 single item agenda today. Today is April 25th. And I'll do a roll call for my fellow commissioners while we meet virtually. Good afternoon, Commissioner O'Brien. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. I am here. And good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. Okay, great. And this is public meeting number 377. We have called to order and we're all set on our streaming. Thank you, Dave. And we'll get started with our single item. Commissioner O'Brien and I are sort of taking a leap. But this is really a process issue that concerns IEP, legal and all of us commissioners as we make do the important work of determining suitability for our licensees and qualifying employees. A process that often involves confidential information, protected information. And so it's a little bit difficult to navigate as we meet publicly. We balance the need to be transparent with a need to also make sure to ask important questions about suitability. And we've done that in kind of various models, even during my tenure and over the course of the commission's history. So I thought that maybe we would just reset the reframe the discussion around the fact that our regulatory process does imagine in many ways that we meet in an adjudicatory setting, but it does the regulations give a couple of options. Most recently, we did meet in an adjudicatory hearing model for the REIT. And we were able to address the suitability issues that arise in the course of the REIT. And by the way, thank you to Heather Hall for managing that so well. I really had been meaning to say that more directly to you, Heather, but it went very, very well. And then also to Todd for really framing out the process for me so that we could enter into a private session when we wanted to ensure that matters that we might want to discuss are protected. We had a forum to do so. So Todd, I don't know if you want to add in now, or Commissioner O'Brien, if you want to add in sort of the balancing of interests that occur with respect to this process, because of course we've been concerned also about inundating our legal team and our IAB team and not making it more onerous. Two, we have to take into consideration these matters involved in individual's property rights because of suitability and licensing is so important to them. So there's two process issues. And then there's also navigating an open meeting law setting or public meeting setting, which has a different set of rules around going into executive session and then the adjudicatory model and making sure we actually can even meet in private. So Todd, maybe that. So all of those considerations have been hard at work. And I think that I just want to express my appreciation for everyone exercising a lot of patience around it as we we think about what might work best. So Todd, I don't know if you want to add. And then I mean, thanks. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to jump in. Yeah, there the regulations do address this issue. There are, as the chair mentioned, a number of options before you. And just to focus our attention, we're looking at primarily 205 CMR 115.04, which is the section of the regulations that governs the determination of whether a new applicant, a new qualifier is suitable or not. And it provides that it's up to the commission to determine whether to initiate a process for a public hearing or an adjudicatory proceeding and making this decision and goes on to point out that the commission may only utilize the public hearing process with the qualifier's consent. And then, depending, of course, upon which avenue the commission elects to go, there are certain issues that follow. And of course, we've, as the chair mentioned, gone through an adjudicatory proceeding most recently. And we all saw some of the formalities, if you will, and some of the benefits that go along with conducting a review in that type of format. There is formal notice that was required. There was a pre-hearing conference that was conducted amongst the parties. And then, of course, there are provisions that allow expressly for the commission to close such a proceeding to the public to discuss certain issues. And that is all set out in the regulations as well. That's in Section 101 of the regulations that addresses that. And then, of course, if the commission elects to proceed, what the regs refer to as a public hearing, as it has done over the past number of times it's reviewed qualifiers, there is a process that goes along with that as well. And that is typically done at one of the commission's open meetings. Notice is offered on the agenda. And then the regulations do require that the report be redacted and circulated in that fashion so that certain confidential information is not shared publicly. So those are basically the two main options before the commission has set out in the regulations. And I'd be happy to certainly address any specific questions or issues that may be associated with either of those approaches. But maybe I can just pause there for a moment and see Commissioner O'Brien if you have any any items you'd like to cover before we go back to the chair. No, I mean, I think what the chair said and what you said laid out, it's a question of you know, I had gone back through when we were looking at this process to sort of see the derivation to see if there was any guidance we could get from that. And, you know, it looks like in 2014 some of these background checks had been done externally. By 14 we had staff to start doing them internally. The regs were tweaked a little bit in 14 once that started to happen internally. And there was a recommendation. Ivy would come forward with recommendations of suitable, suitable with conditions, unsuitable or recommending a hearing to determine the suitability. I would assume in a circumstance where they couldn't come up with a recommendation of any other three categories. One of the frustrations I've had since I got here was being shown a report and then told I couldn't bring it in to the hearing because it would be deemed a public record. So having to sort of ask questions, you know, not having the report in front of me. And as we've said before, the vast majority of them are, you know, so-called clean reports where there's really a non-issue and moving quickly on our part and for the licensees part is very important for us. But, you know, and I joke with people being a lawyer, being a prosecutor and just my nature, I go to the worst-case scenario and see how are we going to deal with this when worst-case scenario shows up. And for me, worst-case scenario is that case that may come before us where maybe there's no recommendation or something comes up in the course of it where we really want to be able to go in privately to discuss things, sensitive nature to either the applicant or maybe someone else connected to that applicant who's not really in front of us and what's the way to do that in a way that preserves everyone's rights. And for me, having gone through this a bunch of times, I keep landing on the adjudicatory hearing in a way I'd love to streamline it as much as possible because it seems to fit with how everything is written. It also, to me, the REIT was a good example of allowing us to go seamlessly in and out when we needed to, to deal with this, even though I can foresee a circumstance where a lot of this is just unopening publicly because there's nothing to see here and we talk about it and we move on. But that, to me, was the most seamless way of doing it. I have some concerns about whether doing it in other ways and going in and out of an executive session would be A, more cumbersome or B, are we on the same kind of footing to go privately in executive session? Particularly the moment we're talking about is not necessarily the applicant, but maybe a third party connected to the situation we want to talk about. So that's where I came down on this. Just in terms of kicking off the conversation, in terms of where we go from here, that's where I come down on it. Before we go on, there might just be some fundamental questions that you, Commissioner Keller, you, Commissioner Skinner, have that we can help clarify to, you've had at least a couple, maybe, suitability reports, you've had them now in the read, you've seen it. Some of the information, as you've heard, has to be redacted because it's protected. That information is somewhat core to our findings suitability, so there lies attention in and of itself. When we conduct our hearings fully in public, we literally may be barred from