 And we're good. Okay, good morning everyone. And thank you. I am just shifting spots because of the quick little internet problem. So excuse me for the delay. I wanna remind folks that this meeting is being recorded and streams available on the stream line. Information is available on our website. So to get started, we'll do a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner Cameron. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. There you are. Good morning. And good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning and present. All right, we'll get started. So today is Monday, March 14th. Two years ago, about in the morning, I think, Karen, correct. We had a Saturday morning meeting and we used this format somewhat successfully. I think others joined my video and we failed to put on ours, but we had a very productive meeting in cooperation and collaboration with our licensees. And at that very time, with the onset of the pandemic, we did suspend the operations of the three casinos. Something that's not done typically and Bruce Bann knows that better than any of us. And it was a remarkable feat in terms of the work that was engaged in by our team and by the three licensees, all on behalf of the patrons and the casino employees, our staff that work at the on-floor, and then really with the great insight and information from the medical experts and the scientists around the world, we worked for a real safe and seamless re-engagement. That would have been in July, correct? So many months of disruption for that particular industry and very proud of how it came back and with not only safely, with the interest of the patrons and their employees in mind, but also on robustly. So for all of that today, March 14th, this is somewhat sour marker because of our industry and our regulatory authority, but also because we were just a few days ahead of what became very, very clear would be a significant impact on how we lived and continue to live. So just an important day to mark in this particular agency's memory. So thank you everyone, we'll get started. Commissioner Cameron, what public meeting is it? Number 374. Thank you for the help. It do makes me feel old when you say that, but also grateful, it's been a run and that's a lot of meetings. Well, and it's kind of nice that March 31st, which we always may have meetings in between, but if in fact, our next meeting is March 31st, full public meeting, that will be meeting number 375 and I've noted it. We are planning for it on our agenda, but I will note that it will be the conclusion of really what is a historic marker for the agency. Commissioner Cameron will singularly have been the original commissioner who has served a full 10 year term, providing us with such a foundation of governance and support for all of the team and she'll be recognized fully on March 31st and by that over the course of history. So 375, we look forward to March 31st, Commissioner Cameron. Thank you for that. I just worry about the IT team because, you know, if our meeting runs too late, they'll be at my door waiting to take my equipment. So make sure the team is not working overtime, so we better move through that meeting. Thank you, though, much appreciate it. Commissioner Cameron, there will be no little box for you at the door. You can stay as long as you need and I know the IT team feels the same way, that's hilarious though. You know, we have policies and procedures, Commissioner Cameron, that we need to follow. So there we go. All right, minutes, Commissioner O'Brien, please. Certainly, there are two sets of minutes in the packet today, June 3rd of 21 and June 14 of 21. Starting with the June 3rd, I would move that the mission approved the meeting minutes from June 3rd, 2021, subject to any necessary changes for typographical errors or other non-material matters. May I make one note? I meant to make this note at our last public meeting, which was Thursday, the 10th. These minutes do not involve Commissioner Hill. Right. He wasn't present, so it's out of the record to, I should have allowed Commissioner Hill to abstain and reflect that, yes, he was present for our meeting on March 10th, but he didn't vote because he hadn't been there. So today, Commissioner Hill, I'll do it correctly. If we need to adjust the minutes in any way, I'm sure Councilor Grossman, you can tend to that. I had it in my notes from last week and I just didn't get back there. So today, I will make sure to offer you that opportunity, Commissioner Hill, if you'd like. Okay, so was that? I need to second, thank you. No, no, I was gonna get back to a second. Okay. So she's second now, any edits on the motion? That was on process. Okay, so Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Abstain. Thank you, and I vote yes. So three zero with one abstention. Thank you so much. Okay. And secondly, moving on to June 14th, 2021. Under the commission approved these meeting minutes again, subject to any necessary changes for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Okay, any edits on them? Nicely done to the legal team. Thank you so much. All right, Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Abstain. And I vote yes. So three zero with one abstention. And again, my apologies for that. Commissioner Hill. We're good. Alrighty, thank you so much. Moving on then to the administrative update. There she is. Karen, you floated on me. Good morning. So good morning, Madam Chair, and members of the commission. For the first agenda item under the administrative update, I'm gonna turn it over to Bruce Bands for an on-site casino update on what's going on at the properties. Morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. The update today is mostly about on-goings in the casinos. First at PPC, they continue their slot promotions and celebrating a responsible gaming month. MGM, in