Tool, that I would probably, if it's all right with your move that the commission approved Plain Ridge Park Casino's request to amend its 2023 racing schedule from 108 days to 107 days as included in the commissioner's pack and in discussed here today. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Any further discussion other than a, thank you for prioritizing, of course the health and welfare of all involved in the race that day. Thank you. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. Yes, five, zero. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. Okay. We're moving on to item number six. We have our chief financial administrative officer back again, two items today, Derek. Good morning again. Morning. Good to be back again. In your packet, it starts on page 120. We have a recommendation for raises for staff. And just as a little background in, we have the Massachusetts gaming commission has begun its employee review process. We're very close to finishing it. Dave Muldrof is online, would be able to let you know where we are after this presentation. And in FY 23, we received a 3% increase raise as staff. The commissioners did not receive anything. As you all know, the commissioners salaries and raises are tied to the secretary of administration and finance. And since the secretary of administration and finance did not receive a raise last year, you all did not, even though staff received 3%. We have received communication from the executive branch that they intend on providing raises to their staff. And their non-union staff, they're looking at a 4% raise that will be retroactive back to July 2nd, as well as another 4% raise, which will be effective on January 14th. This is all in the memo that I presented to you. That would be equate to a 6.08% raise as far as hitting our bottom line, 6.08% in funding. And the reason for that is the second half of the raise only takes effect starting in January. So I put a chart on page two that takes a, for round numbers, $100,000 salary, what the first 4% would look like, then what the second 4% and add them together and you get the 6.08%. Even though a person's salary has actually gone up 8.16%, their bottom line salary, but the hit to the year is 6.08%. We in our budget approved 5% raises. So I'd be looking for an additional 1.08% approval from you as a commission. Last meeting, I think it was, I gave an update on our first quarter budget update. As I indicated, we are well behind on our hiring and filling backfilled, attributed positions and backfilling. So we've already made up well over the turnover savings that we were looking for this additional 1.08%. We've already made up through the few payrolls that have happened since that update because we still have quite a bit of turnover, which Dave, if you would like, he sends around his recruiting report and his hiring report. There are still quite a few positions on there that we have not filled that continue to be advertised and reviewed in the process. One of the areas that the HRD amount, the HRD and executive branch are looking at that we would ask to veer, is they're not offering the 4% or either of the 4% raises to their post retiree positions. We have some post retiree positions within our office that really do a lot of substantial work for us. So we would be looking to allow those post retirees to be eligible for the raise. And then we would work with managers on which ones we would definitely wanna provide those that raise to, whether it's all of it or part of it. And the reason, so here's one of the reasons why the post retirees aren't eligible for the raise on the executive branch because you lose some of their hours, right? You take a look at what they were making when they retired. You take a look at what they are actually able to earn between that retirement and what they're making. And if you give them a raise, you lose a couple of hours a year by doing that. But you also have them stuck at the rate that they retired at and not eligible for any increases except what they get through their retirement increases. So that's the reason we would look to veer from there. The other part that's in the memo that we're recommending if the commission were to adopt our recommendation is to do the first 4% now. And then the executive branch has not implemented their raise yet. And the reason why they haven't implemented is because their proposed structure for non-union employees follows a lot of the collective bargaining in the pre-s, collective bargaining agreements that have been passed. And those reserve funds for those collective bargaining agreement increases are still making their way through the legislature. So what I'm recommending is since we're almost done with our review process, do the first 4% retroactive back to July 2nd as well within our budget. It doesn't get us way over our skis as far as what the executive branch is doing. And then wait until the executive branch acts and gets approval from the legislature for the second 4%, which wouldn't take effect until January 14th or it'll be retroactive back to January 14th once the legislature passes the sub-budget that's making its way through right now with those reserve draws in it. I know that rambled all over the place and I know it was not as clear and verbal, but it's pretty linear laid out in the memo. So if there are any questions right now, I'm available for those. And Dave is online also to let you know where we are in our review process. Questions for Derek? Commissioner Skinner. Thank you, Mattia. Derek, my question is what are the poster time positions we have here at the commission? Just out of curiosity. Yep. So we have some in finance and administration. We have some in payroll and we have some in the IEB for civilian investigators. Okay. Can you say more precisely how many please? Yes. I'm pretty sure we have four civilian investigators, one in finance and one in payroll. So six. Other questions, commissioners? Commissioner O'Brien. Oh, I guess I thought you were leaning in. I don't want to play on the spot. We have Dave Meldrew. Dave, did you want to add in on the state of the reviews? I know that there's still some underway. Thank you so much, commissioner and commissioners. I'd like to give you an update. We have up to this date, approximately 98% of our performance evaluations have been completed. A handful have not, but we'll be done in the next three to four days, which we have. We're very excited that that has occurred. When all the information is brought in, we'll be able to tabulate the reports for the commissioners and executive management to review regarding the percentage of ratings, how they were distributed, things of that sort. Third, early February, we will be transitioning in partnership with HRD with Cornerstone, which is the system-wide performance evaluation, which we will become part of, which we're very excited about, where we'll be able to provide quarterly updates and performance feedback to our employees, to our staff. They'll be able to provide feedback on their own. It will assist us with compensation analysis and also succession planning. So we're very excited to be part of this system. So that's where we are at this point, commissioner, and we have to answer any questions that people may have. Thank you, Chief Mildrew. Other questions for Derek on this proposal? I think we all understand what post-retirement positions mean. I don't mind you going over it, but that means that Derek, just the rules have changed a little bit over time. Even the nomenclatures changed over time. So if someone retires from their position, they then become eligible for something, but then they are still eligible to go back to work. So if you could just explain, that'd be great. They're eligible to go back to work. And I know during COVID, the hours changed a little bit, but they're ratcheting them back now. Oh, they did. Yeah, so they allowed more hours, and now they're actually reducing them back a little bit, where you can work up to 120 days or 960 hours. Now, I think there was a 20% increase on top of that during COVID, but I can check with Lisa because she tracks that very closely because she's one of the people who is a post-retiree. And the whole purpose of that is you don't earn more while you're collecting your retirement than you would have if you were working full-time. So you get to make up that difference between what your retirement is and what you were making. Commissioner Maynard, it looks like you probably have dealt with the other side of it a lot more closely than I have in the past. I wouldn't say that, but I would say I'd know that it got up to something like 1080 or something like that. I'm probably getting it wrong by a few. My only question for you, Derek, is are we following the administration on post-retirement positions also? I'm perfectly comfortable following the executive branch and the administration, so that's why I'm asking. We would not be for the post-retirement. That's why I called it out. If you look down at the bottom, excluded from eligibility on the bottom of the first page would be those post-retiree positions. And we're recommending to at least allow us to consider it. And it's just one of those areas of either pretty vital positions for us, but we understand we would be veering in this instance from the administration. So if you say no to that, it's not that it's being harsh, it's what the administration is doing. We were just asking for consideration on that. I'll ask a point of clarification. I really may not understand this. If you retire, you get your pension, whatever that is, there's an amount. That set doesn't decrease if you go back to work in this post-retirement. It does, so it is, this is at all. Yeah, only if you make more than that 960 or 1080 or 120 days. That would decrease, okay. Then you have to pay back what you collected under your retirement. Okay, that's what my understanding was. I just misunderstood you, Derek. My apologies for asking for clarification. It was me, not you. No, I told you I was rambling. So I apologize, it wasn't as clear. Thank you. So is that, and that's the only distinction from where we would be tracking the administration's policy. Correct. Commissioners, thoughts, questions? I know we're looking for a motion today. I suppose we could postpone this till the December 14th if you had further questions or Derek, that may actually mess you up so I don't want to say that. It doesn't mess us up. It's just it would put us a few pay periods behind on getting the raises and the retro out. But ultimately it would be retro anyway all the way back. Ultimately it's retro back to July anyways. Okay. So are we ready to move today? Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Hill? Yeah, I am ready to move forward today if that's what the commissioner would like to do. Explanation was excellent. We understand it. Okay. Well, commissioners- I do have an update from Heather. She has five civilian investigators, not four. So I apologize. There would be seven post-retirees. Civilian. So former state police, but once they leave they're now civilian investigators. Richard Skinner, you have your, I want to make sure we have all the discussion before we move and any questions. Commissioner Skinner, are you- No, I'm good to move forward. I'm excited about for the staff. I'm excited about this for the staff, including the post-retirement employees. So I'm good to go today. Okay. Commissioner Hill? Madam Chair, I would move that the commission approve an additional 1.08% in funding for annual staff raises consistent with raises being recommended in the executive branch and that post-retirement positions be eligible for the raises as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. I further move that the first 4% raise be issued in December, 2023 and be retroactive to July 2nd, 2023. And that the second 4% raise be issued either January 14th, 2023 or on such a date as a legislature funds the executive branch increases, which ever is later. Second. Okay. Any questions or edits? Commissioner Bryan? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. I vote yes, 5-0. Thank you very much. I know that the whole team will be happy with this. I truly appreciate it. And we'll stay tuned, right? Because we'll have a second part. Correct. And once that hits, I am very hopeful that they will act quickly on the secretary of A&F salary so that we can get the raises to all of you as well. We're happy for the team. Well deserved. Thank you. Okay. Moving on then to, because everybody's all set with that, right? Thank you, Chief Maldrew. You all set? All set, Madam Chair. No, we're happy that the administration is going in this way. All right. With respect to the sports wagering division now, we have two items turned to director band and you have so many titles, Andrew. I never know where to start. That's only two. The interim sports wagering operations manager. Good morning, Andrew. Nice to see you. Good morning. Can everyone hear me? Well, we're in headphones today. Okay. Director Van is still out this morning. So I'll be presenting the two items for today. Beginning on page 122 of your packet, there are two items for your review. The first being a house rules update from our operator, Fanduel. Fanduel has requested several changes to their currently approved house rules. We have provided a memo in your packet, summarizing the changes as well as an attached exhibit showing all of the requested changes in a red line review format. To summarize, these changes are primarily for clarification on verbiage, expanded definitions, grammatical corrections, additional markets on already approved events, as well as some condensed markets for others. For example, within the football section, Fanduel is adding clarification on the market first play attempt of drive. For the baseball section, they've expanded player prop markets and futures markets, which includes awards and the all-star game. For basketball, they are adding in season tournament language for those specific markets, which the NBA introduced this season, as well as additional player prop clarification. In their cricket section, they've combined and condensed their markets within that sport for an overall better clarification and experience for their customers. And in their soccer section, they are expanding and clarifying the definition of a foul pass and a goalkeeper save. Through our assessment of these changes, nothing stands out as unordinary and falls in line with other operator requests and house rules. After a full review of the requested changes, the sports wagering division confirms all requirements have been met pursuant to 205-CMR 24702 and has no reservations on moving forward with approving these amendments. To note, we do have a Fanduel representative regulatory affairs director, Andrew Winchell, on the meeting to help answer any additional questions. Madam Chair. Thank you, Andrew. Commissioners, do you have questions for Andrew or for Fanduel? I think the other Andrew for joining us today no questions. Well, I know that. Madam Chair. Sorry, Commissioner Hill. Yes, thank you. No, I was trying to get off mute and I'm trying. You're there. I saw, I usually know the verbiage of most sports and what they're trying to change. What I don't really have a good grasp on is boxing. Oh. And I was wondering if somebody could explain to us compobox markets? I believe they're using compobox to track certain markets and certain stats, but I see Andrew's also on the meeting as well. Maybe he can expand on that explanation for us. I think I need to know what a compobox is. Yeah. So great question. So compobox is an entity that has provided these statistics since 1985. They work with major boxing promotions, promoters to compile and put out these markets and then put out this information. It's not on every boxing event that if this happens is it's generally on just major events where they will send two of their own personnel who will in real time watch the fight and make the decisions on how many punches there were landed or significant strikes in MMA and whatnot and so they will compile and then release those statistics. And that is because I can bet on how many punches are going to be thrown. Correct. Yeah. It's like in sport betting it's like how many, okay, how many will land, how many won't things like that. Okay. Oh, interesting. I learned something new every day, Andrew and Andrew. The great question, Commissioner Hill, I thought you might be asking about cricket and that it was boxing. So the cricket one seems more straightforward today anyway. Commissioners, do you have questions on the red line? So Andrew, you are making a recommendation from the sports weight training division. Correct. Move forward with approving these amendments. Yes ma'am. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, before we make or have somebody make a motion, can I ask Andrew's definite question? Certainly. And I'm just curious. So we're all new to this process with having the rules come before us and things of that sort. When you are, and you and your staff and the whole division, this might be a Bruce Mann question as well. Are you looking at other jurisdictions with these rule changes and seeing what other jurisdictions are doing as well to come up with your decision if we should move forward or not? And then- Oh, sorry. Sorry to get you off. Finish. Okay. So right now, I believe right now our division is currently focused on the operators and our jurisdiction. We've just begun to look at other jurisdictions for other regulations, not specifically house rules yet, but when we get more involved with our division, as you may know, they've just come on board the last couple of weeks. So once we get more involved, we will expand into other jurisdictions how they handle house rules, yes. Okay, that would be helpful, not only to the commission, but I think to the sports division as well. Certainly. So with that, Madam Chair, that's all I have for questions. I guess maybe a follow-up question would be for Fandel, are these house rules consistent with other jurisdictions? Yeah, that's a great question. So I'll give a little bit into our process, that will kind of help provide this clarification is that we generally do on, I would say roughly a quarterly basis, review of our house rules with our risk and training team and submit requests in, because our house rules have to be approved by every single jurisdiction that we operate in within the U.S. So we submit substantially similar requests to every state to have as cohesive as possible house rules. There are some states that might have specific preferences about one or another type of event that might be, may or may not be wagered on in that jurisdiction or they might not have gotten to the point where they're ready to approve a certain event type, but they are substantially similar in every jurisdiction and the requests that we have here is the same as the requests that we submitted in every other jurisdiction so far. And I don't believe we've had any changes come from other jurisdictions in reviewing their substantially similar requests that we submitted back in late October, early November, across all of our jurisdictions in the U.S. So these changes I can tell you have been approved by at least a dozen other jurisdictions so far since we submitted them in October. So to Commissioner Hill's point, I understood that was the process Andrew that, as Andrew Linshaw just described. I think maybe the commissioners would want to know going forward, if they could ask the operator, is there something distinctly different here that another jurisdiction is requiring or not requiring because it might inform our own. Or had an issue with. Pardon me? Or had an issue with. Or had an issue with, it might actually inform our own regulations because we may not have thought of something. So I think that that's how we learned from other jurisdictions, right? Commissioner Hill, that's what you're really driving at. So going forward, they had an issue with or something that is just beneficial for the interests of the state or the interests of the patron, right? Yeah, we would have, yeah, I fully understand that. And yeah, I can tell you from our interactions and I'm just going back through my head quickly over the interactions with other jurisdictions. I think the only thing that we've seen come up was similar to Commissioner Hill's questions about CompuBox just wanting more information about the types of markets and the history behind that, which we've provided to a couple other jurisdictions. But I don't believe that there was anything that we had another jurisdiction in this set that another jurisdiction had opposed or just directly opposed. Really helpful, right? Commissioner Hill, you good? Okay, thank you. Thank you to both Andrews. So with that, do we have a motion? Do we have more questions for Andrew? Oh, Commissioner Hill, the right head. Are you? Yep, Madam Chair. I move that the commission approve the updates to Fandall's house rules, as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Thanks, Commissioner O'Brien. Any further questions? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. And Commissioner Main? Aye. Oh, yes, five zero. Thank you. Thanks. All right, back to manager Steppen. Thank you, Andrew. I think, yes. Correct. Thank you. So the other item for your review today, because on page 129 of your packet, this is a continuation from the public meeting dated November 16th, where as you may remember, Drabking's requested the commission to authorize the avoiding of wagers as a result of an error by their third party vendor, SportCast, when it was discovered incorrect odds were placed by the vendor to Drabking's platform. The incorrect odds were specific to same game parlay markets from an NBA match dated October 24th between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Denver Nuggets and were live for wagering for approximately 13 minutes before it was pulled down. Just to summarize a few quick facts from the incident, a total of 178 wagers were placed on those impacted markets by a total of 137 individual customers for a total handle of $4,182.36, with a total liability to Drabking's of $575,436.82. And before we dive back into this, I'd like to share my screen with the regulation. Madam Chair, do you mind if I bring up the regulation for us to read through? That'd be really helpful. Thank you and hi, Jake. Nice to see you. One moment. And we have Mina on to help us with this. Certainly, I hope I'm sharing the correct screen here. Can everyone see the regulation of 238.35? Two, yeah, right there. So 238.35 speaks on voiding of wagers where an operator may request the commission to authorize the voiding of all wagers of a specific type, kind or subject. In its request, the operator shall submit the following information outlined in subsections A through C, as you can see there, which Drabking's has provided to the sports wagering division. I'll give just another moment before I move on to the next regulation regarding voiding of wagers. If everyone's all set, I'll move on to the next one. Related to this regulation, pursuant to 205-CMR-24702, operators are required to submit and adopt comprehensive house rules. Specifically, section 24702 subsection, or three, subsection C, requires operators to describe, quote, the process for handling incorrectly posted events as sports wagers or results. Under section 24702 subsection 3N, these is required that an operator's house rules include a policy for canceling or voiding sports wagers. These items are addressed within Drabking's approved house rules and the term error has a very descriptive definition. An example of an error provided in Drabking's house rules may be, but certainly not limited to, a bet's placed at odds that are substantially different from those available in the general market at the time the bet was placed. With those rules and regulations in mind, I'd like to move forward in presenting the additional information provided to our division from Drabking's. During the November 16 commission meeting, three pieces of information was asked of Drabking's. First, with regards to how the other jurisdictions have handled this request in which Drabking's operates, 17 other jurisdictions have already approved to avoid the affected wagers. Those 17 states are listed in your memo, but this includes Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. All affected wagers in those jurisdictions have already been voided. Four jurisdictions did not take any bets on these markets and therefore did not request to avoid or pay out. This includes Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and the Canadian province of Ontario. Other than Massachusetts, New Jersey is the only other pending jurisdiction as that request is still pending investigation by their DGE. Lastly, Connecticut is the sole jurisdiction where these wagers were not voided and were paid out. Next, it was asked how each customer was treated with respect to these wagers. Drabking's informed the sports wagering division. They have issued bonus bets to any customer they believe did not intentionally abuse the incorrect odds. This was defined or calculated as a customer's parlay that contained less than 50% of the incorrect odds. And I can help define this from Drabking's by anyone who was building same game parlays for this match and did not intentionally take advantage of this error. For example, say you were building your same game parlay wager and you selected other available markets for this match, and then also included markets from this incorrect totals. If less than half of your same game parlay build included these affected markets, you were awarded bonus bets as good faith by Drabking's. And perhaps Mr. List can correct me or clarify this in just a moment, but this did equate to bonus bets being issued to 14 of the affected customers. Lastly, it was asked if an indemnity provision exists and I need to correct myself on the memo. Within your memo it states Drabking's does not believe such indemnity exists. However, Drabking's has confirmed no indemnity clause or provision exists with this third-party vendor's forecast with regards to obvious errors. Meaning, forecast would not be held accountable for this. In conclusion, after a comprehensive review of the sports wagering division confirms the requirements haven't met pursuant to 238.35 section two, subsections eight through C. And there's no reservations about moving forward and processing this request. And we do have Drabking senior director of regulatory operations Jacob List on the meeting to help insert any additional questions. Madam Chair. Thanks, Andrew. And we have Mina too who can remind us of our regulation. And I do think there's a little bit of a correction on process that ultimately we actually, the commission won't necessarily vote. I think we actually have to produce a, I see Mina really frowning wondering, what is she talking about? No, just listening. Sorry. We have to make something written as well. Just that we have to issue, I think a, I believe in the reg that we actually have to make a determination of sorts, affirmative determination as opposed to a vote by majority to Boyd or not Boyd, right? So I assume you'll lock us through that as well. Questions for Andrew or Jake? I, yeah, I do. It's my understanding that as of yesterday, New Jersey, in fact went the way of Connecticut and that you are going to have to pay out in New Jersey as well. Is that correct, Mr. List? That is accurate. Okay. And then either for Mr. List or Andrew, the definition of someone who quote unquote, abused the incorrect odds, is that within the house rules? Can you direct me to that? Commissioner Brown, could you just repeat the first part of your question? Sorry, my hand. They talked about how they treated the customers and that they went and did an assessment of whether or not the customer abused the incorrect odds. And there was a definition of that. I am assuming that's in the house rules. So can someone direct me to that? Definition of an error is in the house rules as well as what an error may be. No, I'm asking about there was a definition provided in the memo in the presentation today as to how draft can assess whether a patron had abused the odds. And there were no termination. So I'm wondering if that's in the house rules or not. Andrew, I can answer that if you like. Go for it. Yeah, so the information that we provided in terms of how we assessed if someone was an error abuser was an explanation of how we assess that internally, whether or not someone has abused an error is not something that's written into the rules and is not part of the definition of what constitutes an error. This is merely a criteria that we used in order to issue discretionary bonuses for customers that had exhibited different behavior. I appreciate the clarification. For me, I'm uncomfortable. I mean, I've said this all along. I'm still, we got some information from what I'm assuming are people who placed the bet in this time period who did fly for some of the other jurisdictions. In terms of New York, were you mandated? I noticed that that was not a, it didn't go up to the regulatory body, that that was a staff decision to say that you could void, is that accurate? We were permitted to void. I'm not sure I have insight to exactly what level of approval is required internally. But I can certainly give, I guess like a brief overview of the approaches for different states. So there are several states that the regulation allows voiding for obvious error. So in that case, because it is still truly an exception, we still notify the commissions, but we would go ahead and we void the bets without seeking approval. There are also several states similar to Massachusetts that have regulatory language which addresses the treatment of errors, but voiding of bets still requires approval from the commission. And so New York falls into that bracket. Then there is New Jersey and Connecticut. New Jersey and Connecticut are special in the respect that they don't have regulations to not only not to the handling of errors, but they don't discuss errors at all. And so any type of... So, you have to go to the regulator to request a void? Any type of void, yes. And in New York was part of the resolution that you had to give any sort of bonus bet or anything out to the people who placed the voided wagers? No, I mean, the wages are voided and the stakes are refunded to the customers. The topic of discretionary bonus has only come up with the MGC. Okay, so you weren't mandated to do that in New York then? No, sorry. Commissioner O'Brien, I just wanna, I wanna pause for a second because I see Commissioner Skinner has her new op and I don't know if you've got a line of questioning. You don't want it to be disrupted but Commissioner Skinner wanted to acknowledge you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I can stop now, but I can circle. I just want to certainly wait. I'm just waiting patiently. No, no, no. I substantially went through what I wanted to ask. I have some other comments, I think, as we go through this deliberation process but I yield to Commissioner Skinner. And we'll continue to go back and forth. Let's hear from Commissioner Skinner, yeah. I do have a couple of follow-ups on the question around intentional abuse and could you clarify, Jake, did you conduct or did Dr. King's conduct a review for those patrons who you thought might have intentionally abused all 138 from Massachusetts or only the ones that contacted Dr. King's for some kind of resolution pending Massachusetts review? No, as Andrew sort of explained based on what we provided in the email. As the incident was ongoing, so imagine, you know, we realized there was an issue, we suddenly had many customer complaints and we wanted to mitigate as much as we could the impact of such complaints. We took the entire scope of the issue so not only customers who wrote in and if you met the criteria of less than 50% of your selections for the same game parlay containing an error market, then we automatically issued you a discretionary bonus whether or not you wrote in. And so what's the 50% based on? Because the total handle is 4182, give or take. And so what is the significance of the 50%? How did you arrive at that sort of methodology to determine whether you would be offering the bonus to certain individuals? A quick calculation that if more than half of the selections contained one of the error markets, which in our opinion were truly obviously error markets, then that person was intentionally trying to take advantage of that. And while we were seeking to appease customers who would be complaining about not having their bets settled, we didn't necessarily feel as prudent to provide the same for a customer that usually makes small bets, suddenly made two max bets on the market and then posted on a Reddit forum to tell other strangers to do the same thing. And that's without regard to the amount of the wager, right? It's just that. Oh, sorry, I can speak to that as well. So if you had made it the wager via a free bet, we refunded the amounts of the free bet. And if you had made the wager in cash, we actually bonus three times the stake that was made by the user. And is that written anywhere in the house rules? Is it, where does that come from? That determination in terms of what it is you offered to the patron? This comes from discretionary customer service budget. Okay, thank you. I have a couple more questions but I can yield to other commissioners. Should they decide to jump in here on this line? I'm particularly interested in the remediation discussion. So I don't know if we're ready to move into that. Just yet. But I have a fundamental question that might be, I don't know how it connects with yours, commissioner Skinner. I just want to check in with commissioner Maynard and commissioner Hill right now, commissioner Maynard. I have a question. I don't know if it links to commissioner Skinner's or not at all. Well, I think commissioner Maynard, I have this question. I know you had asked about consumer protection implications. So I don't think that we received any information relative to that. That's going to be important for me to discuss today too. I think Mina might be able to address that commissioner Skinner. Commissioner Maynard, was that your follow-up question or no? It links to that and it's this. I guess what I would ask is if I'm going to use LeBron because that's the example that everyone used last meeting. If LeBron had broken his leg, first play out and had two points, would you avoided the wagers and send everyone their money back? The request to avoid the wagers is based on the error. So firstly, not only the LeBron James market was impacted, but any wager that's impacted by the error makes up part of the void request. And there certainly can be losing wagers in an error void request. The situation like per se is very exceptional. But yes, that does happen from time to time. And they may have been, even in this case, if a customer had had error selections in the same game parlay, but then other selections that lost because we treated as one wager, those wagers avoided as well. Do you have any examples where you've done that? Where it's been probably a clear and obvious error, but it actually affected the company and not the patron and you gave the patron the money back? As I said, it is an extreme exception. There would be cases within areas where specific customers bet the wrong side of the error. So I guess a more common example would be like a past posting. So when occasionally markets are left up after the end of the event occurs and then patrons obviously bet the market knowing the result, it does happen from time to time that patrons bet the wrong side of those markets. And yes, we do avoid the losing bets. We also, I mean, understanding sort of the gist of your question, when the errors appear, we certainly endeavor to make sure that we've started to make communications with the customer well prior to the events actually occurring. And it would be in the case here that the event had not actually taken place at the point where we were trying to mitigate the issue and had determined to make the void request. Thank you, Jane. I'm wondering, oh, Commissioner Bryan, are you going on that line or? Just on that line. So when was the first notification to the customers that their bet was gonna be sort of pending potentially avoided status prior to the event occurring or? Yeah, so I think this is all provided in the incident report, but we determined that we were going to make the void request prior to the start of the game and we have evidence of that, which if not already provided, we can. The next stage was to get emails out to the customers to put on notice that there was something under review for this exact topic. So that customers then are not gonna come to us after and say, okay, you just wanted my bet because it lost type of thing. It did take, because we're operating this in 24 jurisdictions trying to figure out the issue, it did take some time for us to get those email comms out. I believe it was shortly during the first quarter of the game. So it was shortly after the game it started, but well prior to the finish and prior to these bets being able to be determined as winners. So were the bets placed in pending status prior to the email going out or was the email going out the first indication that there was an issue with the bets? Well, the bets weren't. At the time the email went out, the bets were correctly in appending status still as none of them had become winners. So not pending in the sense that under review but pending in the sense that not completed yet? Well, from a, I guess from a settlement perspective, it's the same thing. So where's the email? They don't know the difference. If it says pending, it could be either of those things, right? They just have a bet that is in settlement. Right, okay, thanks. So my fundamental question, Andrew, forgive me. The regulation required DraftKings to submit its request to cancel or void. It was to give a description of the type. We don't have in our public packet that written description. I don't think we had it before either. And I'm not sure why not, but that might be a legal question. And then we've heard, of course, a lot of the descriptions of the type, kind or subject of the wager that was being requested to void. And we've had a lot of description of facts relevant to that request just now a whole lot of questioning. What I'm wondering is what is DraftKings position with respect to an explanation why canceling or voiding the wager is in the best interest of the commonwealth or ensures the integrity of the sports wagering industry? You know, it's one or the other. I raised it last time because I was hoping a commissioner might help fill it in or you'd fill it in, but I still haven't had that piece of information resolved. Sorry, Andrew, did you wanna... No, go ahead. I was gonna say that the description of the wagers that they're requesting to void would be those same game parlay markets that were part of that match. They described the match, they described the same game parlay. Who was involved? They sent a descriptive list of all the wagers and the customers. They've also, and I'll let Jake speak on this, but they did provide an answer to subsection C of section two, an explanation why canceling is in the best interest of the commonwealth. They provided a lengthy answer to our division, which I hope was circulated to the commissioners yesterday. But Jake, if you wanna touch on that, if they haven't seen it. I may have missed that document. I feel like maybe it ended up in... I didn't get either and I had asked that question last time too. So I didn't get that, Andrew. Okay. Jake? So we did provide a written response to that question for C that was raised for your review. And we, I guess we did have the expectation that it might be discussed in this meeting. So if you like, I could read out the response or Andrew could read out the response in order to provide review or you could take the time to review it in writing. Typically, I just wanna be very clear. We don't, I'm gonna turn to Todd. I don't know that there'd be any reason why this document that's required by our regulation wouldn't be a public document. Right. I'm saying it would be happy to rate it. Right. So typically it would be attached to the cover memo. And it may have been in a file from the last time, but I am specifically interested in item C. So thanks, Jake. This was just provided Tuesday morning. I hope that it was circulated yesterday morning, but I can share it right now. And Jake can read it if he wants, however you wish to proceed. That would be helpful, Madam Chair. Thank you. Andrew, Stephan, I'll let you share. And Jake, you can read along. Thank you. Okay. Sharing the correct screen again. An explanation why cancelling, avoiding the wager is in the best interests of the Commonwealth or ensures the integrity of the sports wagering industry. The legitimacy of sports wagering depends on the establishment of clear rules governing how wagering will be conducted. Clear rules both set expectations for customers and ensure that operators treat customers consistently. Fidelity to such rules is essential for the public to have confidence in the sports wagering industry and for operators to be able to effectively manage their businesses. Under section 247.02 of the Massachusetts regulations, sports waging operators are required to adopt comprehensive house rules for sports wagering. Specifically, section 247.023C requires operators house rules to describe the process for handling incorrectly posted events, odds, sports wages, or results. And section 247.023N requires that an operator's house rules include a policy for cancelling avoiding sports wages. Requiring that operators establish and make known to customers how these situations will be handled indicates that the Commonwealth considers clarity on them important to the integrity of sports wagering. In compliance with section 247.02, DraftKings has adopted house rules, which include DraftKings process for handling incorrectly posted odds and a policy for cancelling avoiding sports wages. In relevant part, the house rules state that DraftKings reserves the right to declare a vet void offered, placed, and or accepted due to an error and defines what constitutes an error. DraftKings house rules have been approved by the Massachusetts Ganging Commission, are posted to its website and are a condition that must be agreed to by each customer prior to being granted an account. DraftKings is seeking to void the relevant wages pursuant to the established and approved policy described above. In the present case, there is no dispute that these bets were offered due to an error. Accordingly, for sports wagering to be administered fairly and consistent with expectations of all parties as to how an error would be treated, the commission should permit DraftKings to void the wages at issue. Deciding otherwise potentially threatens the stability of the sports wagering industry, denying industry as well as customers that seek to take advantage of operators that the rules regarding DraftKings void requests where the error is undistutably obvious would be a signal that errors will not be enforced. Operators including DraftKings evaluate risk and offer services to customers in reliance of our established rules. If operators cannot rely on established and approved rules being enforced as expected, we have to change our risk calculus as the wrong error could financially cripple an operator. Additionally, letting the wages stand in this case does not protect the betting public. Instead it rewards a small undesirable segment of it as the behavior of the overwhelming majority of users that wagered on these markets indicates that their sole purpose was to exploit the obvious error. It is not in the best interest of the Commonwealth or the sports wagering industry to endorse