asking questions that are fundamental to final suitability. I can say I haven't had an experience where I've made a vote where I have felt that I was limited in being informed. With that said, I'm like Commissioner O'Brien, maybe by training and just in anticipation of the types of questions that could arise, I want to make sure that I preserve the option to ask every question that I'd like to ask, and I prefer not to do it when the bad situation arises. I'm not sure that really is a fair way to do things because it could shed negative light, maybe unfairly on an applicant. So I would like to have a process that works seamlessly as possible and as efficiently as possible while preserving our ability to ask every question. Commissioner Skinner, do you have some thoughts or Commissioner Hill right now? I have a comment to make, but if Commissioner Skinner wanted to ask a question because she hasn't been through these as much as I have yet. So do you have any questions first? Just a basic question. I guess, what is the question that's being put to the commission today for purposes of this meeting? Is it whether to review the suitability matters in adjudicatory hearing or to continue in the way that they've been heard in the past, which is at a public meeting slash hearing? Is that the question? That's fair. Maybe with a little tweak, I think we have five in the queue. Loretta and Heather, five or six, maybe. Five, thanks, Heather. So we have those and we do need to get to them. I would say that, and Commissioner O'Brien has helped me think about this, that we would probably like a takeaway today to be able to proceed under our ranks as written with an adjudicatory model very similar to what we just did with the REIT and then assess how either burdensome that is or how that needs to be tweaked. And then return to, if we decide that doesn't work, return perhaps after we maybe reexamine our rate a little bit to what we were doing in the past. I think if we decide to return to the past, we have to really think about the use of the executive session as Commissioner O'Brien thinks mentioned, and we would probably just need to look at our regulatory framework a little bit. We're doing very review anyway. It's kind of the right time to reexamine that. But my thought was we've got these five, given the success of the brief, maybe we could proceed with that. But that's the framing for today and the answer to be yes or no. But if it's no, I do think we might need to just think about, take a look in terms of our process as written on that. And just to clarify, the decision that will be made today is just with respect to those five qualifiers sitting in the queue and then we will evaluate. Okay. So Commissioner Hill saying no, I would be open to we could, we could use it like a task case if that helps, but Commissioner Hill chime in. Well, I think whatever decision we make today, it's going to be moving forward for all of these cases before us to be on. That's how I understood it to be. I mean, ideally, yes, because we've been talking about it for a while. And the regs talk about, you know, you have to pick one way or the other, we're supposed to pick one way or the other, some discussion on whether that's a case by case basis, or we want to go all in protocol and we were seen to be trending toward defaulting to one process, understanding that we have an obligation to go one way or the other. And it seemed again, to me that could you decor gave us the flexibility to go faster in and out on those, but I think it's going to be, it's going to be, it's going to be, it's going to be, it's going to be, it's going to be, it's going to be, ideally we can make a step forward and start going process wise from here. If it's, can I follow up on that? I'm sorry. Yes. So at the beginning of the process of discussing this a few months ago, I think I had the worry that if we were going to do every suitability report that comes before us, that was, that was going to be the way it would be. However, since that time and through discussions, and now through a test, if you will, a few weeks ago with the REIT, I found the, I can never say the word. I said this to Kathy the other day, a judicatory hearing. That we had with the REIT. I found that to be actually very easy to do. We were in, we came back in immediately and we were able to discuss what we needed to discuss and ask the questions that we needed to ask. And I don't think it was cumbersome at all. And in fact, I thought it was very efficient and efficient part of, part of our time. So I'm not even leaning. I'm there. That this is how we should move forward with these suitability reports. If there's no problem with the suitability report, we're not going to have any questions. We're not going to have any questions for it. We're going to be basically, and this is maybe I'm wrong, but we're going to be going into the hearing. For each one, they're going to last five or 10 minutes because we're not going to have any questions. And we're going to be able to look at the report beforehand, come right in and vote. But if we do have a question, we can then go in to the, to the session out of public to ask those questions. And I had no problem with what we did with the REIT. I don't know if anybody else did. I think it was great actually. So where I was a couple of months ago and where I am today are two very different things. I love working in this. We all can ask good questions and learn from each other. So I'm not even leaning from there. This is how I think we should move forward. And I appreciate that because I probably was a little bit. I had a view maybe because I had been thinking about what. What I thought was a challenge. But with that said, this has been a very. You know, a very, um, lovely discussion complex. I think I use word difficult. Difficult mean just confidence, a difficult, difficult test, a difficult assignment, and we're navigating it based on a lot of history. And just on recognition that the process at one point was fully adjudicatory. I, I, I participated in one. And, and somehow probably out of efficiencies, it got more and more streamlined. We want streamlined, but we also don't want to give up the opportunity to ensure that we're preserving all the rights for the applicant as well as making sure we have the right to ask questions that if we ask them in public. Might actually violate a privacy right. So it's, and that is, I can tell you a real fear for me to make sure I don't ask the wrong question. But we also want to balance transparencies of being in public makes sense too. With that said, maybe the question I should ask now is, you're comfortable with the structure that we. You've done some research on the, the adjudicatory process and the use of a private format. I don't know if you wanted to expound on that. At this juncture, because I don't think you've had a chance to do that. We did it a little bit during the week. Yes, I'd be happy to thank you. Of course. Under the open meeting law. All business. That the commission. Conducts or deliberates must be done in public, unless there is a specific reason that is allowed for under the executive session provisions of the open meeting law that allow. A body to discuss something in private. By contrast, when it comes to an adjudicatory proceeding, there is jurisprudence out there that allows. A public body when sitting as in a quasi judicial posture. That allows the public body to discuss and deliberate matters in private. And. It's outside of the open meeting law. There's a, as part of the open meeting law, the, there's a definition of the term meeting. And it specifically excludes. The second point is that when you sit, when you conduct an adjudicatory proceeding, the open meeting law does not apply. But there's a different series and body of law that does apply. And. Most of it is contained in chapter 30 a, which is referred to as the administrative procedures act. And there is a case in particular, it's. It's called though versus the sex offender registry board, the Supreme judicial court discussed the idea of closing adjudicatory proceedings to the public. And in the case. Of the sex offender registry board. I was at the time and I haven't checked to make sure there still is, but as of the drafting of that case. A regulation in place that essentially said that all. Hearing of the sex offender registry board shall be conducted in private for privacy reasons. Not just to the individual, but to other folks who may be involved. Either as a victim or otherwise. In a