their poker room, we've added one more poker table bringing their total to 14. At Encore, this past weekend, they celebrated the Celtics 75th anniversary, which included multiple players and VIPs. This week on St. Patty's Day, they have a MMA fight in one of their ballrooms. And that's kind of my report for this public meeting. If I have any questions, please ask. Commissioners. Oh, good. So MGM is up to 14? Yes, ma'am. So I don't have anything else official on the administrative update. Just, you know, it has been nice to be back in the office. So that seems to be going well. I will be coordinating with the team that's working on the live stream equipment because I'm sure the commissioners will be forward to having that so we can have the commission meetings back in the public meeting room and for more to come on that. So stay tuned. Thank you. Excellent. Anything else for Karen? Any other questions for her? Okay. Then we're gonna move right on to item number four. And I do see Councillor Coleman. Good morning, Councillor and Dr. Lightbound. Thank you. We're on to your item, Alex. Good morning, Chair and commissioners. Our item today deals with mass general law 128A, section five H four, which details how part of the paramutrile handle is to be used for paying to the organization determined by the commission that represents the majority of jockeys licensed by the commission and who regularly ride in to be given this amount of money to disperse to active disabled and retired jockeys. This item came under a good, robust discussion last year at the February 25th meeting due to the fact that Suffolk is no longer racing live. There is a simulcasting is everyone's aware of going on at Suffolk. And so there are funds coming in for that money and there is enough money to pay that 65,000. At the February 25th meeting in 2021, there were updated qualifications for the jockeys that were presented to the commission and those have been reviewed again by Ms. Coleman and I and we feel that those are still applicable today. It's estimated that approximately 17 jockeys would qualify, 13 retired and four permanently disabled and they would each get about $3,800. Council Coleman, as the chair mentioned is on our meeting today, if there's any questions for her or for me and I do recommend that the commission approve the jockey guild as the representative organization. Questions for Dr. Leipan or Council Coleman. And again, thank you for coming today. We did appreciate that robust discussion last year. Commissioner Hill, we had the advantage of it. I suspect that you and Alex have spoken but do you have particular questions for, okay, for Councilor Coleman? I do not. Everybody had a chance to see both Alex's memo and Mindy's letter. Commissioner Cameron. Yeah, I certainly agree with the recommendation and I'm just grateful that we're able to have a mechanism where a small amount of money we are able to get to the retired and in particular the disabled jockeys. So I just appreciate all the work because it was kind of untested waters without live racing. So I just appreciate all the work that was done in order for us to continue to make a small payment every year to those jockeys. Thank you for that. Commissioner O'Brien, are you all set? No, I am. I remember the conversation last year and the time that went into editing it and coming up with the qualifications. And I was pleased to see that we're in a position to continue it this year for those who can be eligible. Yeah, I agree. Thank you so much again, the thorough process last year and it's nice to be able to rely on it this year. So do I have a motion? I'm happy to move that the Commission find the jockeys guild meets the requirements in section 5H4 of chapter 128A for the reasons discussed today and accordingly authorized the $65,000 payment described in the statute. Second. Okay, any questions or edits? All right, Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you, Mindy, did you want to comment? I just wanted to say we greatly appreciate your time and your consideration for this. The funds that have been received have been a great deal to the retired jockeys as well as those individuals who suffered catastrophic and career-ending injuries. It's definitely been much appreciated. So we do again, want to give our thanks to this Commission for taking the time and consideration. Well, thank you and thank you for all the good work that you've done as Commissioner Cameron mentioned. Thank you. Alex, Dr. Levin, you've all said. Yes, thank you very much. Okay, great. And we do, we're very pleased to be able to use this mechanism in the statute to make a little bit of a difference in their lives. So thank you. Okay, moving on then to item number five. Good morning, Dr. Handerlinden. Not yet. I just gave you a big, you know, that could be a good goal. You're on your way certainly with this research paper. Director Vanderlinden, good morning. This was a pleasure to be, thank you. Good, thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman and good morning, commissioners. I'm joined this morning with my colleagues, Marie Claire, Flores Peugeot and Long Ban who together will be presenting this paper to you. We have Todd Grossman standing by for any of the legal considerations if you have questions about that. So the paper this morning is Responsible Gaming Considerations for Gambling Advertising. The intention of this paper is to provide you commissioners with information that will help inform your decisions on policies and regulations regarding gambling advertising in Massachusetts. This is a rather long paper. So we'll go in depth in some pieces and we'll kind of skim over other pieces but we'll certainly look forward to a discussion at the end of this. Advertising to sell a product or services is nothing new. In recent years, however, advertising practices have