such behavior. As noted above, users that attempt to exploit malfunctions in the sports wagering platform force operators to change their risk calculus. More conservative risk management practice will ultimately result in less revenue to the Commonwealth and potentially a less favorable customer experience as a result of reduced content menus and increased difficulty in placing bets. Outright financial losses due to the expectation of errors will also negatively impact the Commonwealth. An example of that impact is present here. From a purely practical standpoint, it is in the best interest of the Commonwealth financially to permit DraftKings to void the wages at issue. If DraftKings isn't permitted to void the wages, it will pay out $575,436 in winnings to the players. Those winnings will be deducted from DraftKings adjusted gross revenue, sorry, adjusted gross sports wagering receipts as a result the Commonwealth will lose approximately $115,000 in tax revenue. And that is the end of the memo. Thank you very much for walking us through that, Jake and Andrew and if you could just forward that to us in our email, that would be great. Andrew, commissioners. And also I just want to turn to Mina too to pipe up when you feel that it would be helpful for us to navigate this issue. Commissioner O'Brien. So Jake, there was an article brought to our attention that a sport cast the third party vendor this had happened in the past. Is that the same vendor that was involved with these bets? Yes, so I have seen that article. We did have a smaller era earlier in the year that implicated the same vendor. We have actually completed the migration of this product for MBA in-house. So the other thing that was in the article was it did state that we had not completed that transfer that we actually have at this point. So was the representation made back at the void that had to happen in reference to the article? There was a representation made that you were gonna stop using that vendor but that that in fact did not happen until more recently. Is that, was that accurate? No, I believe that in the incident report that we submitted in respect of the issue at that time what we said was accurate, which was that we were working on creating our own in-house technology which would eventually replace the vendor and some months later, we have done that. But we did not make some type of representation that it was imminent. Okay, thanks. Commissioner Skinner. Follow-up, thank you Madam Chair. Jake, when did that happen, that migration? We completed it not uniformly in all states at the same time but basically over the last month or so I don't have the exact dates. But at the time when this error occurred we were already in the process of migrating certain states to in-house. So for Massachusetts you've migrated away from sportscasts. In respect of MBA, same-game polys. So they provide us with a range of same-game poly services. But not the MBA same-game? No. So that was just recent then since our last meeting, right? Okay. Just sorry, just to confirm absolute accuracy may have occurred even prior to the last commission meeting on this. But obviously post the time that we sent the incident report. Do you have any concerns with this particular vendor in other markets, in terms of the services that they provide in those markets? It's not really, I guess, an area of expertise of mine. I'd be in a position to comment but certainly we have operated with them for an extensive period of time without issue apart from the two that have been raised. And it's not uncommon to have at least small errors from time to time in the many millions of markets that we have on the site per month. So you would consider this error a small error? I think that's, did you say small error? You don't have many? No, I was speaking to the instances of areas in general. Now we consider this to be an extreme exception and an extremely large error. Okay. I have a question, Madam Chair. Yes, question. Going back to the House rules and thinking about all the work that we did earlier this year. I do have a problem and I hear it, Mr. List. I hear the problem, which is I really don't want to incentivize a subreddit troll to make good, but that leads me to the question of you guys have the ability to not allow these people to bet. And so you know that they exist. It sounds like with the analysis that Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner O'Brien drilled into on how you decided on the 14 patrons versus the others, you know pretty much where they are and you probably have access to the Reddit. Why do you let these people on the platform? Well, we do enforce restrictions from time to time when we, for behavior that either breaches the terms of use or some type of abuse. So like bonus abuse would be a more common type of thing where you have a bonus and someone bets both sides of a market in order to achieve the bonus. This small customer segment is quite sophisticated and continues to get more sophisticated as the industry develops. So for absolute certain, if we have a customer that has repeatedly abuses some type of market, we may well restrict them or at least prevent them from exhibiting that type of behavior, but then their friend may open an account and the original person may be giving them the better advice for that account or other types of sophisticated techniques in order to find new accounts to exhibit the same behavior. So it's a bit of I guess like a whack-a-mole type of internal control process for us to limit this type of behavior as we would with fraud. So if a customer exhibits fraud, they'll be canceled, but it doesn't mean that the same person may manage to be involved in some type of fraud in the future. Nina, do you wanna jump in now to maybe give us any guidance as to where we should be heading here? Yeah, happy to, Madam Chair. I just didn't wanna interrupt the questions. So- We may have more. There may be more, but let me step back a little bit into the, you asked about the rag in the process. And I also understand from Councilor Monaghan that there were questions last meeting about the connection between your regulation and state consumer protection laws. So if I could, I'll try to describe all of that as briefly as possible, but feel free to interrupt, of course, as I'm sure folks will if there are questions. So in terms of process, 238.35, as you know, is split up into two categories of cancellation or avoiding of wagers. The first is non-discretionary cancellation. And this was revised, as you may recall, after an initial set, just to be set up this way. The non-discretionary categories include actually some of what Mr. List described if there is a clear error from the patron side. They make an error, they've met the wrong thing, and they alert somebody beforehand. It doesn't, to Commissioner Maynard's question before, it wouldn't necessarily include the LeBron James or for those of us who had our hearts broken by Gordon Hayward injury in the first couple of minutes of a game. It would include a player who's injured before the game actually is a mandatory cancellation of a wager, but not during the game. For all other circumstances, you go to 238.35 too, where a sports wager and operator may request the commission authorized the cancellation by submitting the written request and including in that request the description of the type of wager, the description of facts relevant and an explanation of why cancelling or avoiding the wagers in the best interest of the Commonwealth or insurance integrity. I believe what you recently received and that's what was just read as that explanation. To your question, Madam Chair, about what then the commission does with that information, the language is that the commission shall issue a written order granting it. When a commission acts, it certainly acts in an open meeting and usually by either a voter or a consensus. So that is up to you of how to cause that in order to be issued if it's going to be canceled, but that would be up to the commission. The commission can consider any relevant factor, but there are four factors listed for consideration so that they're not limited to this, but there are four factors that you approved as part of the regulation to consider. One is whether the alleged facts implicate the integrity of the sporting event itself subject to the wager or sports waging or the sports waging industry. As a reminder, the integrity of the sporting event, this had, this was being done, this revision, excuse me, to the regulation was done around the same time. We were receiving feedback from the governing bodies and the players associations about concerns that a wager could cause safety risks or potentially inappropriate behavior by athletes or officials or referees, et cetera. So that's where the sporting event part comes in. The other is broader sports waging industry. The second factor is whether the alleged facts implicate possible illegal activity relating to the sporting event or the sports waging industry. That's, you know, whether somebody is using that for money laundering or something else would be an illegal activity as opposed to, or fraud as opposed to winning, taking advantage of a bet one way or another. Allowing the wager would be unfair to patrons is the language of the third factor and whether the allowing the wagers contrary to public policy is the fourth factor. So those are, again, not the sum total of factors you can consider, but factors that there are four that you should consider. Tying those, and actually I think the last one, the public policy ties to Commissioner Maynard, I believe it was your question from last meeting about consumer protection. The Massachusetts consumer protection laws under chapter 93A prohibit, generally speaking, unfair or deceptive practices. There are some additional regulations that the Attorney General's office has put out on those. Those regulations don't necessarily tell you what to do or not do in this particular circumstance, but I think they could help you provide some context of other ways in other industries that this has thought about. For instance, among the regulations, there is, and this is that you may have, in fact, I just saw a sign last night and some grocery stores you'll see the notice that says what happens if prices are off. And that's in the context of retail advertising. The retail advertising standard just comes from chapter 94, section 184C, is that if there's a discrepancy between the advertised price, sticker price and scanner price or display price, the consumer essentially gets the benefit and gets the lowest price. There's exceptions to that lowest price rule if there is a, quote, gross error. There are not to our, based on our research cases yet defining what gross error is. However, the statute and the regs do define it as where the gross error is less than half the checkout price. And in the previous 30 days, the grocery item was not at that lowest, you know, the grocery, essentially, the grocery store has never offered a turkey for two cents per pound. Everybody knows it's at least 80 cents per pound everywhere it's ever been advertised, but there was one typo when it said that made it say two cents, that may be a gross error. So that's one way to think about it. There are similar rules about advertising, prizes or raffles, you know, any sort of promotions. Again, you know, the generally the tie goes to the, when there's a doubt, it goes to the consumer, but not always as if there's sort of clear error. There's also common law standards, you know, essentially from a rising out of contract law on this, and it is really a matter of the reasonableness. So the way, if the wager could reasonably assume that the offer to place a bet, or in this case, was an offer to also parlay those bets, then it might not be perceived as an error. So it's not just viewed from the perspective of the entity that made the mistake, but typically under the consumer protection laws and under consumer case law, it's about the reasonableness for the consumer to know whether it was an error or not. So again, this doesn't directly answer the question. I think it may provide some context about the public policy in related areas of consumer law, but it's not binding on the commission in the sense that you must do X or you must do Y as a result. Commissioner's questions from Nina, before we turn back to Andrew and Jake, that was really helpful and an important supplement to our earlier discussion. Commissioner Maynard, who had raised that really important question. Finishers, Commissioner Bryan. So I am leaning toward New Jersey and Connecticut to be blunt for a couple of reasons. To start with the, just because you call it an error doesn't mean it is per force. I mean, there's discretion in this body. And so looking at the explanation in terms of why it is in the best interest of the Commonwealth and the integrity of the industry, I'm not persuaded in this circumstance that that's the case. I understand fully, your description was a little taken back when you described them as an undesirable segment. I'm assuming that means the sharps who do very well on your site. And I can understand why a business model, why you wanna make sure you're protecting against that. I have a concern with the fact that the vendor that caused the mistake has caused the mistake in the past months prior and a business decision could have been made to stop the risk. And you made a risk assessment to continue to go with the vendor. I believe, looking about this, this has happened. This is not the first time New Jersey has made a sports wage or an operator payout in a circumstance like this. I think Fandall had to do this back in 2018. When I look at our reg, when I look at what this was, when I look at the fact this was not the first error with this vendor and I look at the States close to us and I look at what a consumer who had gone to Connecticut or New Jersey had done in this circumstance. I am not convinced that this is in the best interests of the consumers and the Commonwealth or the integrity of the industry. To me, having to cross the T's and dot the I's so this doesn't happen, particularly with a vendor who's had this happen already. I would not be voting to say that this should be waived, that this should be voided. I also have a concern with the fact that the assessment that was made on whether or not to allow certain things to go through was based on a formula on abuse defined by Drafting that is not known to the patrons. I understand you don't necessarily want to be detailed in every circumstance, right? I mean, almost like you said, you don't want to give the roadmap to manipulation. But I do have a concern if the purpose of the House rules in our regs is to give everyone an understanding of what's gonna happen, that how these are handled and who gets benefits in terms of compensation and doesn't is sort of a secret formula and a secret sauce. So based on all of those reasons, for me, I would be drafting a determination and a written decision that in this circumstance, I would not be giving approval to void. Doesn't mean you could not then essentially know trespass these individuals, as Commissioner Maynard said, you've identified 14. You say to them, this is it, you're on notice and we're not gonna tolerate you know what the circumstances are. They didn't do anything illegal, which is different if this were an illegal bet. So that's where I'm coming from in terms of the two days that we've had the very intense conversation about the facts and the circumstances of this event. Commissioner Maynard. We have Director Bann now. I know that you haven't had the benefit of the earlier discussion because I know you have an appointment. Your team is recommending that we as a commission decide to void. And now you have the benefit of the other jurisdictions, including your colleagues in Connecticut and New Jersey. Director Bann, is there anything that you think DraftKings could have should have done to avoid this? I think in the future, we need to look at this regulation a little more thoroughly and maybe add to our regulation that the licensee has to take steps to make sure that they've done their due diligence on their part as well, as far as checking wagers that are coming in from outside vendors to make sure that they're correct on their behalf and do their due diligence. The reg right now doesn't say that. So I think down the road, we need to make some changes to our regulation to make it clear to all the vendors that they have a job to do as well. Mina, do we know the distinction between, raise your hand, between New Jersey and Connecticut's reg versus ours? I don't know off the top of my head, Madam Chair. I guess I would just say, I guess I have a slightly different perspective on that than what Director Bann just said. With respect to this reg, again, this has to do with the cancellation piece and the obligation throughout your regulations, I still want there to be any misunderstanding of this. Throughout your regulations, the obligation is always that you are responsible for the activities of agents working on your behalf. And that is clear in multiple portions of your regulations including your vendor regulations and certainly your advertising and promotional regulations explicitly. So I do agree with Director Bann that with respect to perhaps clarifying what an error is that may be worthwhile in that case, but just, I think that's a point worth emphasizing here. It's not, I don't think there shouldn't be any confusion on that that you're always responsible for your agents. Commissioner Hill, what are you thinking? I'm leaning, and I couldn't say it any more eloquent than what was just said by Commissioner O'Brien, but I'm leaning in her camp and there's just, one thing really sticks out to me as we've been talking about this is the company made an error a few months ago and then made a second error, the same error. And that's really sticking with me right now. So I'm leaning toward not allowing these bets to be avoided. Commissioner Skinner, I don't mean to be on the spot, but I guess this is the one where we just all need to be speaking and sharing our thoughts because I'm learning, I think we're all learning from each other right now. Yeah. Any further questions? If you don't mind. I do have an additional question. Jake, could you tell us what the highest stake was on this wager? I don't have it. So I mean, we could look it up and send it to you without too much trouble. I might even be able to do it while we're on this meeting, but I guess as you saw the liability compared to the stakes are very high. So typically the stakes on this market relatively low, right? Commissioner Skinner, the highest stake was $500. Yeah, I thought so. I just didn't wanna make that statement without that confirmation. So I think, I'm somewhere in the middle here and I'm still kind of thinking this through, but first I just need to clarify because I think it was said in the reverse earlier by Commissioner O'Brien. You only, you issued those bonus that's to 14 of the 138 patrons, right? So are you asserting that the other 124 are suspected of intentionally abusing that particular wager? Yeah, so could I just, I can give an answer to that. I do just wanna say one thing first, which is related particularly because of the sensitivity that we're in a public forum. When Commissioner O'Brien referred to, I guess the category of these customers as sharps and that's what we consider to be undesirable that is absolutely not the case. So the category of customer that we would classify as exhibiting error abuse is completely different to someone that might be better than us at betting on player props. That is like a completely, it is not the same customer segment and not what we are attempting to describe with this type of behavior. Speaking specifically to Sorry, Commissioner Kiskina, could you repeat the exact question back? Well, so I think you kind of clarified a little bit for me that the other 124, you don't consider that they're sharps. Or, so it, right. Sorry, I can, yeah, I think I can answer this a bit better. So I guess to go to the heart of what the, the bonus thing part of this topic is about, we have discretionary customer service, you know, to make customers happy that are exhibiting similar behavior to take like a, I guess another example, we'll have errors on and malfunctions on the site from time to time where a customer might actually write into us and tell us that there's an error on the site. And in that case, of course, we provide them with some type of discretionary bonus thing. So this whole, I'm honestly, I'm not sure exactly why this discretionary bonus thing topic has become so key to the discussion of the error. But if it is, I think it would merit sort of a broader discussion about discretionary bonus thing in general, which is a, you know, a very sort of common. And as far as my experience in, you know, working for DraftKings in the venue industry for the last five years is not something that's typically taken as controversial that if we have customers exhibiting one type of behavior and they're frustrated or have done something good like report an error that we might give them discretionary cash or bonus beds, but not do that, you know, for the type of customer that might report an error onto a public internet forum. Jake, thank you for that. I appreciate your response. I can tell you why it's important to me, why I raised it for this particular question is I'm trying to offer some sort of compromise that is between allowing the void request and denying the void request. And, you know, just playing off of what DraftKings has done already for 14 of the 138 individuals, I would like to see at the very least, and, you know, I'm still kind of toying with this the same incentive, right? That was offered to those 14 be extended to the other 124, particularly given, you know, we've already identified that the highest stake was $500. So, you know, I'm with Commissioner Maynard in that I'm not looking