particular situation that allowed for the body to close the. Hearing to the public. And they had a regulation in place. And based upon that, the gaming commission to adopted a regulation that allowed for the closing. Of adjudicatory proceedings to the public in certain circumstances. It did not, however, like the sex offender registry board. Call for all hearings to automatically be closed to the public. Instead, it gave the commission the option of doing so. And I don't have it. I can pull it up real quick so we can. Take a look at what it says. Oh, here it is. If it's okay, I can just read it. It's only one cent. It says that any adjudicatory hearing conducted under the gaming commission's regulations may be closed to the public at the request of either party. Or on the commission's own initiative. In order to protect the privacy interests of either party or other individual. To protect proprietary or sensitive technical information, including, but not limited to software algorithms and trade secrets. Or for other good cause shown. And then it says such a determination rests in the sole discretion of the commission. So it's that provision, which is found in section 101. Of the commission's rights that was relied upon in closing. Part of the hearing to the public. In the case of the REIT review recently. And that the commission could make use of. When it comes to suitability. Related reviews as well. So. Based upon all that. The commission is authorized to do as it previously did. A week or so back and close a hearing that has commenced. Open to the public. Close it to the public. When it finds that privacy interest or other. Compelling need is, is in place to do so. And of course we will make sure that we. Have that process down so we follow the reg carefully. In every instance, but. What you're talking about is, is completely authorized. Under. The commission. Judicatory proceeding jurisprudence and the commission's regulations. I have a logistical question, Madam chair. So if we have five of the suitabilities coming before us, do we have five separate hearings or do we have one hearing. With five suitability. Applications before us. How would that work? Just out of curiosity. I think commissioner Hill, you'd want to conduct five separate hearings. There are different interests. I mean, I am not familiar with the issues that you'd be confronting, but it's presumably five individuals who have been reviewed separately. Who all have different issues that may need to be addressed. So I don't think you'd want to connect them. There may certainly be situations in the future where you could do two together, I suppose, but that would have to be an ad hoc kind of. And I don't think you'd want to do that here. And I know we've done this in the past and I'm just forgetting. If you had an open meeting. Those are all separate. If I'm mistaken, is that accurate? Yeah, I think the same principle holds, whether it's done in judicatory fashion or just the public meeting, I think you'd want to do them all separately. Everyone is entitled to a separate review. Keeping in mind, regardless of which way you do it, it's still the same standard of review. It's the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate by clearing convincing evidence that they are suitable under the statute. And so you'd need to make five independent findings. Either way, it seems to me that you'd want to do it at separate proceedings. Thank you. I'm still there madam chair. I haven't changed my mind yet. So I am to offer that. So this is to me, a matter of process that you want to get right going forward. And so I, um, I have the burden that both McKees and I mean also carry, which is that law degree and law practice in the background. So I, I wondered fundamentally, but what was testing on me and trying to figure out which, which avenue to go and why one seemed better sometimes than the other and the other one seemed better. And I went and I looked at some fundamental jurisprudence. And as we minded then agencies like ours, we have our rulemaking function. And that's our public where we do things in a public meeting where we are the regulator and we're acting as a rulemaking body. And then we have this adjudicatory, um, responsibility and that's throughout our, our statute where we are actually acting in this rather than quasi administrative, we're acting in a quasi judiciary. And the jurisprudence indicated that it's triggered when there's individual rights are at stake. And in every suitability situation, it could be an entity and I guess that's a little bit different in my mind, but with an individual, um, if we were to deny suitability, that's a significant impact on somebody's property rights. So it carries more of a burden around due process. And this is where I've struggled. So that's kind of a trigger. Why do we do some things in the public meeting context and why have things been done under adjudicatory model. And the adjudicatory model when we do it in public, we are preserving, um, the rights to appeal in a way that we are not necessarily reserving automatically in a public meeting. And correct me if I'm wrong, I think Heather asked you this probably twice. I think that they, they, if they wanted to appeal, they could have our decision could be appealed administratively again, right? Before it went to a 38, it wouldn't be automatic. Is that right? If we denied, um, there would have to be more process at our level, correct? Yeah, it's a tricky question. I mean, I think at the end of the day, if it was open section and an open meeting forum, you would have that option of the adjudicatory proceeding before the commission. Um, and you know, I obviously taught if you have any other further thoughts on that. Well, I mean, either way, uh, typically people have a right to challenge, uh, agency decisions. If you conduct a hearing in an adjudicatory format, there's a specific, uh, provision of the law that allows for an appeal to superior court. Uh, to review a 38 decision. There are other mechanisms that people could use to challenge decisions that you make every day. Um, at work, not every day, but at your public meetings. Um, people can take those into court under different mechanisms like certiorari or different things. So there are plenty of instances where people have challenged, uh, board decisions that didn't take place at an adjudicatory proceeding. Uh, and there are slightly different standards of review, but they're, they're similar and ultimately the court would still be looking at what process was afforded and what the factual record looks like and what the decision was ultimately based upon. Um, and arbitrary and capricious principles would apply in one way, shape or form. Uh, but yeah, so it, it, it does change the court review, but typically people have a right to review one way or the other. I think that's right. It might just be a different process and we might have to go through a little bit more process. But, um, so that's where I started to think, you know, why, why do we even have adjudicatory processes at all if it's not for this? Um, and the re really demonstrated to me that we could do it efficiently. So from my perspective, I feel like it's probably the better process for us to engage in. It probably is better aligned right now with the value of the right that's written. And, um, I would recommend that we do the next five and if it blows up, we can gather and figure out how to make it more streamlined. I think I'm imagining an indication maybe in your practice, you've seen this, I think I've seen it historically. So my memory might not be great that we could rest on the floor, you know, in a way, um, that would be very streamlined in many ways that would echo what we've done with the public meeting. Okay. Um, commissioner Brian, I don't know if you want to weigh in at this junction. No, I think that's fine. Like I said, I've been thinking adjudicatory is the way to go since we brought this up. I think June of last year when we started the conversation. Um, the only caveat I would put on there is I think we've all agreed there are some parts of the reg that maybe need to be tweaked. A little bit. Um, some of the wording. We need to clean up, um, the public comment. If for some reason there's an option or desire to do a particular one publicly. Um, we need to figure out if we want to continue to allow public comment. If we don't, we need to amend the reg to say that's not required anymore. So there's some cleanup that we need to think about, but in terms of moving forward, particularly