become especially pervasive. It's no longer television commercials, billboards and newspaper ads. Advertising today utilizes user-specific data collected through social media and other means to push out highly targeted ads through our smartphones and other screens. Like other businesses, the gambling industry uses this information to recruit and retain customers. And on the surface, it appears that this is the free market at play. However, gambling is not a risk-free activity and therefore commissioners may wish to consider additional measures to limit and or contain gambling advertising in Massachusetts by our licensees and their parent companies in order to minimize harm, especially to youth and other vulnerable populations. So the paper today that we're gonna review with you has basically four sections. First, I will cover current statute regulations and frameworks specifically regarding or related to advertising and marketing. Marie Claire will cover with you an overview of some of the relevant research findings long. We'll review with you, select regulations both related to gambling, but some other industries that you may find interesting. And finally, we'll conclude with some considerations that you may wish to consider regarding strategies and measures related to gambling advertising. So first, the current Massachusetts statutes and regulations related to advertising and marketing practices. I always like to start with the statute. So I'll do that now. And drafting the gaming laws contained in chapters 194 and in chapter 23K, the Gaming Act of Massachusetts legislature and then Governor Deval Patrick laid out a vision for casino gambling that was intended to create the greatest possible economic benefit for the Commonwealth, but they also recognized that it needed to be balanced with needing to establish a comprehensive plan to mitigate gambling related harm. I would say that the gaming commission in its early days, Commissioner Cameron, I'll call out to you, recognize the need to mitigate gambling related harm and heard the call of the legislature. And so therefore, as part of its mission and commitment, it called out within the mission to reduce the maximum expense possible to potentially negative and unintended consequences of expanded gaming. So to effectuate that, the gaming commission adopted a few regulations with the goal of mitigating gambling related harm. Specifically, C205CMR150.3 states that no gaming licensee shall authorize or conduct marketing, advertising or promotional communications or activities relative to gaming that specifically targets persons under the age of 21. And 205CMR1306 prohibits gaming licensees from marketing to individuals on the voluntary self-exclusion list. So two vulnerable populations that were recognized by the commission that we specifically limit or prohibit advertising to. So back to chapter 23K, it requires licensees to prominently display information on the signs of problem gambling and how to access assistance and to describe a process for individuals to exclude their names and contact information from a gaming licensees database or any other list held by the gaming licensees for use of promotional communications. So basically, much like BSC, it offers a way in which individuals can restrict themselves from gaming licensees marketing lists. So that's not where things end. The gaming commission in 2014 adopted a responsible gaming framework and then it was revised again in 2018. The responsible gaming framework is not regulation. It contains some regulations disidentified in it but it is not intended to be a regulation but rather an overall orientation to responsible gaming practices and policies adopted by the MGC and our licensees. There are a number of different strategies but there's one specific strategy, strategy four within the responsible gaming framework that specifically addresses gambling marketing. It states that gaming licensees should develop and implement strategies to ensure advertising and promotions are delivered in a responsible manner. This includes advertising that is sensitive to concerns about youth exposure to gambling promotion including casino marketing on non-age restricted social casino apps or online free play sites. An important aspect of responsible marketing is to include messaging related to promoting positive play and advertising problem gambling health resources. So it goes on at length but the primary objectives of this strategy within the framework are threefold. One, prevent underage gambling. Two, direct persons experiencing gambling related harm to available resources. And three, to discourage people from playing beyond their means. So looking, there's also not limited to Massachusetts licensees that more broadly the American Gaming Association has done some work in this area too that I wanted to just mention. The American Gaming Association has a responsible gaming code of conduct that was last updated in 2018. The code applies to all AGA members and I believe all three of our licensees are AGA members that applies to their advertising and marketing practices. There is a specific section within the AGA code of conduct that addresses marketing. And it's actually pretty roughly in line with what our responsible gaming framework is. In fact, our responsible gaming framework in the advertising section leans heavily on the direction and guidance of the American Gaming Association in this specific strategy. So in 2020, the American Gaming Association released a responsible gaming code of conduct specifically for sports wagering. And this version of the code provides additional details about location and placement of sports wagering, advertising and messages, including controlling digital media and websites. It also includes a mechanism to monitor compliance that you'll see in our considerations we thought was