to incentivize anyone who may be, who may have reasonably known that this was an error. But I do think that there is also a responsibility on the part of DraftKings. Given that, it's unnoticed that this was a potential issue in terms of errors made by this particular vendor. So that's where I am right now. Sure, that's understood. And we would certainly understand if, you know, there was some type of ultimate settlement outcome that incorporated that. Commissioner Maynard? So let me start before I say where I am to answer Jake's question. I think Commissioner Skinner's 100% on, which is it's so important because it's, if this were a total group of patrons who just got on and made that bet, I'm telling you right now, this wouldn't even be hard for me. I would say you got to pay up, right? And so the thing that is pulling me, I guess your strongest argument in the best interest of the Commonwealth, it's best interest of the Commonwealth not to have, I will never be able to say it as eloquently as Commissioner Skinner did, but trolls make basically take advantage of your company. So it's important to hear, you're giving, that number gives me what you're thinking, right? What DraftKings thinks was the number of people who probably legitimately made this bet or they at least think they're worth keeping around. I don't know, but it's a part of the conversation in my head. You know, I'm looking at this. There's a lot of times in my life I've made simple mistakes and had to pay tax on it, right? I call it stupid tax. I would not assign that to you guys. I'm not convinced, here's where I am. I'm not convinced that if by some miracle, LeBron James stayed under eight points that game, that you would have come in and asked to avoid this. I'm just not convinced of that. And- We provided evidence in the incident report that that's accurate. And I understand, I get the way. I get the way. I also think that allowing this group of bettors and is a part of the business model. And I think that there's a lot of times that the business benefits from having these folks on and that's why they're allowed to do so and that's why they were allowed to figure out this bet. And so that's a decision from the company, right? To allow these people on and in that way and to continue to allow them to place wagers. And I know again from our previous work this year that you do cap some wagers and cap some folks. So, you know, in my head, I'm thinking about the public policy ramifications of this decision, right? And so will the industry as a whole make better decisions when it comes to vendors and when it places how it moves and how quickly it moves and how it treats patrons and who it allows to even engage if they're forced to pay this versus if it's voided. And so that's what's sitting in my head right now is a balancing act of what's the right thing to do? I appreciate your memo. I could flip almost everything in that memo on its head and say, well, it's in the best interest of the Commonwealth to make sure that every time they log into the phone that it's gonna be correct, right? And that the vendors being used are not making mistakes and that when no mistake happens, something changes. And so I'm thinking about this holistically, not just, you know, let's tick off the rag and start, it either hits this or it doesn't hit this. And I appreciate that from our team, that analysis. But I'm thinking about this holistically and I'm thinking about this, what does this do in the industry after we make this decision? So that's where I am. Commissioner Maynard, I appreciate all of your comments. I might be a little bit more inclined to turn to the rag, just so that I know what we're doing ultimately here. So I wanna go back to Mina. We have full discretion to cancel or avoid, but if we decide to honor, the commissioner's doesn't even concludes there's no reasonable basis to believe there's obvious error in the placement. Do we have to do something or do we have to decide is there an obvious, an obvious error? No, we don't have to. No, I think, Madam Chair, I think the obvious error language that you're looking at is when a patron requests the commission or is designee. Oh, okay, that's good to know. Obvious error, that's in subsection eight. That's for the patron, okay. So what do we have to for our written determination? Let's just do neutral. What do we have to do if we decide to void? What do we have to do if we decide to honor? So it's the same factors, right? So that the commission issues are in order, granting or denying the request to cancel or avoid. You can, like I said, you can consider any factors, but the four that are listed are, and I won't read every single word, but sort of the factors are implicate the factor A has two parts. Okay, B and C and D, right? Yep, A is really A1 and A2. A1 is implicate the integrity of the sporting event. I don't think that's an issue here. The integrity of the sports wagering industry is probably more relevant because events at issue have already happened. There's no question about that. The second is implicating possible illegal activity relating to the sports wagering event or the sports wagering industry. The set third is whether allowing the wager would be unfair to patrons. And fourth would be whether allowing the wagers contrary to public policy. And that fourth factor is where I was suggesting that you could draw in a lot of the factors that Commissioner Maynard just mentioned really fit under that fourth part is public policy. So that public policy. So, and we are required to consider those factors. It's not, okay. And beyond, and these those four and beyond. All right, so Commissioner Maynard, I redirected us to the reg because you set up the conversation so well. So let's see, commissioners, are we ready to move on this matter? Do we have more questions for our sports wagering division? Do we need to roll on over again? I don't know. I was wondering, I look at the factors and like I said before, these don't weigh in favor to me in the circumstance of avoiding. I hear what Commissioner Skinner saying in terms of issuing an order that's subject to conditions. I don't know if that's something that we would inherently have the authority to do. But when I look at the earlier section, we talked about interests of the Commonwealth, interests of the integrity of the industry. You know, it wasn't illegal. It did not affect the integrity of the event. The unfairness is, I haven't heard anything about unfairness to patrons who didn't bet. You know, the public, I don't see how allowing it is contrary to public policy. So I'm not persuaded in these four criterion that in this circumstance, it would sway me to change my opinion. I still don't think it should be avoided. I do think that there are steps they can take in terms of identifying patrons they think are detrimental to the business and giving them notice and going from there after this event as a learning experience. But for me, if I were to draft something, these four prongs would not be tending in favor of avoiding for me. And on the earlier ones, that was for the operator to prove to us, the A, B, and C, right at number two, and which, you know, Jake went through Draft King's argument, focusing on both either the interests of the Commonwealth or the integrity of the betting system. Can I try to help? Madam Chair, I am actually ready to move. I certainly don't think we should roll this over. We've had great dialogue back and forth. I have been quiet because most of my questions were part of the memo and were answered in the memo. So that's why I've relatively been quiet during this discussion today, but certainly not moving it over. I'm actually ready to take a vote on this. Okay, I think we probably are. I just threw that out to get the conversation going. So thank you. Commissioner Skinner, do you have outstanding questions? I think my only suggestion would be that this took a good amount of time. I might recommend that we do take another look at our reg and see where we can be helpful to make sure that we are absolutely clear. So Director Van, I always like the idea of doing our own homework. So thank you for that thought. I think legal will be able to do that and be helpful. Andrew Steppen, you've made a recommendation. Do you want to be heard? Because I want to make sure that our sports measuring division is heard clearly. Yeah, certainly. Draft teams has provided all the information as per the regulation. Per their information that they've given to us, our recommendation is to move forward with voicing the request. If we make a motion, could we clarify the basis for that motion? I know that we haven't written, but I'd like to reiterate perhaps some of the points that were made around the public policy. If it's going in that direction, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Maynard, you articulated those. So my expectation would be there's going to have to be a written product that follows this. So in my mind, we could flesh that out when we write, when we come back and we sort of sign off on whatever the written decision is. I mean, I'm sitting here thinking, I know we have to do our work in public and appreciate that. But at the same time, addressing this at another meeting to get this thing written is okay with me because my very little time practicing, I never had a judge make a decision on the spot unless it was motion hour on a Friday, right? So they took everything under advisement. So I'm happy to let my decision be known today, but the actual particulars of articulating the decision, I think it's going to have to come back. I just think it has to. I mean, we would normally say consistent with, as discussed here today, which would encompass everything that the five of us have said, and staff and Mr. List. I turn to legal for some guidance. Sure, I would say process-wise from our side of things, what we could do is, as Commissioner Bryant was saying, based on the conversation here today, put together a draft, asking Anki to help us get that together and then bring the draft back to a commission meeting for further discussion, if that's what you'd like to do. I was ready to vote today and have it. That's what I mean. Sorry, I apologize. So you vote. I have it. It's a written product. You'd vote. Tell us what the decision is. We've heard the conversation. We would write the decision and then come back so you could authorize the written decision. Jake, I think one of the things that folks are struggling with is the idea that this happened before. Is there any inaccuracy in that? Is there some distinction you want to make on that? I just want to make sure I've been giving you both. I think it would correct us if we heard something incorrectly. Thanks. It's accurate that we had an error early in the year where spot cast was also the vendor at fault. What I was saying to, I guess, Commissioner Skinner when we were talking about, when I said small errors and errors in general was, yes, we had one, I can't remember the exact month off the top of my head, but I think it was in the first quarter of the year. And we are offering between 50 and 100,000 markets on the website a day or without error for months on hand. Maybe the rate of errors occurring is less than 0.01%, but that doesn't mean even with a vendor such as the one we're discussing today, that two times in a year, some type of error will occur. It's a shame that in this case, both of them are large, which is even more of an exception. But as I also said in the first meeting, one of the difficulties with obvious errors and why they are written into the rules and why they are addressed in the regulation is because the size of the error relative to the breakdown of control can be a little bit arbitrary. So whether it ends up being $150 or $150 billion may not be really related to the size of the control failure at all. And that's why we have these house rules for these type of exceptions. So while it is true that we've had two errors from one vendor in the course of a year, that's two errors out of hundreds of thousands of markets, if not millions offered by the vendor, on top of all of the other things that we offer. And there are other vendors that provide us with odds making services as well. So I understand the policy discussion of, okay, we wanna hold operators to a standard where the odds will be correct and these things won't happen. But realistically, even though we are constantly improving our controls, constantly improving our monitoring, constantly improving the ways in which we detect type of customers that would abuse errors. I promise you there's gonna be more errors in the future and one of them might be financially crippled a company. Could you repeat that last part, Jake, I'm sorry. And I said, and one of them might financially cripple a company? Yeah, to that point, just when I look at this data, $100 wager garnered $150,000, a $10 wager, garnered $8,000, $20 garnered $18,000. I mean, it is a pretty costly error for sure. And so I'm mentioning that because it speaks to a certain subset of that 138 individuals who are seemingly taken advantage of the incorrect wage, the error. And so I think my fellow commissioners have spoken essentially, there is consensus, a clear consensus, but just wanna have on record just that where I stand is I do think that there's some culpability here with DraftKings, but I also wanna be fair in this process. Commissioner Skinner, your struggle is why I'm continuing the questioning because I actually am struggling too. And I think I exhibited that before. My struggle is this, and I don't know if legal will be definitive for us. Last two weeks ago, I noted that they have a house rule. And I do feel that patrons should be rely on the house rule. So situation here, is there anything about the situation here that's been presented by DraftKings and then thoroughly discussed by us that shows that DraftKings, voiding this is not in compliance with the house rule. So the house rule states, DraftKings will not cancel or void a wager due to an obvious error without prior approval of the masses usage gaming commission. An obvious error is on any of the following circumstances have occurred and then it lists certain circumstances, including bets have been offered placed in or accepted due to an error. So the way I read it, the house rules allow them to come to you with this request, but it doesn't override the reg or the commission's responsibility to evaluate the factors in the reg. And all of our discretion comes through the reg. And the reason why I'm struggling with it is because I do feel that we have a very rigorous regulatory framework and it's our job to make sure that the effort is compliant with it and that we're also fair in its interpretation. So commissioner Skinner, you know, your idea around fairness, I'm struggling with it, but I do think that it sounds as though perhaps there's two of us rather than four or two on the other side. It sounds like three have a consensus that this should be voided. Madam chair, if I could almost also comment on that though is another way to look at commissioner Skinner, what you just said is I have to ask myself if they hadn't been allowed to void in January with this vendor, would we be even having to have this conversation today that maybe the $318,000 consequence that was voided in January with this vendor, had that been paid out, maybe we wouldn't even be in this circumstance nor were the customers in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts. And so for me, there's another way to look at this. This is not the first time. And while I appreciate that this may be somewhat substantial that it's not crippling and that would be a very different factor that is not the first thing. So I am ready to make a motion or second a motion. Can I add to that point quickly though before you do, because I think it's important. One is that if it were crippling, I would factor that in to the best interests of the Commonwealth. I think it would be a part of that standard. The other thing is commissioner Skinner and I won't do it, right? But like we could say, well, how much money and you could tell us in an executive session, do you make from parlays, right? And I think that number that makes your eyes go really big would go big the other way. If you see on any given day how much money a company makes from parlays. That's how they work, right? You put a $10 in, you put some different options and you hope to hit that $10,000, right? Or $100,000, but on the opposite side, mostly doesn't hit. So I think both those things count, you know, cut both ways, but I will say to the chair, I'm struggling with this just as much as anybody else is. I think I'm just coming down on, do I wanna treat our patrons in Massachusetts differently than Connecticut and New Jersey that are treating their patrons? And that really, that sits with me and it weighs with me. And so Commissioner Maynard, can I just jump in there because I hear you on that and I guess, if in fact there's nothing in Connecticut and New Jersey that's distinctly different from our regs, our law, the house rules, then I'm in agreement with you. I do know there's a whole host of other jurisdictions that did void it. And so, you know, I'm sorry? Most didn't have to go up to a commission. A lot of times they have their way to go anywhere. So those are inapplicable comparisons for me. I respect their governance model, whoever the decider is. I assume they're looking at their regular. The decider may be Draft Kings unto themselves, manager. I'm sorry? The Draft Kings may be able to decide unto themselves. They don't necessarily need to go up to a regulatory body if they deem it, obviously. That's either more compelling ones or the ones that had to go up to some sort of review. To answer that, I don't have the exact off the top of my head, but I think it's about evenly split between the commission needs to approve, the local commission needs to approve and there is no approval requirement. So you can take some good break down from that. Commissioner Maynard. I need a five minute break. That sounds good to me. Thank you. And it's right now at 12.55. We'll come back around one. We should be able to wrap this up and appreciate everyone's attention. Thanks. Thanks, Dave. I'll set up. Thank you. Thank you everyone for hanging in there. OK. Commissioner Mayn, thank you for requesting that break. I certainly benefited, so thank you. Let's turn back to just want to make sure that we've heard from our sports wagering division. We've got Andrew. I don't know if Director Ban is available. Might still be on the phone. I'm ready to make a motion if anyone's ready for it once we get any opportunity for them to speak. I could just hold for a second. Madam Chair, question in the meantime. Sure. Do we know, I guess this is for Andrew or Jake, do we know what the liability is for New Jersey? Could you share that if so? Just kind of could you just repeat for the one? I'm so sorry again. Just what the liability is for New Jersey. We were told that they are going to not allow the void. So is that information available? I don't. Again, I'm not sure it's public information. OK. I think I could say that. OK. I wasn't aware even of yesterday that the DGE denied the request. Connecticut, I believe, was 151,000, but I'm sure of the New Jersey numbers. Yeah, the ruling from New Jersey was late yesterday. Yeah, the figure may well become public, but that's not at the moment. I'm not sure on our liberty to disclose. I'm just circling back before we have a motion for Director Bann. You did come in late, so I just want to make sure you're all set and both Andrew and Crystal are all set because they have, of course, made a different recommendation than what seems to be the consensus. So thanks. Director Bann, if you're on mute, are you all set? I am all set unless you have any further questions. OK, I have just one question. Have you done a void before? Yeah, we're going with the recommendation that we had put forth in the injuries memo. Madam Chair, we did have a previous void on the September 21st commission meeting. PSI brought forward a void request that was granted. And we made our recommendation based on how the commission proceeded on that. Madam Chair, I'm ready to make a motion. Commissioner O'Brien? Commissioner O'Brien, I'm sorry. I am sorry. I just have one question for Council, either Caitlin or Mina. Is it possible to condition a waiver? Caitlin? Yeah, to void it. To void it. Yeah, can we condition it? I think that's part of your inherent powers under the reg to do that. Obviously, the applicant can then determine whether they will accept that or whether they would like to pursue their remedies on that. But yes, I think within your inherent powers, you could condition the voiding if you were to allow it. Caitlin, I don't know if you have a different view on that, but I want to speak for everybody. No, I agree with that. I actually do want to express I hear Commissioner O'Brien is really hot to make a motion. I'm not hot to make a motion, Madam Chair. We've just talked about it for a long time. I know we've talked about it. I'm ready to move and take the temperature of the room, so to speak. Commissioner O'Brien, it's important to me because of the way our reg is structured, that our decision around public policy and the interests of the commonwealth or the interests of the integrity of sports that can be clarified today if we're going to make a decision because as I noted, that matters to me what the reasoning is. And maybe I've heard a variety of things mentioned today, but I wonder if there's any way we could align that. Commissioner Skinner, I don't know if you feel the same way, but I've heard different things. I think Commissioner Maynard probably was the clearest to me of what he was thinking. I don't have anything to add. I think we certainly could have all benefit from a clear understanding of the reasoning for how the vote ultimately shapes up. PSI and the prior void request was mentioned. So I just need if we could