in these five that need to be addressed. I think that's, that's the right way to go. I want to, um, commissioner Skinner, I don't know if you want to weigh in now. I'd like to also ask is like the director Wells and then a director. Lilio's and then of course council. Oh, um, Carrie, I see you're here. We were well represented with attorneys. Everybody should weigh in. It's meant to be a conversation about our important processes. So commissioner Skinner. So I think what's missing for me at this juncture is. You know, I need to, I need to understand what the considerations are. I mean, it seems. And though you, you chair and commissioner Helen, commissioner O'Brien have had the benefit of prior discussions around this and, um, a historical perspective. I guess, you know, in my role as a brand new commissioner, I, I am a little confused, um, about what the issue is. Um, I get a judiciary versus. Public meeting. Um, but you know, what, what is the point of contention? I guess. Why, why has it taken so long for the commission to. Come to a decision about the suitability review process. What am I missing? I guess. And I have, I have, you know, had, you know, several conversations with. Um, general counsel Grossman and director Lilio's, but I guess. You know, in my mind, it seems that, you know, at least commissioner Hill is ready to take a vote. Maybe commissioner O'Brien as well. And. But have we fully hammered out all of the issues? Um, and really what are, what are they? I guess, you know, from the perspective of my fellow commissioners, I guess, what are the issues? Um, I guess, I guess. I guess. I guess. I guess. You wouldn't want to, I'd like to have the executive director way in, and then we'll go back to our perspective. I just feel like we've talked a lot, but I'm happy to address it more directly. She raised your hand. So Karen. Yeah, I'm just, you know, my take on this is just that it's sort of the, um, overarching theme. We've had the commission for a long time that. You know, it's always just looking for the best way to do things, even if we haven't been doing them in the past. I think it's that natural evolution of how we want to do things. And. Uh, you know, We didn't, to Alina, uh, Commissioner O'Brien's point, we haven't had a concern over any of the, um, the open meeting, uh, determinations that have been made, even chair Judd Stein said she didn't have any concerns about her votes there, but that doesn't mean we can't take a look and you know, we are looking at, you know, through this reg review process in general, you know, we're looking at, you know, how do we do things? You know, could we do we doing them any better? And I find it interesting that, uh, Commissioner Hill through the process of looking at the re saw that, you know, he liked that, um, set up where he could go into private seamlessly. And that seemed to be effective. So I don't think it's necessarily, um, Something where, you know, because we haven't, the commission really hasn't finally determined this. We're in a firm that does the best that we can. We know that as I mentioned that we don't want to go into the public and maybe I'll just defer to the commissioners, but just wanted to chime in, even in the I B. And we were always looking at different ways to do things. And can we improve on, you know, investigations. So this sort of is some, someone of the norm for the commission to be reevaluating our processes. Does anybody want to chime in? consider myself to be very new still. And I can't believe that it's almost eight months that I've been here. It feels like yesterday I was just sworn in. But what I have found in the last seven or eight months, and you're going to find this as well, moving forward, is that the way passports have done things may be worked very well for them. And they did it very well. I don't have anything negative to say about the way a former board did their work. But as we've been looking at the regulatory, they're in regulation since I've been on this commission, we have seen that we want to do things differently, which is our prerogative. And that's really what this discussion is all about. What's happened in the past 10 years, we may want to do a little different moving forward. It's nothing that they did wrong. It's just that we want to do something a little different because we feel a little more comfortable with it, as they felt comfortable during the last 10 years. That's really what this this is a debate is about is we're going to be changing the way we do things. It's not worse. It's not better. It's just the way we, if we collectively vote to do this, want to want to do these particular hearings moving forward. There really isn't any issue that was brought up that's wrong with the way things have been going. It just we're looking at this in a very different view than we did. The passport did. And we've we've made, I think, three or four changes in the regulations. Since I've been on that is different than the way it used to be. Nine, eight, seven, six, five, or even a year ago. That's all in my view. This is what this discussion is about. How do we as a commission want to move forward with suitability of our employees? And it's going to be a little bit different than the way it used to be. And I'm okay with that. And I like the way it is. And quite frankly, if you haven't seen this board, and I've seen from Iowain and Kathy, and this isn't this is this is to be funny. And I hope you take it that way. They ask a lot of questions. And they're very good questions. And under the public or open meeting under this, they wouldn't be able to ask those very good questions. I've learned so much from the questions they ask, because of their expertise and experience in their fields. And I think giving us the ability to be able to ask those questions is a good thing for our commission. And again, the commission before us, maybe they didn't want to ask as many questions as we do. We like to ask questions. Let's make up for this board I can see already. So unless someone disagrees that there's a problem, I don't think there's a problem we're trying to fix. We're just trying to do it in a different way that we feel more comfortable with than the board that preceded us. I don't know if that answers your question. I do want to one point clear the kitchen because I want to assure Commissioner Skinner one thing. I have not had a conversation with Commissioner Hill about this record at all. Anything that he's saying is coming from his observations about these conversations that have started apparently, I think we saw this during because we did the minutes, right? I mean, we're blinded. Commissioner Brown and I have had that conversation. We've worked on this with Todd in our legal meetings. So she and I and I don't believe Commissioner Brown, you spoke with Commissioner Hill. So I think Commissioner Hill, I'm learning it today. There has been an evolution. And I'm hearing is that probably the week kind of demonstrated it. Because I have pointed out my big concern and it's not just for me. But it is for me to is that I need to make sure that every commissioner on this commission, whether there's four or five of us has at any time the process that supports their ability to ask any question at any time. And I can assure you that in the public meeting setting, even with the executive session, I feel that there will be a chance where you may not ask that question comfortably in a fluid fashion, and maybe not at all. And I feel that in the adjudicatory hearing, all the commissioners will always have an opportunity, whether or not they needed to ask a question that might otherwise be protected. I think that's this. That's where I'm seeing my job. Commissioner Skinner. It's about and thank you, Commissioner Hill, you said some nicely. It's about us doing our job. And at the same time, my research has reminded me there are important property rights at stake here for the applicant or the licensee. And that's why there's further support for it. But it really comes down to the asking questions. So I just first of wanted to make sure, you know, we are we have not had any conversations about it. Does that help on the when you say content? So if I just want to address so some of it is the when you go back and look at how it's been done historically, and you compare it to the regs, there's been an evolution. And then you go back and look at when the regs were written, what they were doing. And so even taking a public comment for an example is when they were doing the initial