quite good and are recommending a structure such as that. So now I'm going to turn it over to Marie Claire who's gonna provide you with an overview of relevant research findings. Thank you. Good morning, honey chair, commissioners. We did some research to see what is the effects of advertising on gaming behavior. And firstly, what we found is that there's not much out there at least compared to alcohol and tobacco that have more robust data in this area, the effect of gambling on the effect of advertising. And also when looking at the effect of advertising on gaming behavior, it's important to keep in mind that advertising is only one of many environmental factors that may influence gambling behavior. So it is relatively challenging to determine the specific impact of gambling advertising on gambling related harms. Nonetheless, there's still some good research out there and the existing evidence suggests that exposure to gambling advertising is associated with more positive gambling related attitudes, greater gambling intentions and increases in gambling and prone gambling behavior. And these patterns are consistent with those found in the field of alcohol and tobacco and e-cigarettes as well. While gambling in moderation may not be inherently harmful, it is an activity associated with risk and especially when gambling in higher frequency and amounts. And therefore it requires regulation at the individual as well as the environmental level. Prior research on reducing harms associated with alcohol and tobacco use found that restrictions on advertising is one of the most cost effective measures to reduce harm. So this is something to consider for gambling. And as mentioned, gambling is an activity that is not risk-free. So ideally when gambling advertising should be accurately representing gambling as an activity that is associated with risk. And it should not be overly enticing or glamorized so that people can make a fully informed decision. However, research has found otherwise that gambling advertising usually presents gambling as a harmless, normal and fun behavior. And this overly positive framing of gambling and advertising can reach and impact unintended vulnerable populations such as young people. And evidence has been clear that early age of gambling initiation is strongly associated with the development of crime gambling later in life and also with greater severity of gambling problems. Another population that has been identified to be particularly vulnerable to gambling advertisements and promotion is people experiencing gambling problems. And research has found that people with gambling problems were significantly more likely than non-problem gamblers to be influenced by gambling promotions and incentives. And that gambling advertising was a catalyst for people with gambling problems to relapse. And similarly, the Massachusetts gaming in fact cohort study, the magic study that looked at gambling and problem gambling in Massachusetts over a period of six years found a significant increase in problem gambling relapse in Massachusetts in 2018. And that same period also saw an increased number of news stories in the media related to the planned opening of one of Massachusetts casinos. So that increased publicity and media attention about gambling aligned with those elevated rates of problem gambling, indicating that those relapses in problem gambling were not likely due to the physical availability to gamble because the casino was not open, but rather due to the increased publicity and media attention in advance of the opening of the casino. The Asian communities have also been identified as a population at greater risk of experiencing problems related to gambling. And so gambling advertising targeting these communities also deserves scrutiny. The Asian care study that was released in December found that people in the Asian community fell targeted by casinos to entice them into gambling through seductive marketing and advertising. All to say that research shows that gambling advertising has a potential impact on gambling behavior and that advertising can reach many population groups including young people and other vulnerable groups. So careful consideration is needed in terms of the content and the distribution of gambling advertising. And based on the existing evidence in the report we included some future direction for what the commission's research agenda should include. And now I'll turn it over to Long to talk about a review of the selected regulations in the US and other jurisdictions. Thank you, Marie Claire. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. So I'm just gonna sort of do a quick overview of the regulations in the United States and other industry. So initially we started looking at the gambling advertising regulations. Hi, Marie Claire. Oh, hi, Tia. I'm sorry. So we did a quick or a scan of the gambling advertising regulations in the United States and it could be divided up into five different categories. The regulations in America. The first category, responsible gaming message, messaging, target audience, content, placement, frequency and approval process. Massachusetts has advertising regulations in two out of the five categories, responsible gaming messaging and target audience. So this sort of give us a context that there are other areas that we can look at in other jurisdictions on their gambling regulations. As Marie Claire mentioned, because of the limited research in advertising in the gambling industry, we started expanding and looking at the industry. And when such industry, we looked at this alcohol industry. Within the alcohol industry, they developed a self-regulatory codes and practices around advertising, employing age-gating and external review of complaints. Age-gating is a setting on the website before a consumer can enter to the website. The consumer