just have a refresher as to what the circumstances were around that, it would be helpful to me. Certainly, so PSI requested a void request. It came forward on the September 21st commission meeting and was dated on a, I believe it's September 18th football game or September 17th, apologies between two NFL teams where markets were left open for approximately 90 minutes after the outcome had already concluded. There were 257 wagers for approximately $47,000 or $48,000 that was granted. The void request was granted. This was considered almost like a past post where markets were left open and patrons customers were still allowed to wager on these markets knowing the outcome. And I have to apologize. I've been probably the most back and forth on this and it's because I'm actually having a hard time making a decision, I'll be honest, it's fine. That's my job is to think about it. But, I would be willing to Mina and Kalen's, I would be willing to condition a void. If everyone was treated the same and they got the same promotional opportunities and really in interest of full disclosure and for the record, it would be for the same reasons that Commissioner Skinner articulated, which was, I'm looking for something here that I do want Draftings to understand that this, generally when something like this happens, to me the tie should go to the patron in my opinion. Like we should be patron centered, patron focused, but at the same time, not benefiting people who want to take advantage of a 20 minute situation. And so I would be willing to do that, but I would want everyone to be credited, not only what they put back, but plus the best credit anyone, your best customer got out of what your customer service has done. And I understand they don't have to take that. Mina said, they don't have to agree to anything like that, but I would be willing to have a conversation on something like that or even additional terms, right? Like I'm not saying that's the only term, but I would be willing to have that conversation with my fellow commissioners. Commissioner Skinner, your idea of a compromise is moving forward. I would say, Commissioner Maynard, I have gone back and forth as much as perhaps you have been swayed by Commissioner O'Brien. And that's why we have, there's a long conversation, but there's five of us. And five of us have the ability to make our decision and to think about it. And I'm learning from each and every one of you. We do have a obvious error right on the books. And I think that distinguishes us from New Jersey as you started out. I don't know anything about Connecticut, but I do respect my friends down in New Jersey tremendously, but I also do respect the issue of making sure our regulatory framework and health rules can be relied upon. So Commissioner Skinner's compromise idea has gotten a little bit of traction. Should we build on that? I don't know if legal can help us on that, Commissioner Maynard. I know there's been a proposal, Madam Chair, but I as one commissioner, want an up and down vote, whether we allow it or not allow it. I don't see where we need to put any conditions on it. I'm in agreement at this point. But we could put conditions on it, correct, Legal? So I hear Commissioner Hill say he doesn't love that, but it's not an option that's, at least Mina has said that we can't entertain. Yeah, you can certainly entertain it for sure. I'm happy to make a motion, see it seconded. And if it goes down, then we're in a different posture in terms of where we stand. But because obviously based on where I am, my motion will be to deny the request. So we can take an up and down vote if there's a second on that now, if that fails, we're in a different posture. You know, sitting as chair, I typically don't move. And I respect the fact that Commissioner Maynard would like to move. So I'll take Commissioner Maynard's motion. And unless I hear from someone else who would like to entertain it, I think we know what Commissioner Maynard is going to move on. I would ask Commissioner Maynard to the extent that you could explain the policy that would be really helpful just to recap because I know you're really good at that. Thanks. So Madam Chair, just if I could, I'm sorry, Commissioner Maynard. I just, this is going to be difficult for me because I will vote alongside the majority. And so, you know, I just, you know, I don't want to be put in a position, you know, to foreclose any further discussion about potential conditions that we place on the granting of a void request. So I don't know. I am looking for guidance from legal perhaps. I just, I don't want to tie my hands. And I appreciate that, Commissioner Skinner, because the five of us really do work and, you know, to try to achieve consensus. We really do. And this one's a hard one for us. And it's probably because there's a lot of discretion and there's a lot of options. We also know, I think we acknowledge errors happen. I think how much our tolerances for that may vary across the screen here. Commissioner O'Brien, I am appreciating your desire to move, but I'm also appreciating that that does put us in a position where maybe a nuanced vote that we try to work toward isn't going to be considered. If it's off the table, no one wants to move for that nuance. Then, you know, we have, I'm hearing from Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Maynard, something more nuanced. I'm hearing from Commissioner Hill up or down. I'm hearing from Commissioner O'Brien. I think, you know, her motion's been sitting there anxiously waiting to be made. So if no one else wants to move, Commissioner O'Brien. I guess what my response will be, I would vote, well, the issue is, Commissioner O'Brien, if we vote to not void the wagers, then we can't put the, if we vote to void the wagers, if you have a majority vote to, and I don't know what the chair's going to do, she just outlined all of us pretty well, but then, but if it went the other way, right? And then we can't then condition. And so then I would be in a whole different posture, which is, I don't want to just do, I'm only, let's put it this way, I am not going to take a vote clear of conditions to void this thing. And I heard Mina say, well, it depends if draft kings will accept a condition. I've not heard whether or not they would even accept a condition or not, which would also help move this along, because if they're not going to accept any conditions, I'll just, you know, I'll vote, I'll vote with Commissioner O'Brien. I think I can speak for the company that we would be open to any conditions that the commission would suggest to us and if it were tied to equal bonusing across the entire customer cohort as the ones that have already taken place. I can all but speak for the company that we would accept that. And I want to be able to make a motion to that or similar effect. And so I'm going to need some assistance from legal, however. Before we go down this road to be blunt, I think those of us that wanted to move earlier should be able to speak on this. And one of the things that has disturbed me is draft kings has sat in front of us for two days and never offered anything up other than we want it voided in its entirety. We sat here and there was conversation about it. There was silence. The only numbers shown thrown out in my view rather low given the potential payout is in excess of a half a million that you're paying out in excess of 115 Connecticut and likely more than that in New Jersey. And so to me, that is not so much of a compromise is that basically essentially voiding. I think it does not comply with the public policy issues that I took issue with in terms of you had an error from a vendor in January, you were able to avoid, you kept the vendor that put us in this situation. Not only Massachusetts but in close to 20 other jurisdictions. And so for me, I have a huge issue that goes beyond coming up with a de minimis credit back to the 130 something customers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because I do believe that this ability to come in and void is a deeper question in terms of taking responsibility for vendors that have made mistakes already, what you put out to the customer coming before this commission, only asking for voiding and not coming in with any other requests apps and someone else coming up with a de minimis alternative. So to me, any sort of conditioning, it would not be something as de minimis is simply taking $500 and bonus credits or a thousand credits per person embedded. That to me is a woefully deficient on a public policy position for me. Madam chair. Yes. Just a question for commissioner Brian in terms of what would you be comfortable with in terms of a condition? I'm not comfortable with the conditions in general because I do feel like they made a mistake. They had a vendor, they made a mistake. They've had to pay this in other jurisdictions. This has happened to other licensees and other jurisdictions where people have paid. I do not like the language that they're using at a certain client base that they've used. You gave me a little more clarity on how you view some of that client base. They're not doing anything illegal. To me, sometimes those people are the very people that would keep you on your toes and make sure that you're not doing anything that would cause risk or misinformation or mistakes to go out. And so it would have to be substantial to me. And I'm not so sure the condition is only on the clientele in terms of is there any other solution and condition that goes out that provides something else to the Commonwealth on a public policy standpoint and not just limited to what happened in this moment. Mr. Mayor, they probably didn't outline my own position because I have to say I'm listening and listening. And it's been really I'm the beneficiary of being able to be at the end, I know. So I just can say that I'm listening. Mr. Hill, do you want to add? Well, Madam Chair, I'm really at a point now where I think a motion has been put forward or wants to be put forward. We've heard every commissioner at this point make their opinions known. I think we're at a point in the meeting where if a commissioner wants to make a motion, I would ask through you that that happened. Yeah, so Commissioner Hill, I appreciate that. I think I probably did expand that here because I think commissioner Skinner did raise an important point that she would like to go with the majority, we all do. But that said, it's not always the case. It's not always the case, that's right. So and I appreciate, of course I'm a little uncomfortable with how long this has taken, but I also think that our process is inclusionary and I think everybody has had a chance to be heard but something that's not uncomplicated. So I will turn right now. I am not going to be a moving party. Is there someone who would like to be a moving party? I'll make the motion I intended to make earlier, Madam Chair, which is that I move the commission deny Draft King's request to void the wagers as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed today and November 16th of 2023 and that staff be authorized to issue a written order pursuant to 205 CMR 238.35 consistent with the conversation that this commission had on November 16th and today. Second. Any further discussion? Commissioner O'Brien, could you elaborate as I requested perhaps on any of the public policy issues that you expect our legal to pick up on? I think I said it just before the vote and the motion for the vote, Madam Chair, which is that I don't see anything in here in the presentation that Draft King's made in the motion or that the sports wagering division put forward that would justify that this isn't the best interest of these customers in the Commonwealth or the integrity of the sports wagering industry as a whole on the Commonwealth. I think holding your vendors accountable, fixing errors that were known to you a good nine to 10 months prior to this is more in the interest of the Commonwealth, not the other way around. I think that there are tools available to the licensee to use a scalpel on a small number what appears to be a small number of clientele they think is gaming their system in a way that is not illegal, but it's not advantageous to them. And I think for that reasons, plus the other reasons that have been discussed here today that that would provide sufficient fodder for the written decision and memorializing what I just moved on. Okay, commissioner, any other comments or requests? Commissioner Skinner, you're off camera. I want to give you time, do you need that? Thank you, Madam Chair, I'm all set. Okay, Mr. O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. I'm a nay, but I do have a counter motion to offer if given the opportunity. Okay, commissioner Maynard. Nay, because I cannot stomach the fact of enriching a group of people that were taking advantage of the system. And I would like to hear any counter options. And I'm a nay because today I've heard a lot of discussion. I'm convinced that this is close enough that we're gonna honor the recommendation of our sports weight training division. So I am, and I appreciate the input from draft kings today. So I'm a nay. With that said, the nays carry. So it's helped me up, Caitlin. I guess it would be two dash three. On this vote, I'm hearing from commissioner Skinner that she might want to move in the alternative fashion. I think that's right on the vote. Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, I am guessing that you're about as hungry as I am. Thank you everyone for hanging in. Madam. No, I'm sorry. Continue. I move that the commission approved draft kings request to void wagers as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Subject to draft kings providing promotional funding, the amount and manner as was reported was offered to the other or to 14 of the 138 patrons who placed a wager on this particular bet. Council Grossman, you'll have to confirm that that is in good order, that motion. I believe that captures what your intention is to make sure all the, I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. The reasons are treated the same. That's what I wanted to clarify because my understanding is the 14 could have had different incentives or promotional funding. So apologies, commissioner Skinner, are you asking for them to receive sort of the most favorable promotional funding that any one of the 14 received? So my understanding is that each of those 14 receive three bonus bets in the amount of three times their initial wager. Whether they place the wager using cash or a promotional wager that was offered to them previously in the only distinction there. And I think for all of the patrons, the intent is for all of the patrons to be treated equally in that same form and fashion. So just for absolute clarity, I'll repeat what we did. So if the customer placed a free bet, we gave the free bet stake back. Sorry, if the customer placed a bonus bet, we refunded the bonus bet in the same amount that the bonus bet was. If the customer had bet in cash, we refunded the customer three times the cash stake. And my understanding is we would apply the 3x cash stake to the entire population. Even where the initial bet was placed with a free bet? I mean, I think that would be up to the commission of what you think is appropriate, but the sort of logic that you've used is something that we can carry out. It's not my logic though. It's what I understood you'd have to have reported as was already done for the 14. Right, so what has already been done is only the stake of the free bet was refunded to free bet. Only the stake of the bonus bet was refunded to customers who made a bonus bet. If the customer made the wager in cash, then 3x cash was refunded. So we could apply 3x cash to the rest of the scope of cash bets and a free bet refund to all of the free bets. Or we could also give an additional cash bonus to the free, so the bonus bet patrons as well. Take care of that delta, correct, Jake? The one said didn't get the cash. Is that what you like, Commissioner Skinner? That wasn't what I was proposing, but that's actually even better. And I think commissioner Maynard might agree just according to looking at it. I was going to say friendly amendment to commissioner Skinner that I wouldn't want to paint out 3x cash across the board. And the ones that got the credit, they would just get the 3x cashed. That would be a friendly amendment. I accept the friendly amendment. Thanks for clarifying for me. We can also provide, I guess, just for absolute clarity what we intend to carry out in writing to the MGC staff, just so that we're 100% clear on what's about to be carried out. I would ask that you do that before it's carried out so that we can be totally clear that that's in accordance with what we intended today in terms of a vote if we get to that point and it carries. Yeah, understood. So there's a motion with a friendly amendment. I second that. And you second it as well. Point of clarification. This would still require a written decision. Meena? Yes. And Jake Jopkins is offering a written submission on that. Okay. Yes. Go ahead, Jake. Oh, no, sorry. I was just making an agreement with your comment. I think we fully understand what the condition would be, but to make sure we would supply a spreadsheet of the action to carry out. Thank you very much. Any further questions or discussion on motion? For the record, Madam Chair and to be fair, it would be for almost the same exact reasons Mr. O'Brien outlined. And I think I helped outline earlier. I just within add in the public policy not enriching people that take advantage of the Commonwealth. Really. Thank you. Is there any other public policy point that we want to make Commissioner O'Brien did a great job summarizing? Commissioner Maynard, really good job. The only thing that I will say as I will cast my vote no, is because in my view, the self description of the undesirables by Drapkins to me in terms of how these people are qualified in their view, et cetera, they certainly take their money in other circumstances, even not this one. So I disagree with you, Commissioner Maynard. I do not think that what I said, then has this motion that's currently drafted, covers the public policy concerns and the customer protections, particularly when you look at juxtaposed and New Jersey and Connecticut, betters will be treated. I disagree. I do not think that it falls within the public policy requirements of the reg. So, and I would hope that's reflected in the written decision. Respectfully, Commissioner O'Brien, I agree with you earlier. And in fact, I'm leaving my notes. I made the point that, you know, I agree. I just think the severity of how we treat it's different, especially for this first time. I would also note that I would not treat this the same way, potentially next time. So I mean, I respect that. I agree with you about the issue and I do think that there's a real issue of taking money from these folks and next time it comes around, I'm gonna weigh it again and I'm gonna weigh it very differently. Any further discussion? I think I can go ahead then, Commissioner O'Brien. Nay. Commissioner Hill. No. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes, three, two. Okay. Well. Please tell me we're having lunch. What are you having? That's what I really want to ask. Anything. As long as it's not mango. The cat. Okay. So it's 1.37 and we do have several items to move forward on. I think that for you, for planning purposes, 11A will be rolled over. There's a little bit more work to do I learned during the course of our meeting and that's an executive session issue. And then, so I think 1140, I mean, 140, come back at 210 commissioners. I know that we've got at least one person in the office today. It's a little harder. Is this that work for you, Commissioner Maynard? 210. Okay. Thanks everyone. And to our guest, Jake, thank you. You blew solo today and we know how tired we are. So we appreciate all your input. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. Okay. I think we can take it down, Dave. Thank you. I'm just getting my packet back up. I'm going to sleep. Okay. I think we've got everyone. Good afternoon. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaining Commission. We had a good long morning. Thank you everyone. And we're holding this meeting virtually. So I will do our row club. Good afternoon, Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. And good afternoon, Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. Okay. We'll get started. This is again, public meeting 490 and we are now turning to our community of the Fair Division. And Mike Shelley, wait patiently. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. This item should take slightly less time than your last one. So in front of you today, we have a request from the Springfield Police Department on a couple of their grants. Just a little background. In 21 and 22, we gave the Springfield Police Department two different grants totaling $24,000 to improve data connectivity between the Metro unit, which is located over on Dwight Street, down to the GEU. It's basically putting in fiber optic cable between them to improve their communications. They just recently went out to bid on that and the price actually came in a bit higher than what was estimated. So they're now at $29,027 or $5,027 more than the total of the two earlier grants. Back in 2020, they received a grant the police department did for some purchases of equipment and so on. And there does remain an unexpended balance in there of a little under $19,000. And that was due to some savings that they had in their purchases, particularly on a vehicle that came in a fair amount below their original estimate. So there is some money in there. They are requesting that that $5,027 be transferred from the 2020 grant to the 2022 grant so that they can get that data connectivity project underway. So we are recommending to do that. Madam Chair. Any questions for Joe? I don't see any issues with this and certainly would lean in the direction of approving it. Right, same. Okay. And it's that 10% threshold and that's why you're revisiting us. Yeah, that's right. Okay, to have a motion. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the transfer of $5,027 from the 2020 Springfield Police Department Community Mitigation Fund grant for police equipment over to the 2022 Springfield Police Department Community Mitigation Fund grant to approve data connectivity between the Metro unit and the Gaming Enforcement Unit as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. Okay, no further discussion. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. My vote yes, $5,027. Thanks. Thank you, John. Thank you to Mary. There you are. Lily, we know it takes your entire team, Jody Gall, and it's good work done. So thank you. Eddie, thank you very much. That's all we have for today. Thank you so much. Okay, then we're gonna turn right to item number nine, our licensing division, and it's great to see you, Chief O'Brien. How are you, Kara? Hello, good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. So strange as it may seem, we are almost coming up on a year in terms of our application process. If you all remember, November 27th was the deadline for the general application last year. And so what we have here today is a renewal of the temporary licenses is of course a pursuant to 205CMR 219.04, the temporary licenses expired, the first temporary license expires after one year. And all of the operators must request renewal of their temporary license on form approved by the commission. That form is on page 135 of your packet. I wanted to also just make a note. I need, I would need, I would request a small edit in the form. It indicates that the form should be accompanied by the $1 million fee. That they actually have 30 days to submit the fee. The application fee, which is outlined in 2019.045 would need to be submitted with the actual request for renewal. And I'm happy to take any questions. And Kara, do you happen to have your language show? I do, and I can read it. I also have a draft. A request for temporary license shall include a non-refundable application fee as outlined in 205CMR 219.045. Payment of the 1 million license fee must be remitted within 30 days of temporary license renewal approval and then for electronic wiring instructions. Questions for care. Commissioner Brighton. The form has this going to Todd. Is that as interim ESGC? Should that be the licensing division? Yeah, so the regulation actually requires it to be submitted to the executive director. And so when we send out the form to the operators we will likely have it then submit to Todd as well as myself so that we can perform our review. Yeah, so my suggestion given where we are right now with Interim and everything is maybe the form should say to the executive director and the director of licensing and then you can put in the emails for convenience. But that way, if they happen to know one of the both of you are no longer here in those capacities, it's not lost somewhere. Absolutely. And Commissioner Brighton, I actually thought the same thing whenever I see a form where it includes a name. What's just the name? Yeah, and the same with Doug. I think for convenience you want the address but I think it's his title that is most important for there. You're right. Yeah. Yeah, just for consistency. It's quite a title as well. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Madam chair. Yes, Commissioner Schitter. Thank you. Kara, thank you. There also seems to be a typo in the attestation, the first line. It refers to this request for a hearing. Yeah, so we took that language from the original form because there will need to be a vote for the renewal as well. And so that's what this form is intended to do. Unless I'm misunderstanding the question. I guess I'm suggesting it should say this request for renewal. Instead of request for hearing. Okay. Right? I mean, I think it's a typo. Is there a hearing associated with this form? Yeah, the commission would still need to approve the renewal. It isn't that they submit the form and then they get renewed. The commission would still have to approve that. So in terms of whether that vote would be a hearing, I would take input on that from legal. Also, Kara, thanks. Just a quick finer point on that. I think consistent with what we had done with the preliminary licenses previously, it would be a public meeting, but of course I'll defer to other thoughts as well. Yeah, we're still kind of, I'm sorry, Commissioner's going to read about this. I am going to suggest again that the wording there, it doesn't seem quite right because it talks about the information provided as part of this request for a hearing. And a hearing isn't referenced anywhere else in this form. So I just, it's a little confusing to me. I understand that there will be some form of review, formal review by this commission, but in terms of the language of this form, I think that needs to be revised. Just to confirm pursuant to the regulation, the commission shall at an open public meeting either grant or deny leave to obtain a renewed temporary license. So it will be a public meeting as opposed to a new due to hearing. The commissioner's point though, Caitlin, would it be helpful someplace on this form to say that a hearing is going to be needed so that if you're going to reference that word hearing there, there's some context because I think right now this is just a request for a renewal of a license and they're not requesting hearing. I think we should avoid the word hearing because it's not, that I think lends itself to the idea of an adjudicatory hearing as opposed to a public meeting. And so we can put in more information about process to make a decision by the commission, whatever. But it's not what they say this request because the header says request for renewal of temp license. And so if you just said, as part of this request is true and accurate, then it takes away the kind of distraction of a hearing, right? Or the process, yeah. Yeah, it just kind of refers back to the header. So Nikesha's point doesn't give you a reference to a hearing that hasn't been mentioned before. Yeah, I think we can easily change it to renewal. This form is pretty bare bones. There's nothing that's really, people need to swear to particularly. No, of all you have to do during Nikesha's point is just part of this request. If you take out the for a hearing, I think it solves it. Yeah, I agree. All right, less is maybe more. Less is more sometimes, right? I mean. Yeah, yeah. I don't understand why this is so complicated. It's clearly a typo. So I think we should just, you know, consistent with my recommendation earlier as Commissioner O'Brien recapped, we need to change hearing to request for renewal or just request or something that makes more sense. Done. Absolutely understood. We can do that. This should not take longer than Joe's item though, yeah. Agreed, agreed. Agreed. Okay, any other questions? Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Anything else? Do you need a motion? I have a weird box that just popped up. Chat or pin, and I don't want to do either. There, a bit away. Thank you. Now I can see you again, Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you. Sure. I move that the commission approved the request for renewal of a temporary license to conduct sports wagering form as included in the commissioner's packet and it's discussed and further edited here today. Commissioner Skinner, thank you. Hi, Mango. Mango voted already. Okay. Thank you, Chief O'Brien. Any further discussion? Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I vote yes. Five, zero. Thank you so much. We got that process going. I think that we'll talk about future meetings and the renewal process going forward. Appreciate it. Thank you, Heather, as well. Thank you. And the legal department. All right, now we're turning to back to legal and IEB. They've come forward, legal and IEB, and I guess I was supposed to say she has come forward to a sponte for a policy and procedure for us to consider. So I'm not sure who wants to take the lead on this. Well, let me, Madam Chair and commissioners, I'll jump in and then we'll have a bit of a team effort in presenting this proposal. This begins on page 136 and then 137 of the packet, just for reference. What you have before you is a proposal to establish a protocol for the handling of all matters that implicate compliance related issues in the sports wagering context. And there are a series of regulations that govern part of this protocol, but it seems to us and to me that it will be important that we have a clear protocol in place for the handling of these types of matters. And when I say matters, I refer to any type of compliance related issue, regardless of where it comes from or how it came to us or the scope or magnitude in that they be handled in a similar and uniform fashion. And so it's those principles that are the guiding force behind the protocol that you have before you. And I'd like to ask that a number of our team members jump in and walk through the protocol with you. And so what you'll be hearing about first is the overview and some of the introductory principles from Caitlin. And then we will turn to Heather to talk a little bit about the IED and investigatory role in these matters. And that's where some of the regulations come into play as well. And Bruce Vand is here as well as this directly affects him and his team in the sports wagering division. So of course, this is designed in part to be an interactive process. So if there's any questions or comments, concerns along the way, as always please do jump right in. But with that as an overview, I'd like to first start with Caitlin, if I may, and ask if you would just introduce the document and begin the discussion. Absolutely, thank you, Todd. So this protocol was developed in order to implement 205CMR232, which is the reg governing discipline of sports wagering operators and other licensees and registrants. So it takes that reg and it makes an internal policy for how different types of non-compliance matters are to be handled or rooted. And one of the things that I will do in my section here is to talk about the different, what we've done is create different groups of potential non-compliance events based on the severity of the potential non-compliance event. And so what I'm gonna do is walk through the different types, the group ones, group twos and group threes, and then I'm gonna turn it over to Bruce and Heather to discuss how each of those groups would be dealt with under the protocol. And again, this sort of is constantly referring back to 232 the discipline reg. And in creating this protocol, one of the things we did look at was what goes on with regard to gaming. And so took a lot of the principles that are used currently in our IEB over on the gaming side with regard to how these type of non-compliance events are handled. So the first thing that I will say is that any, what will happen first is a non-compliance event will come into the agency in one way, shape, or another. Maybe it comes in because it's reported, we get an email through one of the agency's websites, maybe one of our non-compliant or our compliance agents in the sports wagering department find something. Regardless of how the issue is brought to us, it gets directed over to the sports wagering department. And the sports wagering department will make an initial determination as to whether it's a group one, group two, or group three type of incident and it will then log it on a non-compliance log. And the commissioners will have access into that log. So at any time the commissioners wanna go in and see what's in the log, what's been recorded, what's being worked on, they can see that. So the first category is a group one. And these are matters that involve relatively low level incidents, which may be handled directly by the sports wagering department without any referral to the IEB or the commission. And so examples of types of hypothetical group one incidents could include an advertising violation where required language is missing from one advertisement, a one-off mistake, or a situation where there's failure to submit information required by the internal controls in a timely fashion. It could also include one-off instances that are raised by patrons that we get through sort of patron complaints. And those are the type of things that the sports wagering department can take, get some more information on from the operator and just handle and just resolve the issue and move forward. And what we've done in the protocol as you'll see is we've include factors for the sports wagering department and those that will be advising the sports wagering department to consider in determining whether a particular event is a group one, group two, or group three. So here, the types of non-exhaustive factors that the sports wagering department would consider are whether the issue arose from the licensees reasonable, but mistaken interpretation of the statute, regulation, condition, or order, whether the issue was promptly detected and addressed by the licensee, whether it was self-reported by the licensee, whether there's a previous history of this type of violation by the licensee and whether future occurrences of the issue can be avoided by instituting clear remedial measures. So again, the group ones are sort of low level issues that can be resolved in a relatively straightforward manner. The second type of issue is a group two. And these matters involve significant and consequential incidents which shall be promptly referred to the IEB for handling. And here, again, some hypothetical examples of group twos could include a situation where an operator allows wagering on an event that's not included in the sports wagering catalog or a large scale or repeated violation of an advertising regulation. So as you can see, we're moving away from the one-off issues into more severe issues or recurring problems. And again, when we look at the factors to be considered here, you're looking at whether the potential non-compliance event relates to any of the issues set out into a five CMR 232 which sets out some of the more serious types of infractions that would be dealt with under that reg. Whether the facts or the impact of the matter are unclear and require further investigation. If the licensee is non-responsive or uncooperative, if the explanation for the reason for the incident is unsatisfactory, whether they were trying, they had tried to resolve the matter as a group one, but it didn't work. And the prior history of violations. And that's not a full list. You have it all in your packet, but that's just giving you a sense of the type of factors to be considered in deciding whether it's a group one, group two, or group three, and here, here are group two. And then you move on to the group threes. And these are matters that would involve severe incidents of which the commissioners shall promptly be notified in determining whether a matter is severe. The sports venue department will consult with the IEB and make sure there's some sort of agreement on the level of severity here. So examples of group threes would include a situation where there's a serious allegation made against a qualifier, or a situation where the license suspension or revocation is a realistic possibility. That's the type of thing the commission would want to take up in the first instance and adjudicate. And again, some of the factors, they do overlap with some of the group two factors, but everything is very fact specific. And the factors, as I said, are not exhaustive. So again, you're looking at whether the non-compliance event relates to any of the issues set out in 205-CMR-232, whether there's a statutory violation or a violation of the condition of the license. Again, whether suspension or revocation may be implicated, whether there's a cause for public concern, whether there's a history of prior violations, and whether the incident goes to the heart of the integrity of the industry. So with that, happy to take any questions or to turn it over to Bruce and Heather to walk through how each of these groups is then handled. I'm sure if you wanna ask Caitlin questions now, you wanna hear from Heather and Bruce. Just keep on going. Yes, please, go ahead, Bruce, go ahead, Heather, thanks. All right, for the group one determinations, it's usually very minor issues that we deal with and our main goal is to get the licensee back into compliance. These are things that are usually kind of one-offs that is first-time things. We might issue a sports wagering non-compliance form to the licensee where they tell us how they're gonna rectify the problem. We record everything in our sports wagering incident tracker. If we get too many of the non-compliance things, we would elevate that up to IEB for action with it. You have any questions on those or? And then we move to the level two. If we have anything in up to level two, which I'm gonna turn over to Heather, I would turn it over IEB. I will say that we meet rather regularly with IEB to discuss all these incidents and determine if any of these really should have been moved to a level two to begin with. We have regular conversations between IEB and ourselves and legal for that matter. Heather? Thanks, Bruce. Thank you, Chair and commissioners. So as Caitlin and Bruce kind of delineated, there are these different levels and Bruce has talked about how we approach a group one determination. With respect to the group two determinations, as Bruce indicated, those would be forwarded to the IEB and they would be referred over. And then if the IEB is evaluating it and determines that it gives rise actually to a group one or a group three classification, then the matter could be reclassified and handled in accordance with that relevant procedure. So upon doing an investigation, the IEB then takes their different variety that the process allows for with respect to particular actions by the IEB. The IEB could resolve it with a notice of non-compliance, which is a level above what Bruce and Caitlin described with respect to the sports wagering non-compliance form. This is similar to the gaming landscape in terms of how we approach the non-compliance and the different kind of progressive levels. So this would be a sports wagering notice of non-compliance. It's a document that is essentially a warning. It lays out the facts, the history, the regulatory and statutory provisions that are implicated and any particular corrective actions that the IEB is asking the operator to comply with. Now, if the operator finds that there is, excuse me, if the IEB finds that there is a more significant violation, the IEB can then provide a written recommendation to both the operator and the commission. And the IEB can recommend that there is, that the commission take the action of either suspending, revoking or conditioning the operator's license or so either in lieu of or in conjunction with that, the IEB could also recommend that the operator be issued a fine. And keep in mind too that the process does call for the ability for the IEB to negotiate with the operator. So in certain circumstances, this may be an agreed upon recommendation that would go up to the commission for the commission's determination as to whether they agreed with the recommendation. And just by way of reference, I think it's important to know it. And I think the chair and commissioners all know essentially the IEB's process. We would, in determining kind of the recommendation for, if we were gonna move forward with a fine recommendation, we would look to the prior commission's decisions, both for this particular applicant and other applicants or operators that maybe had a similar non-compliance issue. We'd also look to other jurisdictions and how those matters were handled by other jurisdictions kind of by way of comparison. Then we would also look at the history of this particular operator and the facts of the incident itself. So all of that would be going into the IEB's recommendation. So with respect to if it's an operator, that's the process that's described in the memo with respect to that particular type of licensee. Now it's a little bit of different process if it's a vendor or an occupational licensee or a registrant. In that case, if the IEB finds that the entity has violated 232, the IEB may issue a written notice to the entity and the commission with a copy, obviously to the general counsel's office of its intent to reprimand, suspend or revoke. And in that case, obviously the notice requirements would have to comply with 232. And that would be the IEB's ability to go forward with that action if it's not an operator. Now in the circumstance where an operator, excuse me, a vendor or an occupational licensee appealed, then that would end up potentially before the commission. The other options that are set out are that the matter could be referred to the attorney general's office or the IEB could determine that a non-compliance incident actually hasn't occurred. And so I guess I would pause there because I know there may be some questions. Well, then I just missed that last line. I'm sorry, it could be referred to the AG's office or what was the next one? Sure, it's determined that a non-compliance incident has not occurred. Thank you. So any questions on the group two determinations? Okay, so I'll move forward on to the group three determinations. And as Caitlin noted, these are the more severe types of non-compliance and more rare. So ultimately the initial process is the same for the group one and the group two in that the sports wagering division triages these. And now, to kind of follow up on Bruce, what Bruce said, there is regular communication between the IEB and the sports wagering division. So there would be that communication Bruce would reach out and say, hey, we have this situation, there would be a communication. And then we would inform the commission as soon as practicable of this