suitabilities on the applications, there were determinations on who was going to get the license, etc. And the desire to be transparent was not paramount, but pretty high up there with how the commission wanted to function. So even the red review that we're looking at the discussion about what might have been really a requirement for public comment, then we need to consider do we want to continue that or not. And when we did the deep dive looking at the regs, the question was we there's a vision point in the regs where we as a commission have to choose process a adjudicatory process be public hearing. They're what that choice hadn't been made for a while. Again, they're all fully in compliance in terms of making the adjudication making it, you know, doing what we needed to do and protecting the rights of the applicants who are coming in front of us. Having said that, though, when you went back and looked through what the mechanics were, the question we then raised is if we're going to do that and we're going to choose the other route, which is adjudicatory, which we have done, we did it in the wind hearings a year after I got here, we started to go down the avenue of what's that going to look like? Is it going to be overly burdensome? Is there going to be an undue burden on IV or legal or any rights going to be lost by either the applicant or opportunities for us to fully vet? And so that is what started some of the conversation. And it's not really a change in how we're doing things so much as the regs allow for two different processes. This one has not been used as much as what had been sort of a default public hearing. As I got into this, and again, I was going to worst case scenario, to me, the safer bet for all of us, the applicant and commissioners was to default more to the adjudicatory process. So that's where I came from about a year ago. But some people were comfortable doing it another way, you know, that feeling they were absolutely covered and comfortable doing it the other way. And so there's been conversation about the pluses and minuses of that. And then we've had turnover, you know, and we don't necessarily want to move forward on a process until we have the people that are going to participate in the process of the table. And so this is really the first time since you've been here, we've had the opportunity to really say, all right, the four of us are going to be here right now, we got five on the table. How do we want to do this going forward? So that's that's why we're here today, you know, a process that started, you know, 10 months ago, but there was a reason it took to evolve and debate and then come in front of the four of us who are going to be moving forward with the process. And Eileen, when you mentioned public hearing earlier, you mean the public meeting? Well, no, so the regs say hearing not meeting. And so it's what I talk about cleaning up the language. There's things like that, that I think we're going to want to clean up regardless of whether we choose to go primarily this route in a geotextorial instead. We still want to finish looking at the regs that are involved in this. For that, that's an example of one of the things and then another one. And again, I think about this because I remember that Krishna Zuniga was had a quite a bit to comment on when I went back and looked at the June hearing in terms of the public comment component. What does that mean? What do we want it to mean? Do we want it to stay? Do we want to say that's not relevant anymore and have it no longer be a requirement? There are some other things for us to consider in terms of the public hearing route. So but are we seriously considering that there would be this public hearing around suitability and not just we could? Yes. But I don't think that's legitimately on the table. Is it? Well, we have a agency. We don't know what, you know, whether there's going to be an RFA one process out of that or maybe RFA ones that come out of any sports betting legislation that may be passed. And then we have to then ask ourselves, are we going to continue this way? Do we want to go back? And again, there's people who have been here since the inception of the agency telling us about how it was to go through that RFA one process. Do you want to keep public comment for that process, but not for ongoing suitability with a licensee? I mean, I think those are conversations that we can have. The red gets written right now does address a due to her hearing. I think the way that we're all imagining it right now with the benefit of cause additional research on private sessions. The the second choice probably needs to it would need it deserves some review. And that's why we do very good use. You know, that's kind of there right now. One one other question I had was if we sort of default to the adjudicatory hearing process. How does that are we then becoming individual fact finders, right? So are there now four fact finders as opposed to IEB as sort of one entity conducting the investigation? Issuing the report, you know, what what is envisioned in this sort of question? Answer session that that may or may not take place in private. Are we always responsibility to come up with the findings and weigh the evidence in terms of the law and whether or not it met the burden? Yeah. So whether it's done in a hearing under the adjudicatory setting, it does not change our responsibility under the statute in terms of looking at the evidence and then making our findings. OK, that doesn't mean because we function in in in two ways. We're a deciding body and IEB serves as a lack of a better word, the prosecutor. We saw that with the reed. They presented the evidence. They were sworn in and they were party in the in the reed with the other side. And then we were the adjudicatory body. It's the same function. And and of course, we're very fortunate because we have the benefit of knowing how strong our IEB is. But I think Director Lily else would agree that. When when members of the IEB and were sworn in, that does allow for any member of the commission to ask questions of all parties. And that's why they were sworn in as witnesses as well. So it doesn't in any way. I guess we have that responsibility. And that's actually one of the reasons why I've had concerns because I wanted to make sure all the commissioners can always ask questions. And if we're in public in a public and of course, I'm saying meeting, recognizing the reg has some changes that it needs to address. If we're in a public meeting. There are times we cannot ask questions if it's aimed confidential and and. Even the exhibit in the reed was deemed confidential. So that means. We may not be able to do our job to be able to find this clear and convincing evidence to support. So again, as I said, I've never felt uncomfortable meeting that burden under the under the processes in the past. But I am right now at that juncture where we're taking advantage of these discussions to say is it the best process or is this a good time. To to reexamine what works best for everyone's responsibilities, IEBs and ours. In commissions and comments interest. So. Is that helpful? It is helpful. It is for sure. The discussion is helpful in general. I guess, you know, what else? What other considerations? I mean, are. It seems so simple and straightforward. Not simple at all. But that's why we struggle. And that's why I think I think I've said to Director Lillio's. How do we understand why I don't understand or help me understand why I'm wrong? You know, it's it is to make sure that the process supports us in conducting and doing our job. And. As I said to you, Commissioner Skinner, you're looking through a new lens. Having having been on an employee and now the commissioner side, it's it is a new lens. When if you're thinking it's complicated, it is. Welcome. Sorry. Well, it is very different. But I'm not thinking it's complicated. It sounds really it sounds really straightforward. But I had, you know, leading up to to now and, you know, sort of anticipating this discussion. I guess I just expected, you know, a lot more. And I've said it. I've said this before, and I think I said it during this meeting earlier, is what am I missing here? It's it seems, you know, do we want to go the adjudicatory, you know, process or do we want to continue on in the manner that these matters have been taken up in the past? And I guess at the. Part of it all is I guess I'm struggling to see the difference between the two processes. I respect that. Chair, you feel that there