must enter their date of birth, certifying that they're 21 years of age or older. The alcohol industry also developed a procedure for external review of complaints regarding alcohol advertising. So this allows other community members with concerns of alcohol advertising, if there's codes that they're concerned about, they can file complaints. We also looked at another industry. And this industry was quite fascinating because it also has regulations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So it's something that we wanted to look carefully at is the cannabis. The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission has regulations that discussed or has regulations that is pretty similar to what have been covered. But one that sticks out is it prohibits advertising or print publication unless at least 85% of the audience is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older as determined by reliable and current audience composition data. So this sort of allows them to determine if advertising in a printed or printed publication is targeting someone under 21 years of age. So that's a quick sort of overview of the regulations currently in the United States and around gambling and also in other industry. I'm going to turn it back to Mark who is going to talk about our recommendation. Thanks, Long. Thank you, Marie-Claire. So we covered some ground here talking about the research that's relevant to it, talking about other regulations, both directly related to gambling and other industries as well as kind of where we stand currently within our own regulations and frameworks. And so based on that, we recommend that the Gaming Commission consider the following additional measures where feasible and consistent with statute. And certainly the particulars of these recommendations would have pursued by the Commission require further refinement. I'm breaking it into a couple of different strategies. One is strengthening regulations within Massachusetts. The second is establishing a complaint process. The third is raising awareness and capacity through training with our licensees. The fourth is updating our framework. And the fifth relates back to what Marie-Claire said at the end of her piece about adding to the research agenda. So first, we recommend the Gaming Commission strengthen regulations by adding all or some of the following requirements. First, and I recognize that this is a little tricky, restrict advertising and marketing campaigns which disproportionately target groups identified by empirical evidence to be considered at high risk of experiencing gambling related harm. The second, require that a portion of the gaming licensees, total marketing and advertising budget be exclusively dedicated to responsible gaming messaging. Third, require that the MGC approved game sense, safer gambling education line or problem gambling helpline messaging be incorporated into all casino advertising and marketing materials. Next, prohibit advertising placed with such intensity and frequency that it saturates the communication medium or in some cases location. Ensure that any advertising restrictions include messages placed on digital media including third party internet and mobile sites, commercial marketing emails or text messages, social media sites and downloadable content. Prohibit advertising that is false, misleading or encourages risky gambling behavior. And I provide a couple of examples here. I won't go into great detail but generally in that direction. Next is strengthen protections for persons under the legal gambling age. And while we provide a general blanket statement to that I think that there's the commission may wish to consider being more explicit. And I provide several examples of how the commission can proceed in that way. So next, we wanted to look at the compliance process for this monitoring and regulating gambling advertising as broad as it currently is could be incredibly challenging. So we recommended sort of a staged approach to this following a model that was developed by the American Gaming Association. So one way that we envision the commission may consider doing this is using the existing process that we have for persons to make complaints which is through the MGC's fair deal tip line that could include a mechanism to file a complaint about a licensees advertising or marketing practices which potentially violate our regulations. We also recommend that the MGC establish an advertising review advisory committee to review marketing and advertising complaints which would come in through the fair deal line. This committee could include or should include representation from the MGC but it may also include representation from other stakeholder groups who have both interest and expertise in this area. If there is a determination that there's sufficient evidence that there is a violation, we would also invite licensees, the licensee to respond to the complaint including the merits of the claim and any action that they have taken in response. If there's still sufficient evidence that there is a violation that exists, we recommend that the MGC include this provision within its adjudicatory hearing process. The third is to require awareness and capacity building training to promote safe and healthy gambling messages and ensure that advertising materials are culturally appropriate. We recommend mandatory training for casino hosts and persons identified with involvement in advertising or marketing. The training would include a review of the up-to-date and relevant regulations and policies as well as an emphasis towards communities considered at high risk of problem gambling. The commission may wish to consider the Massachusetts culturally and linguistically appropriate services for the purpose of ensuring diversity and inclusion. We also recommend that the MGC update respond