issue, the IEB would then perform a preliminary review or investigation in a preliminary way. And then at the commission's next scheduled meeting after that preliminary review has been completed, the IEB would brief the commission on the matter. And then at that particular point in time, the commission would review the IEB's review of the matter, not deliberate at that point, but then essentially relate to the IEB and the sports wagering division, how it intends to proceed. So the commission could then direct the IEB to further monitor or further investigate to prepare a report and to share the report with the commission for further consideration as to how it would like to proceed. It may also schedule an adjudicatory proceeding after the IEB's investigation is complete and it may elect to assess a civil administrative penalty or perhaps reclassify the matter as a group one or group two and then the applicable protocol would apply. So with that, that's essentially the summary of the process memo that we have put forth to the commission. And, you know, as we've said, we're happy to answer any questions that the commission may have. Commissioners, impressions, observations. I have a question with respect to category two. I think we all had an opportunity to be briefed. I don't know, Commissioner Heller, you might have had a conflict. I want to. So you've been briefed. I was briefed, I think I was briefed by myself. I did during that briefing raise a couple of things. And one, I had hoped that the team would say that this commission as a whole did, we have passed that regulation and the regulation starts with that the commission has the authority over non-compliance matters and it reflects the statute in a way that's not reflected in 23K. And I remember that meeting very, very well, that it was critically important to the five of us to set the tone around these issues so that we, as a commission, could deliberate and make these decisions as we stood up this new industry. I have a technical question, Heather, because I understood the reason that came out that the team decided to do this policy was to create efficiencies. I kind of understand that from category one. I don't see the efficiencies in category two because I feel like we still have to approve because the statute requires us to approve. We can't just delegate our authority. And so the approval process will be after IEB does their whole review. I wonder, won't it just be that we have to have that do that process again when it comes to us because won't we want to know everything that we would want to know if we visit the ciders to begin with? So I don't see the efficiency in category two. Sure, Chair, thank you for the question. I think one of the efficiencies is that the process allows for the IEB to negotiate with the operator. So that's a situation where the IEBs can communicate a student with the operator. And if the operator, as does often happen on the gaming side of things, if the operator agrees, then the IEB would present that recommendation to the commission. So that's an adjudicatory hearing that doesn't have to happen before the commission. I think it would save the commission time as well as others involved in preparing for the adjudicatory hearing. The other piece, too, I would just note- Could I just minute, Heather? Excuse me, just a second. So I'm hearing you say because the operator will maybe agree with you that they won't have to come back in front of us. But I thought they had to come back. Your recommendation has to come back in front of us because you need an approval from us. Right, exactly. So now, play that out. Now you come back in front of this commission. These are hard issues that we're dealing. We just spent almost two hours, right, on this other issue because they're hard and we're trying to create fairness. We're trying to be rigorous. We're trying to create consistency. We're trying to address the interests of the commonwealth as well as the integrity of the betting framework. So now you come before us and you're gonna say, hey, the operator agrees with us, our recommendation. I'm not sure of this particular makeup of these five my fellow colleagues who each and every one's opinion, I think we all respect everybody. We always agree, but we all respect each other's thinking and our decision-making. So you're gonna come before us. Are we just gonna say, okay, or what will we have to do? And will it need to be in a judicatory hearing because it's a risk of a license issue? Well, I think you raise a fair question, Chair. I think at the end of the day, these are hard matters. And I think it's appropriate to let the IEB do its work. Like I said before, we would consider the facts and circumstances of the particular non-compliance matter at hand. As we do with gaming, we would consider the prior history for that particular applicant. We would look to other non-compliance by other operators to determine what's fair. And we would also negotiate with the operator. So all of that would go into the ultimate recommendation to the commission, which the commission could review and determine that it found reasonable and fair and then affirm it. Or the commission may decide that it wanted to do something differently. But I think that you're right in that these are hard issues, but there are issues that the IEB is particularly versed in dealing with. We have a lot of experience folks in the IEB. We also have a lot of experience in the sports-wavering division and we're working collaboratively. So I think ultimately the product that would be before the commission would be one that had a lot of work that went into it. All of that, Heather. So now let me take the example that Caitlin, and then I'm gonna turn over to my fellow commissioners, that Caitlin led with an example of an event that was illegally wagered on. We've had a few of those where we've issued a few opinions on them. Let's say that comes across the IEB director's desk. We delegate, isn't that what we've done where you've done your investigatory work for us? Then it comes to us as a decision maker and then we do it in an adjudicatory form so that we can deliberate. Isn't that what we've been doing? Is there a distinction, Todd? That is correct. No, I'm sorry, Heather. No, that's correct. That is what the commission has been doing. And I think that initially there was the desire to have the process proceed that way. And I think at this point, after several months, it's time to consider whether it may be a different process is appropriate. What's the distinction is, I guess I'm saying, because you're gonna come before us and I'm just wondering what you want us to give up in terms of our process for deciding or approving. Commissioners, you can weigh in. I think I've made my, Madam Chair, can I just add one point? I think you already referenced this. I just wanna make sure we're all on the same page here. One of the backbones of this proposal and as a background was the commission's regulation, which is in 232.02, which talks about how the matters that go before the IEB are handled and that it makes a recommendation, sends the recommendation to the operator and to the commission. If we delegate it. Well, you can call it whatever, but that's what it talks about in the regulation. So that was, it wasn't something that we just kind of created here in the protocol. The whole protocol was kind of built around this regulation. Yes, it was. The initial paragraph was added at the last section because it did not, the rest of the regulation reflected 23K. It did not reflect 23N. And I know that precisely. Commissioner Maynard, you're nodding your head. Do you wanna help add in? Not necessarily help me out, but I may not be being that clear. Madam Chair, I also had a one-on-one. It was a two-by-two, but it was me. I raised some of the same issues you did and I'll raise them here just to be clear. I'm, first of all, the category one makes total sense. It should have been there to begin with. Bruce has, I have full confidence in Bruce and his team to address those issues. What is category two and category three? It does, I still want the ability to review it. And I don't want it just to be on the books ability to review with really no way for me to get into the meat and potatoes of the issues. And so that's what I want to address. And that's at the end of the day. And I shared this with those that I spoke with. We, the commissioners, I like how we get to decisions and policy and hearing Commissioner O'Brien, hearing Commissioner Skinner and Brad, it helps me and I think it makes, at the end of the day, really, really good policy. And that's what I'm worried about losing. If there's not, if there are not enough safeguards in place to make sure that we see it, and it's not just on the books or perfunctory, I actually want to know what's going on. Commissioner O'Brien, it's Commissioner Maynard's ready. But that was really helpful, Commissioner Maynard. I'm particularly much better than I did. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. I apologize for the dog. So this came up in the briefing that Commissioner Skinner and I had. And one of the solutions that we had bandied about was the idea that we would, as a body of five, flag certain areas or types that we thought were potentially particularly egregious or policy related and that this would be amended accordingly to say, to basically tag those to come up to us. And I would also suggest that, you know, there's a tracking system for what comes in and there's a way to do that. I almost, Madam Chair, we have this conversation about IV in general, right? It's having something that's essentially a docket. So you could go up and any commissioner could have a read access to it and see essentially what is in the pipeline. And if there's anything that we deem of interest, we absolutely have the authority to bring it forward even though it's a, you know, category two. So those were a couple of the ideas that came up in the two by two that I was in that I throw out for discussion. I appreciate the idea of the tracker. And I heard that from the team that was briefing me, you know, look at the tracker and then, you know, agenda setting a commissioner can sort of throw it out. I want that to come forward. I caution against that because, you know, we really govern by majority rule. So I don't think, you know, I think it really would have to come into a meeting through a commissioner meeting update or something. But again, this is to create efficiencies. And, you know, we, Commissioner O'Brien, you and I had a conversation, you know, with the Executive Director Wells and the legal team over A&K about how this particular reg was written. And it was written without that first paragraph. And it was written to reflect 23K without recognizing that for whatever reason the legislature decided that the commission would own these decisions. I don't see any member of the team asking to take over house rules. But the commission has to decide the house rules. I don't see, there's another thing that, Bruce, what else does the commission have to do besides house rules, new events? Yeah. And the reason why it's because these are tough issues, I'm not ready from my perspective to just say, let's disrupt this before we've even had a year's worth of decisions and before our decisions have even been made so that I know where my fellow commissioners are on all these issues, you know, we had a really good discussion around this issue that, you know, Ohio had just issued its $350,000 fine. And we have appointing officials. I'm not prepared to say to my appointing official, I'm just delegating this obligation away. It's a big one. And we just, like I said, we just spent a couple of hours on a really tough one. That doesn't mean that I do not appreciate IEB's expertise and its work. And what it does under 23K, that works. It works well. You know, fines get issued and we don't get involved. We don't have to do any approval of those. IEB issues them. This would be distinctly different from what IEB is currently doing because we would have to approve them. And that's where I'm hung up because I think, I think it's commissioner Maynard's point, like what is our process of the approval? Because, you know, I don't like the term rubber stamp because we are not rubber stampers, but there's going to have to be some degree of re-curture patient in any case to get this commission to approve anything. Chair? Yes, commissioner's going to thank you. I appreciate your referencing the statutes. When I was briefed on this, one of my questions was how does this process differ? This proposed process differ from what is already in place on the gaming side. To shame, I didn't think to, or anyone for that matter during the briefing, didn't think to track it to 23K and 23N and highlight the distinctions. So that, could we spend a little bit more time just understanding what those distinctions are? That's helpful to me because I think we should be tracking in terms of what our protocol is, what is provided for in the statute. Commissioner, I could speak to that if- Yeah, I think Caitlin went first. I'm going to let Caitlin go first. Thank you. I absolutely, I defer to Heather and then I can jump in if there's anything else I think should be added. Okay, go ahead Heather. Thanks chair and thanks commissioner Skinner for the question. So the difference is under the gaming landscape, the IEB has the authority to issue the civil administrative penalty without prior approval from the commission. So essentially the way the process works is that the IEB under 23K section 36 is required to produce a notice of intent to the operator or whoever the licensee is. So we send the notice of intent and that's generally after conversation. So we don't generally send these without some prior notice to the operator. That notice of intent is sent then that's essentially what starts a negotiation process. Now not always, but that's generally how it has unfolded in that the negotiation process goes from there. Now during that negotiation process there may be mitigating circumstances that the operator lags for the IEB that the IEB wasn't aware of. Those mitigating circumstances would be factored in and then we in most cases would ultimately reach and agreed upon it would be a civil administrative penalty and an agreed upon amount. And then as has been our practice we would certainly update the commissioners with respect to that both individually or in two by twos and then add an open commission meeting depending on the type of matter that we're dealing with. It may be that it would have to be executive session but it would depend on the type of non-compliance. And I think what I would add here is that as Heather just explained under gaming there isn't actually for some of the matters there isn't an approval process by the commission. The IEB isn't allowed to issue the fines or the discipline and then it notifies the commission. Here for the category two incidents every time that the IEB if something is delegated to the IEB and the IEB thinks that there is a moment where discipline is necessary it goes to the commission in one way shape or form. So the recommendation goes to the commission for if you're an operator the recommendation goes to the commission the commission then either has to approve or not approve. And that would happen not in a full-blown adjudicatory hearing but presumably in a meeting where the IEB's report could be presented with regard to licensees that are- Can I ask a question about that though? Sure. Are we sure it's okay for us to approve a fine or something that could be a conditional license without there being an adjudicatory process Caitlin? Yes, we went through this when we created the reg and there's also the opportunity for appeal. So if the operator wanted to appeal the disciplinary measure then it would go to the commission. That's a second way that it would go to the commission potentially through a full adjudicatory hearing. So there would always be the opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing should the operator want it. When it comes to non-operator licensees the IEB could institute a disciplinary measure but that has to be reported to the commission. So it has to come to the commission you have to see that it happens and there is also an opportunity for appeal that would come up to the commission through a full adjudicatory hearing. And the other thing I would note that is, again, you're gonna have full insight into the database of ongoing issues. And at any point a commissioner could bring to the commission one of those issues and say, hey, I really think this is a category three. So it can do it on one-off instances or as commissioner O'Brien noted the commission could decide there are certain issue areas that at this point it doesn't want to be classified as category twos and we will always bring those forward as category threes. So basically for each of these- In the clarification though, I hate to interrupt but I want to, because I mentioned this during our briefing, one commissioner could bring it forward but it would take a majority to act. I just want to make sure to be clear, often we do work in consensus but one person it might really bother and they may never see it even if they're bothered if the other commissioners don't move to move it forward. Yes, the commissioner would bring it forward to the meeting and then present the issue to the full commission. And if the commission wanted to take that up as a group three, they could absolutely take that up. So basically there's a lot of fluidity here. There's the opportunity for reclassification and at the end of the day the commission is gonna have insight into every matter that is moving forward. Clarification on that, Chair. Yes. So I understand that there will be the log that all commissioners have access to. My only concern with that is it requires commissioners to affirmatively go in on a regular basis. And that is not always the best way to get notified of things. Because I mean, you're talking about commissioners having the opportunity to bring things forward. That assumes that they have timely reviewed the log and can raise the issue at a public meeting before IEB acts on it. So I think that's something we have to deal with. You know, it's a concern when documents are distributed to prepare for these public meetings, right? Sometimes if you don't go into that folder, the commission meeting folder, you're not gonna know when a document is available because it doesn't always get distributed. So I think, you know, if we're... So that's a concern. Yes, and I raised that one too, Commissioner Skinner. So thank you. I thought it was just maybe me. Thank you. The other thing is on the group one, matters, is there anything in 23N that requires the commission to review any of the group one matters? Or does 23N deal with only group two and three matters? Commissioner Skinner, the non-compliance issues is all under the commission's review. We all have all. Unlike 23K. And that's why that's a first paragraph in our regulation. So the categories were determined by this document. We, there's no category one, two, three, anywhere in our brag or section. No, I understand that. It's just in terms of the revised memo that we got that sets forth what the sports wagering division is doing now. You know, I, in particular, the review of concerns on the underage access, review of concerns of underage access complaints. If those are being handled by the sports wagering division now, how is that, how are those complaints being communicated to the commission? How does, and I realize it's unfair for me to ask that question in this capacity. You know, I don't need the answer, just in terms of the considerations here, I think that there are some, even now, some group one items that I might wanna be aware of, be made aware of. And I don't know that we've had the opportunity to have those items come before us. The specific ones listed here. And so I don't know how we move forward with this proposed protocol until we kind of nail that down. And reconcile that protocol, any proposed protocol with what's required by statute or provided for by statute. I mean, I would suggest that I think this is all helpful. And I think to the extent that the commission wanted to institute some kind of regular reporting, we could work on that. So, you know, a monthly report, a quarterly report, something like that. And I know the sports switching is doing that already to some degree, sending those around. But I have to imagine there's a way, there's something between, you know, you having to go into the database and look at everything, which I understand the concerns there and, you know, daily reporting. There has, there's something we could figure out in the middle there. I think, Michelle Skinner, to your question about what's been going on in the past, I have to thank Crystal Bushman for her first report, where she did lag that these issues were coming in. And it was at that time where I realized, oh, I didn't know about it either. Now, the policy and procedure that's before us will address, will help address that. You know, and Director Bann, I think is looking for that direction because he's been handling them. And, you know, Legal has developed this now that will address these category one but to your point, what I'm hearing is we really didn't decide what was category one. And so maybe we might not be really ready to delegate the minors, the issue of underage. So I appreciate your question. I have to say to Crystal's credit under direction of Director Bann, we got a glimpse of what's been going on. And then that was incorporated into this memo with that revision. But in terms of monthly reporting or whatever, I think that's what Crystal was gonna be doing quarterly. And then the tracker would be available. But again, are we okay with how that category one is defined even? Oh, go ahead. I was just gonna add that I think we're gonna be down the road breaking that more into a monthly report