is not a process by which we can ask, you know, sensitive questions in the public meeting process. And that's certainly persuasive, right? That's a reason to go the adjudicatory route. But I do worry that, you know, whether there is an undue burden that's been placed on IEB on our legal counsel to hold these adjudicatory hearings for every single matter that's up for review, as opposed to just continuing on again, as the commission has heard and decided these matters in the past. I think that's a real fair concern. I would I would argue one, even if it were a more arduous burden, the right process is important, right? I think we all agree with that. I think I feel like we've got a good test case in the REIT that in Todd, counsel Grossman did an excellent job of of framing it through a lot of pages of my narrative. I think that can be reduced, right? Because for these, it's usually one exhibit for each, not eight or nine, as in the REIT. And there are different considerations in the REIT that that requires all the notice. I think nailing down a notice, we have to do that. We have to do that anyway. For these applicants, and then, as we said, there may be many times where it feels very much like exactly the same process we did. But we may want to reserve the right question, the applicant. If we're lucky enough, and so topic for another day to continue to be able to meet virtually, where an applicant from across the country can can come in and be on a sidelines in the event we want to preserve the right to ask questions. If that's that might be something that's important, that we have lost track of over time. So it might be an enhanced process, but my my goal, and I think it can be achieved is to not make it a burden for our IEB. I don't think anybody's interested in doing that. Commissioner Skinner, I had the same concern you had about the putting any further burden on the IEB. But I heard very clearly today, at least I think I did. We can revisit this. And in fact, we're going to have to revisit this because I hope because the sports betting bill is going to be debated this week in the Senate. And I think we're going to see something by the end of July. And this conversation is going to have to take place again, because how are we going to do the suitability of those facilities and those employees? And it may be verticim. And it burdensome. And if that is the case, then we are going to have to have another discussion. And because of that comment that I heard earlier, that made me feel even more comfortable voting to go the way we go the way I think I'm hearing my fellow commissioners want to go. We can always bring this back for further discussion. And if we make a change, we can do that, as I understand it, unless I'm wrong. Oh, always. They may take these kinds of public conversations and there may be a number of them, but we can always and should be good as it really. It's just a matter of good practice, I feel. Michelle Brown, you want to add No, like I said, I've I've been in this spot for a while. So and I, you know, I have no doubt again that this conversation will probably haven't flow depending on the types of things coming in front, you know, staffing issues, etc. But for me, where we stand right now, and this is where I think we should be. It hadn't dawned on me earlier that we would ever consider using the public hearing process, like the true public hearing process until you mentioned the sports wagering legislation that's coming up and all the RFA ones that we've had to consider. So that was very was very helpful. I think and I hope I'm not putting our staff on the spot. But I think it would be fair to hear from IEB and and and Councilor Grossman as in terms of what. A bird, what the burden, if any, would be on their staff if we went the adjudicatory hearing. Route for all of these is does that make sense? I guess I actually invited them to come in and I don't want to put them on the spot either, but Director Lilias, absolutely. Sure. I mean, from the IEB's perspective, you know, we're really focused on our statutory and regulatory responsibilities. We are charged with conducting a thorough investigation for suitability purposes and writing a thorough report with our investigative findings and making a recommendation. And all of that is to help you as the Commission make your decision about suitability because that is your decision. So, you know, whatever process you. Identify as being what you need to discharge your responsibilities in making those suitability findings on this top tier of casino qualifiers. And, you know, the IEB will be responsive to you know, I think that's the best the best answer I can give you. We have had experience with the adjudicatory process, both before the full commission and before hearing officers. So it is something that we we know how to do and we will be responsive to to giving you what you need for you to be able to make the decisions that you're charged with making. If I could just loop in on that. I also just want to comment to the the note about whether it will be kind of unduly burdensome for IEB. I don't think it will be. I, you know, we had a very good flow working with General Council Grossman on the rec proceeding. And it, you know, it was quick in terms of what we had to do on the front end with respect to the pre-hearing conference. And, you know, I and I think it's a good concept to look at it for the next five. And, you know, as everyone has said, you know, kind of evaluate as we go. But I don't think at this juncture that it will be overly burdensome for the IEB, at least from my standpoint. And so, Karen. That's just because I think someone mentioned with us, Alina and Kathy, one thing that's a game changer, Nikisha, would be as a result of the pandemic was the technology. And this is more on the licensee perspective. It used to be, you know, if we were having a hearing, the person was going to be there to be available for questions. They would have to, you know, fly in the day before, be there for the hearing, fly back. But now they can just be in their office and they can go on the meeting and, you know, can do it remotely. So as far as burdens on the applicants, the licensees, it's it's a different world now that it was before. And that I think is part of the equation. I guess if I can, I'll jump in here as well. I don't like to refer to these things as burdens, but there are some different things that as the legal staff that we would want to work with the commission in preparing in advance of an adjudicatory proceeding that we don't do if matters are reviewed at a public meeting. For example, we do need to prepare a notice of the hearing, which, of course, is very similar from hearing to hearing. So it's not as though we have to set out and rewrite the notice for every single hearing. But we do have to ensure that we're affording the applicant reasonable notice of the issues to be addressed. So we would need to make sure that we have a copy of the IEB report in advance and that we're identifying any particular issues that we need to put an applicant on notice of other than all of the stuff that's just otherwise addressed in the IEB report. We also, when it comes to adjudicatory proceedings, conduct pre-hearing conferences with the parties. And I typically just conducted those myself or with other members of our legal staff with each of the parties. So we would have the IEB as well as the applicant there just to run through the process, make sure everyone understands what we anticipate happening and that we answer any questions, evidentiary or procedural so that by the time we get to the hearing, we've either resolved any questions that remain or that we're prepared to address any legal type of issues that may come about. And then the other thing that comes to mind is just the decision. And this is a matter that the commission will have to address. And you can do it on a case by case basis as to whether you wanna issue a written decision at the conclusion of an adjudicatory proceeding or just state your findings on the record, either or entirely appropriate under chapter 30A but to the extent the commission would prefer a written decision that would be something of course that we would have to write as well. So those are just some of the things that are different between conducting an adjudicatory proceeding and a public meeting review from an administrative perspective. But again, none of them are overly burdensome or unduly burdensome or anything like that. Certainly if the commission starts handling all matters or most matters this way, we'll get into a good rhythm and have a lot of templates to work out when it comes to some of these issues. I think I should respond to that. I think it's really important again for me to reiterate that we're talking about suitability hearings. We're not talking about our regulatory rulemaking functions. We're talking about the right of someone to be deemed suitable in order to have their license and be able to be part of the casino industry here in Massachusetts. And with that comes a host of property rights that attach and are afforded more due process. So I'm not really sure that the idea of giving notice is I think we have an obligation to do that anyway. We have an obligation to afford the processes that allow their process, both for them to be able to give their point of view as well as for us to ask questions and make it a meaningful process. And that's really where I stand today in terms of the public meeting. I don't believe it's the device that affords all the process that we need in order to do our job in any situation that doesn't mean that we haven't done our job before. So that's why it's completely a process discussion. And in terms of the burden, I do think that once it just becomes institutionalized, it's likely to be really very streamlined that would be my goal for us as a commission. I think Karen talked about this. And Eileen, you've likened it to some of the processes you've seen in your course of your work as a litigation. I've seen it way back in trial practice. So I'm imagining that it can be streamlined enough. No one wants to add to any, unnecessarily to anyone's job. Heather, Carrie? Karen? Richard Hill? Richard Skinner? Anything further? We're not shutting down the conversation. We really, I do have anything else because you are the new, you're coming into this conversation that we've had literally months to think about, Stu-On. I've had a couple of times where I've been on a tour or something with Commissioner O'Brien and I looked at it and go, sometimes we gotta figure out this. So we're kind of figuring this out. We're here today and just saying, again, I think I asked several times, what am I missing? So I laughed when you said that because I actually wondered, but what am I missing in terms of the complications? Because I feel it is the right choice, honestly. I just want to make sure that it's not, as I've said, I'm one of four and eventually one of five. And we have to all really be comfortable with our processes in order to move forward substantively. And the team, like Loretta said, will support us. And again, I appreciate your sensitivity around burden because that's been one of the main concerns for myself and I think Commissioner O'Brien, I don't want to speak for you, but I think you've been really sensitive to that issue as well. I'm sure it's getting. Yeah, no, having heard from the team, I think any concerns that I might have had about going all adjudicatory have been eliminated. I think that it makes sense if that is the consensus. I think it makes sense to move forward in that way. But it seemed again, so straightforward and I will say, what a shame that it took so long to get here because those five qualifiers that are sitting in the queue have been doing just that, sitting. Yeah, I mean, just remember that different compositions and boards have different views, they're not going to change. And so we have a constitution of four now that we need to side as a body for how we want to move forward and what may seem like consensus and no questions for us may not have seemed quite that in the past. Understood. And that was in no way meant to disparage any current or former commissioners, just stating, I think what I think is obvious, right? It was so easy for us to get to this point today. And I'm pleased by that. Well, thank you. Maybe it's because it took us a little bit longer, just when I said it's complicated. I think it was complicated to make sure that from my perspective that it wasn't long. I wanted to really hear our team and make sure that we honored all the processes that have been done in the past. And now, as we said, maybe we tweet going forward. And you know what? Future commissioners are probably going to tweet us. So that's the benefit of being an affected official. So I don't know. Let me just see. I took down the agenda. If we didn't want to get up for a vote, should we do it this way? If I'm hearing correctly, we have a consensus to proceed at the very least, but then the next five and mark them up, how we mark them up. I don't remember. How's the Grossman in the judiciary hearing has to be on a separate day or anything from a public hearing. But I think we could mark up five different adjudicatory hearings on the same day in some kind of a sequential order in terms of timing. And, you know, I'm absolutely fine. And I hear commissioner Hill saying, I'm all set to make this process going forward. But I suspect commissioner Hill, if you saw something that went awry, we would go back and tweak it. My hope is that for these five it serves as a good process for us and not a very simple process. The only follow-up I would have is one of the concerns expressed to in terms of going adjudicatory as opposed to public meeting is we want to be transparent. And so whether we just discuss process in terms of, is it administrative update and IB administrative update in terms of saying that they're queued up for consideration and where they've been approved, I think is something we want to think about making part of our process, just to continue with the transparency that we're doing this in a way that protects rights and allows us to ask our questions, but we're also being transparent about, you know, the people coming up in front under consideration and who we're going to get a determination on suitability. So, Karen, I think you seem to be going well. I think that you are correct and I would recommend just part of the administrative update, we could continue to do that. I guess one question, maybe I misheard someone along the line. Is the expectation that we would have these in a public setting and then go to a private setting if necessary or what is the thinking on that? Well, I just thought that I would clarify that too. In my mind, this is just how I thought about it. So, I would chime in that we would start in a public because I think it's really important for transparency. I think just as we did in the meet, IEP could present its report and recommendation. And in many ways, we could then go into the private session to decide if we need to ask for more evidence. And if it turns out that we didn't anticipate having the need to have the individual on call, but something came up, let's say, oh, unexpectedly, I really wish I could ask a question. We could, of course, continue the matter and bring the individual back in for questioning. We'd be able to ask any clarifying questions of counsel if they're available. If we hadn't reserved that again, we could continue. I think the practice should be for these fives that maybe we air a little bit on more process and see how that feels that an individual would be available for questions. We go into private session and at the very least we can thank them. At the very least, we can thank them for their application and say we have no questions. It's just, I mean, that could work if it's virtual. And then if we have no further questions, then we would close it out. Right now we do, as we've done in the past, private deliberation, where there's no one else available in the room except legal. But so there are different. This would be keeping it private but open for further evidence. And then moving into, I don't know if that's more process than what we were imagining to have the individual qualifier available during one hour by call or by a virtual platform. I think we could do it over the phone too or maybe we can't as a, I don't know the answers to that legally if they've been sworn in or whatever. What do you think? Anybody else have thoughts of, but it starts where IEB and does all its good work. And then ultimately we deliver it in private so that we can discuss anything that's, some of these matters are actually protected by law. Others are sensitive, but we could ask those in public. So that hasn't been the issue so much as more the information that is protected, particularly when it might be not only about the applicant but about a third party. And that third party isn't protected even through the executive session. I