for you. But as you well know, there hasn't been a lot of underage reported at this point, which we're working on right now. So... Yeah, that did come up the other day, didn't it? Yes. Commissioner Hill, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Maynard. Look at the sun again, I'm not gonna complain. I don't think I've ever seen your lighting do what it's doing right now. I'm sitting on the opposite side of my... I feel like I'm watching a Taylor Swift concert with the lights going up and down and all around. Can I tell you, Brad, I would so much rather be at a Taylor Swift concert right now. These are hard issues that we've had today. So I appreciate everybody's time. Doesn't matter if you're trying to get efficiency and keep it moving, you know? So at a certain point, I do think we have to come up with where do we think the line is to let that... Commissioner O'Brien, that is my question. I did ask that question during my briefing. What is the bottleneck right now? Where is the inefficiency? I get it on category one. I'm not sure I get it on category two or whatever is how it's being defined. Category three, I mean, I feel that this is a really important function of the appointed officials. Really important. And it's going to very much limit this commission. Of course, right out, of course, if the policy and procedure be given anyway, but it could always be, you know, rebuilt to any authority. So, I mean, a question for Bruce and company is if really all that comes out of today is group one, what does that do to the chair's point, which is the bottleneck, what's in the queue? It's still Bruce. That's a good question. I still can't hear you. Bruce, you're on me. You did myself a Q time shift. There you go. It would be more of a question is what do I do with group two and group three? You know, I've been turning them over to IEB. Okay, so that's how that works right now. Yeah, right now that's what I've been doing. And some of them that need further investigation before you act on them or to see that they have credence to them. Go over there. Yeah, and I wouldn't want to bring them out publicly to we're sure that there really is something there. Okay, so then I guess the question's over to Heather. I mean, if, so right now what's been functioning is as is group one is vetted by you, two and three go over to IEB. Heather, is that what you've been getting? Yeah, that's essentially how it's been flowing. We haven't had any threes, but we've had, you know, an equivalent of two's. But they came to us, the two's came to us in the public meeting. And then we asked for an investigative report or have there been other, I know. No, we would actually do the report and then provide it to the commission. Then there would be a public meeting and this kind of goes to the efficiency piece. The way it's been growing right now is that we do a report and provide it to the commission. Then there's a public meeting and the commission decides at that point whether they want to send it to IEB or go forward with an adjudicatory proceeding. And thus far, the commission has decided to go forward with an adjudicatory proceeding in each of those that have been brought to the commission. Right, so what's the efficiency piece? Well, essentially you're having two meetings of the body, right? You're having the public meeting and then you're having the adjudicatory proceeding. Well, the efficiency is essentially that the IEB makes a recommendation to resolve the matter and the operator may agree to it and then the commission can accept that or not. And so there need not be an adjudicatory hearing. Those are the time-consuming parts of the procedure that we're trying to address. The adjudicatory hearing, is it more time-consuming for you? Far more time-consuming. Why? We have to write notices. We have to meet with the parties. We have to gather the evidence. We have to write decisions. I mean, there's all kinds of stuff that goes into adjudicatory proceedings. It is an adjudicatory body, though. No. Giving commission is a regulatory and an adjudicatory body. Absolutely, this is just a proposal. We can continue doing it the way we're doing it. That's perfectly done. Commissioner Maynard? I was gonna follow up on Commissioner O'Brien's question, which was how many are in the queue right now? Yeah. Are there any in the queue that we've not seen? You're talking about the category three is commissioner Maynard? Oh, no, I'm saying anything. Right, category two is two or three, yeah. Yeah, so there is a category two that is with you that is supposed to be cured on the December 14th meeting. There is another one that we just got recently that will be coming to you. One thing I do wanna just note is most of the matters that have come to the IEV thus far and then been forwarded onto the commission have involved unauthorized events. They were matters that were self-reported by the operators and the IEV had essentially reviewed the matter, reviewed the self-report. They were for all intents and purposes generally straightforward matters. That is not going to be the only type of non-compliance that is going to come through this process. So there may be the need for more significant investigation. And again, that would go to the efficiency piece. And maybe that's the point where the commission says, well, we want the IEV to do more of an investigation after there's a preliminary conversation. But I think it's important to note that the types of non-compliance that the commission has addressed thus far are not necessarily the ones that would generate a many, many page IEV, you know, lengthy investigation but those could come. I just have one more comment that I'm actually going to stop on this because I know how I feel. I guess what I would suggest isn't much different than what we're doing except maybe I would put some mechanisms in place for us. But I would start with the premise that every two and three should come to the commission. Then it could be delegated to the IEV once the determination's been made on, you know, what to what degree does the investigation, what's the invest going to take? What are we going to move forward? But that would address the piece that I was worried about that commissioner Skinner brought up, which was, you know, I would have an opportunity to see everything, to meet and listen to everything and then make a decision versus it being screened before I see it. My biggest issue, and I said this to you the other day, Councillor Hall, is something happening at this stage and level that I have no idea that's happening. That's my biggest fear. And, you know, to curtail that fear, I'm happy to put something in place and work on this and it not be as it is today. But I still want to be able to meet. And then the other piece, last piece is, I would want to be able to meet with my fellow commissioners and I would want the mechanism to exist for us to go into some sort of executive session because I don't want to be put in the situation of being in the public meeting and having to maybe disagree with you, Heather, maybe agree with you and just not have that free flow of information right now. It's one of the few places where all five of us can get together and make good decisions. And I've been really, really, it's been the best part of the job so far that we've been able to really go through this together as a bot. Commissioner Mead, could I just clarify that though a bit? We went through this, Commissioner O'Brien, and actually Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Skinner, is right when you came on with respect to when somebody needs to be made a qualifier where we deem them suitable. That used to be done in a public meeting, but we weren't able to ask the tough questions. And so we ended up making those judicatory hearings and it took a long time to convince IEB of that change, but now we do have the right to go into a private session for deliberations so that we can ask the questions that really are so important for us as commissioners. I kind of see this the same way, and this is why Caitlin and I pressed on the adjudicatory hearing, because if we give that up, we're back at that point where commissioners have their hands tied to ask critical questions and to deliberate as an adjudicatory member of the commission. Hi, I respect what 23K did, but I also respect that 23N did, and there may have been a reason for that. So, I guess I would just say you can, again, you can pull if an issue was delegated a group to and the IEB came to the commission with a proposed recommendation, and that's reviewed in a public meeting. At that point, the commission could decide to change that over and into a adjudicatory hearing. So it's one of those situations where it absolutely has that ability to do it, but there might be a bunch of them that are really straightforward, they're agreed to, and you just, you know, you don't have to go through the whole process of an adjudicatory hearing, which is a time-consuming process. If there are a whole bunch of them, we're gonna wanna know that too. Yeah. Yep. So I'm okay with what Caitlin just proposed. I think the tension is just, I think commissioner Maynard laid it out, just knowing what's out there and our ability to do that. Is there a log currently for even the category one matters? Because I think it's important that if there's a category one matter being reviewed by the sports wagering division that I believe should be reviewed or requests to be reviewed by IEB, I wanna have the opportunity to do that. If I think it should be escalated from a category one to a category two. Commissioner Skinner, there's a log on anything, everything, I was gonna show it to you the other day, but we didn't hook up by the afternoon, but I would be happy to review it with you next week. So the proposal is to grant commissioners access to that log. Oh, yes. And where would the category two and three matters be logged? Actually, everything that we deal with is logged in our incident log. Okay. Okay. You might not, the two and three might not have all the details in it because that would be an IEB investigation. Which I think we can't know it because of the due to correspondence. Not exactly, but that we could put those in a separate spot that you just would go to. We cannot do that. That's why it has to be more, in that sense, that has to be more like a docket list with the fact of it. Because anything more than that, you're risking a due to court bias. That's the problem. And you can't ask questions about it anyway. I mean, I deal with it as Heather reports to me as chair for the IEB and we're very, very careful. Caitlin gave excellent advice on that. So I don't walk over that, but the twos and threes, I mean, I suppose even with the category three, we're not going to revisit, I mean, category one, we're not going to revisit those. So there's not that risk, but there could be, let's just say commissioner Skinner, the category one had to do with minors and it was decided, we all see it. I don't know. I have to turn to legal. Is it decided and can we still ask to review it? That's right. I'm concerned that the answer to that is going to be no. That's a really good question. I'm sorry. Let me have missed the thrust of that question once. I will, if this is what you're getting and commissioner Maynard mentioned this, I think also just an area of concern, which is why in part the protocol came from, if we come before the commission with a matter that has not really been reviewed, then you make a decision that it needs to go to the IEB. You got it. You have to be very careful. Not to deliberate over the merits of it or express any opinions as to how bad it is or it is not. So that, you know, these are all issues that we're talking about. That's not the issue. I don't think exactly. I think the issue was if we're looking at a log or and we want to be informed about what's being categorized as two and three and even what's being categorized as one, we're putting ourselves at risk of adjudicatory bias. I mean, I think you can, with regard to the adjudicatory bias issue, you can certainly have as commissioner Maynard saying sort of a docket and what is this case about in two sentences without the facts, the evidence, the investigation, that's perfectly appropriate. It's just that you can't, you know, have access to the investigation file because you could end up being the ultimate arbiter of it. So that's it. So, but you would see the issue and you say, oh, this looks like a really timely, interesting issue. Oh, it's a fourth offense. I think we want to take that. That's what that's what we're saying. Yeah, and the other part of that is that you not have access to information that the operator or whoever the accused, if you will, wouldn't have access to at some point as well. So we need to be careful about that. Commissioner Hill, I've done more talking than I want to. What are you thinking? Well, I was about to make my comments and commissioner O'Brien said them for me. I agree with everything that's been said today. And I know commissioner Maynard, you already said this today, but this isn't ready for primetime yet. I think the staff has heard what we are thinking and I think we can have a further discussion about it. I'm not comfortable moving forward on this particular issue today. Yeah, I think I can get on board with the concept of what's being proposed, but I think it needs a little bit more tweaking. Commissioner Maynard, commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, so I think I might be a little closer to wanting to do something like this. Maybe my background in terms of vetting investigations being familiar with court dockets, I'm more comfortable with there being a docket that is accessible and or pushed out. I mean, to your point, commissioner Schenner, if that's something with everything we've got going on to have a consistent sort of prodding on it. I'm comfortable with the ones as they've been done. I may be a little more comfortable with this going to IB and us having the role of fulfilling our statutory role than everyone else, but I respect the fact that other than I think all of us saying we're comfortable with the category one process right now, we need to keep talking. Commissioner Maynard. I think that's, I think all of my fellow commissioners captured a good piece of what I'm thinking about. And at the end of the day, I just, I'm not ready to give it up yet. And if it takes changing the pieces a little bit for us to have the first C and then the second C, I'm open to how that happens. But I would feel like I was going to bed at night not doing my job if I didn't know what was happening in that category two, three space and how those decisions were being made, much less what's being elevated from a one to a two, but I think Bruce has been taken care of that. I feel comfortable with the category one, but I'm very cognizant of Commissioner Skinner's point. Do we want to have any say as to what exactly each issue is? I think we should have access to the tracker and category one to the extent that we'll interfere with any decision-making. I think the document needs to be revised to really take into consideration the differences between the two statutes and also to recognize the whole regulation that this would be a delegation of authority. The reason why we can't, we don't delegate completely, there has to be an approvals because 23N does contemplate us making these decisions. I am all for creating efficiencies. I just haven't yet heard that there's that need yet, but what I have heard clearly and it's not even a year is that the commission did want to set a tone and I am looking forward to still being part of that decision-making with my fellow commissioners as we set up this framework. So I would say the document needs to be revisited on process. Judicatory hearings, not making sure that it reflects the statute. And then when the commission's ready to delegate away, it should, but they should always reserve the right to revoke, which I know is a given. So I think similar homework as well. We're not ready for primetime. Anything else? I think that'll do it for this one. Okay. We're going to move on to item number 11A. Heather, you thought maybe it makes sense to roll it over. I mentioned that before lunch. Is that still the case, right? Yes, that's the case, Chair. So we could move into item A, sorry, 11AB. I would just like a five minute break because I'd like to let the operator know that we are moving into this. Heather, I want to do a check in with legal on process. Before we break, I think Caitlin or Carrie, is it okay for us to decide on moving into executive sessions where there are multiple ones and then conclude the public? If we don't anticipate coming back to the public, should the commission vote to go into those executive sessions? We could vote on all of them. Yes, that's fine. Absolutely. Okay. I was looking at Caitlin, I'm so sorry. So Todd, you're all right. So then if you could just hold for a second, Heather, we'll go through these. We'll determine which ones we're gonna move on in the executive session and then you can line up your people. And I think we've got Dave or Tom directing us virtually. So with respect to item number 11B, Heather, you want to introduce that one? Sure, Chair, and just I'm just notifying folks that we're moving into this. So this is the MGM Springfield matter that we have talked about previously. There was a letter sent by the commission and a response from MGM's Resorts International and this executive session would be to further discuss safety and security measures at MGM Springfield. Okay. Wishers, you know, we have to read this into the record. If you decide to vote this way, the commission anticipates that it will meet in executive session in accordance with GL Chapter 30A, Section 21A4, to discuss a use in deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies with respect there too. The MGM Springfield specifically will be guarded by arms. The public session and the commission meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session. Do I have a motion on that? Commissioner Bryant. Madam Chair, I move that the commission go into executive session on the matter related to MGM Springfield, just described by the chair and for the recent stated by the chair on the record. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Bryant. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Mr. Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. All right. Then we have item number 12, which also contemplates or anticipates a executive session. Do you wanna just line that one up, Todd and Marianne? Absolutely. So that one pertains to the renewal of our lease at the Boston office. There is a, oh, there's Marianne, hello there. There is a proposal on the table that we would like to share with you and go from there. Any questions? Okay, again, the commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 21A6, to consider the lease of real property, specifically the commission's office space at 101 Federal Street in Boston and associated considerations, as discussion at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the commission. The public session of the commission meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the commission go into executive session to discuss and consider the lease of the real property referenced by the chair and for the reasons stated by the chair on the record. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. I go, yes, five, zero. And then we have two commissioners involved with the executive session meeting minutes. So I'll turn first to Commissioner O'Brien. Which ones are under you? I believe they were all put together in a document. Judy's on, she would know off the top of her head. Okay. Are they all me actually? No, so Commissioner Skinner, it is the triplet set from December 16th, the 20th and the 21st, 2021. Okay, so the December nine would be Commissioner Hill and the others would be clustered together with what I did. But he came in after you. Yeah, I didn't review the nine. I reviewed the other cluster. Okay. I actually reviewed them all as well. Good. Yeah, I know that for three of them, it was yourself, Madam Chair and Commissioner Hill and I were the quorum that are still here. Yeah. Okay. So we'll deal with that and should we go into executive session. So the commission anticipates that it will meet in an executive session to review minutes from previous executive sessions as their discussion. At an open meeting, they frustrate the intended purpose for which the executive sessions were convened in accordance with GL Chapter 30A, Section 21A7, to evaluate, excuse me, to evaluate a matter relative to the non-disclosure agreement between the commission and Windmass LLC presented to GL Chapter 23K, Section 21A7 and 205CMR 139.02 in GL Chapter 30A, Section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining and litigation. Public session of commission meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session. I have a motion. So Madam Chair, I believe there's a typo on that other December. That's why they're separated. The December nine is 2022, not 2021. Oh, okay, that's right. Yes, that's correct. I'm sorry, I missed that the first time. That's okay. So I would move, notwithstanding that sort of- That makes sense now, yeah. I would move that the commission go into executive session to review the four sets of minutes that are delineated and as you stated on the record as to why we need to go into executive session. All right, only that typo, my apologies and I didn't even get my own confusion. Thank you so much. So thank you for the second, Commissioner Hill. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes, five, zero. Okay. So this concludes at 3.36 our public meeting. We'll thank everybody, including every member of the staff involved here. We'll go into executive session meals. Do you want to give us some direct time? Chair, folks should have a executive session meeting invite on their calendars.