mean, I think what you'd have is almost like a docket for the day in terms of you can put the five on, they've each got a time slot, you follow that process and you, IEB and or the GC group would keep whoever the applicant is on call unless we knew in advance, we absolutely want it to question someone and then obviously they'd have to be on and available to us but otherwise having them be reachable so that if we did have questions for them they could hop on is probably there's, and then it'd be very similar to how we've been handling it otherwise. I suppose we could when you say if we absolutely know we want to or we know we don't want to. Todd, we do have the alternative of doing a private session where we basically do like a pre-hearing to decide who we want to hear from. And you have process. That's part of the interdictatory process too, right? Rather than I know at one point we were thinking about doing that in the agenda set process which it's hard to speak about the private issues if they're protected issues in any public setting. So is that another way to help streamline the process, Todd? I think so. I think you could meet up to discuss pre-hearing adjudicatory proceeding issues and one of them could be, do we want this individual to appear or be on standby? And are there any other witnesses that you would like to absolutely hear from or besides some of the issues flagged in the IB's report? Is there anything else you want the witnesses to be prepared to address? So yes, I think that is a viable way to do it. So that might work. We had a preliminary process matter that we dealt with in that fashion was on three. Here. Yes. My imagination of the process doesn't differ from yours, I don't think, but did you say that we would start in public, but then go to private even where there are no questions that we need to ask of the applicant, we would just do that as a matter of routine towards the end, even if it's just to thank them for their application. Well, if we do the pre-hearing process, that might be really helpful. But I think I'd like to be able to reserve the opportunity to go in private just in case somebody develops a question that they didn't anticipate. And I suppose if if that person's on standby, then they could just be excused by legal. If we just say no, we're all set, then we don't have to. But I was gonna say if we wanted to go into private session and just touch base with something and say, but we aren't really opening up anything further in evidence, the worst case scenario is we thank them for their time. But we don't have to do that if we do the pre-hearing, I think. But I do think we wanna reserve the right to go into private for any question or additional information evidence. Like we did that exact thing in the REIT. We didn't, what did we do in that case, Todd? We didn't go back into private. Everybody just said, no, I'm all set. Right, yeah, I think you actually asked whether anyone had any follow-up when everyone said no and that's it. Well, then we, right. Does that help? That's probably a clarified, Nikisha, I think, because you're right, you don't wanna hold somebody up and have that process, but I just wanna make sure that right through the end, before we close out evidence that any commissioner can ask any question. My guess is that it's gonna be streamlined in many ways on most of these reports. We're all gonna go, nope, all set. Even faster. That was a really good question because I was, so to speak, and that is what's going on. Any other clarifiers or, so do we just wanna not have a fault necessarily but move on consensus that we, at the next agenda setting, look at our schedules and figure out when this will work for the other parties? Director Lillios, does that make sense to you from your perspective and Heather? Councillor Hall? I'll defer to Loretta first. Sure, I mean, I think the IAB would be able to, in terms of its scheduling, be able to do that and with, depending on who you want to hear from, from the qualifier side, we can have follow-up with them about making sure they're available. And on that note, I think it might make sense to do the first three that were submitted first, and then, I know Commissioner O'Brien talked about a docket for all five on the same day, but I think it's probably more realistic to have those first three that were submitted initially and then go from there, if that's okay with the commission. Because there would be, we would need to move back with the IAB investigators and make sure they're all ready to discuss the report if anyone has any questions and also connect with the qualifiers themselves and their representatives if necessary. Yeah, I was just doing it more to move them along. Even if we did a morning and an afternoon date or something, whatever it takes in terms of, once we have, now that we know what we're gonna do, it feels like we can execute it as fast as you guys feel like you can be ready. Yeah, I think it could be. We can connect with those investigators between now and the agenda-setting meeting so we can see what's going on with the agenda. Okay, okay. May I recommend that we don't do it on an open meeting day, that we would do it by itself maybe? Absolutely. Yeah. And I'm wondering if that's actually a rule. I don't know if I read that at some point that couldn't be on the same day. And I don't know if that's the case, but- I don't think so. Maybe it's just my own rule that that's too much. I agree. Yeah, it'd be on a separate day. So in terms of no vote or vote, I'm just looking at the reg 115 Oak Far 1 that talks about commission shall determine whether to initiate process for either public hearing or due to current proceeding. I'm assuming Todd, us, voicing consensus satisfies the commission making a determination. It doesn't seem like we need a vote. We've determined by consensus. I'm happy to have a vote. Yeah, I mean, either way, I think taking a vote would be perfectly fine and a good way to document the decision, at least for these next five. So yeah. Commissioner Bryan, do you want to make a- I just talked myself into having to make a motion. Yeah. Thank you. Keep my mouth shut. It'll be before you. So before you make that motion, I just, we've brought it up a couple of times today. I'm gonna bring it up one last time. We're gonna be discussing this again in the very near future, I think. Which means we may be changing our vote. I'm not saying- You see where I'm going with this? Well, I think that's why Todd kind of said, you might want to stick to the five we know are in the queue ready to go. And then if we need to revisit, we can revisit in terms of saying, yes, we're gonna keep doing that, or you brought up on something else. Yeah, and sports wagering, of course, is another whole other ball of wax. I mean, you'd have to make these regulations applicable to sports wagering, which they're not at the moment. And you might want a totally different process for that. So yeah, I agree. You will certainly have to realize. We are going to be defaulting to, we are making a determination to default to the adjudicatory hearing apps in a vote, to the contrary. And honestly, I'm not even sure that it has to be different for sports betting, quite frankly. No, it may not, but I think that's, I mean, the Commissioner Hill's point of what I was saying before is, when you go back and look at how they functioned with the RFA ones and how transparent they want it to be, I think we as a body want to have that conversation before we decide definitively. Absolutely, yeah. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Yep. So with that, Madam Chair, I move that the Commission make a determination to initiate suitability processes via the adjudicatory proceeding consistent with 205 CMR 115.04 sub one. Second. Thank you. Are there any further questions? And to all, thank you very much for this discussion. It's really, really helpful for me personally. So I appreciate it, but I think hopefully you'll be moving forward. So thank you. All right. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And I thought, yes, four eyes. Thank you so much. And that is our sole agenda item. I always kind of like the single agenda item. It's the luxury of speaking about one thing. So thank you everyone. We can move to adjourn and have a motion. So moved. Second. And questions. Alrighty, Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. And Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And I thought, yes, four zero. Thank you everyone. I appreciate all the time. Thanks, everybody.