to the gaming framework, specifically the strategy for it to be reflected of any changes that would be adopted by the gaming commission. And then finally, we recommend that the gaming commission update or address any ambiguity in the research through our research agenda. We recognize that this is, and see through the work that we've done here, this is an ever-evolving, ever-changing both in terms of how advertising works but also in terms of the gaming landscape. To keep up with this, we feel like we should include explicitly within our ongoing research agenda the specific topic. Long and Marie Claire, I think we covered the basics of what was included in the white paper. Is there any final thoughts that you had before we open it for discussion? Okay, Madam Chair, we turn it back over to you. Thank you, it is great to see you, Marie Claire Long. I wish I were there in person and Mark, thank you. Commissioners, this was an excellent report to read, right? And I know Brad was smiling because he sits outside this magnificent group. And so it's a pleasure to see you, the three of you all together reporting. Commissioners, let's think about some responses here and some guidance that we can give. This is comprehensive in terms of next steps that Mark and team are recommending. What I'm excited about is that we're engaging this conversation. I had thought that it was somewhat overdue. And I think with Commissioner Hill's arrival, I both recognize that at least with respect to sports betting, we were seeing such a proliferation of advertising that this was probably a good time to truly revisit. We'll have been looked at in the past, but to look at it through even a new lens since 2014 in the next few years. So, Commissioner Hill, I'm gonna let you have the floor first then. Well, first, so let me say that it is a great report and I've been looking forward to this and Paul Long and Marie Claire have had to listen to me for the last six months regarding this particular issue and what you've come out with today is fantastic. And I'm not gonna hog the conversation, but I do have some questions or I shouldn't say questions more about comments. And the first one that I have is regarding or surrounds around the collegiate betting. So I was interested to hear what you had to say regarding that issue. And I noticed in, please, I'm going by three different screens here, so bear with me. The American Gaming Association has put together some bullet points of what they wanna see in regards to sports betting. And one of the things that I actually saw and I'm gonna read it if you don't mind, fellow questioners is that message is, when sports wagering should not be promoted or advertised in college or university-owned news assets and the examples they gave are school newspapers, radio, television broadcast or advertised on college or university campuses. So the reason I bring that particular issue up is the debate that's taking place up on Beacon Hill right now has to do specifically with college sports betting. And it's funny that at the beginning of our meeting today, we were discussing the NCAA brackets. And I think there's been a lot of concerns by many of the legislators regarding betting on college sports. But I think I'm a little bit more comfortable than I was, let's say, a few months ago because I see not only are we looking at this nationally through this group, but certainly here in Massachusetts, it is something that we do care about, we're concerned about, and that we're willing to work with all people to ensure that if we did have sports betting and NCAA betting was allowed, that we would be putting into place some advertising regulations that would protect those folks who are concerned about betting on college sports. And I think your report reflects that very, very well and what we can do to help in that particular regard in that particular issue. And the targeting of the younger people that are under 21, that is something Madam Chair and fellow commissioners, we absolutely have to do, and you've already done it before I got here through your regulations with casino gaming. And I think instead of reinventing the wheel, you've already done it and we can use a lot of the language that you've put into gaming at the casinos into sports betting as well. The only question that I didn't hear or subject matter that I didn't hear about and Todd, I may be putting you on the spot and if I am, we can come back to it at another meeting, but constitutional questions regarding what can we tell somebody to do in regards to advertising? Are there constitutional questions or legal questions that maybe have been challenged in court already through other jurisdictions about what we're telling them they can and cannot do? And I bring this up, is this a freedom of speech issue? I don't know, not being a legal person, but I've noticed all the other jurisdictions and I think long, you were the one that was talking to us about what other jurisdictions have done. And it seems to me like there's a lot of regulatory oversight of the gaming advertising regulations. And it seems to me, if I was being told what I could and could not do on behalf of my particular company, I would have issues with that, me. Commissioner Hill, I think that's an excellent question. Actually, Mark Long and Marie Claire and I actually spent some time talking about the First Amendment and constitutional issues that may surround that. I'm not really prepared at the moment to get into that in great detail, but I do think it's something we need to look into. Certainly there are a number of statutes that allow for restrictions on advertising and a lot of the context Long was just talking about. So I do believe it's an area that has been looked at and we just need to kind of make sure we're up to speed on those principles. I know it was a loaded issue and I didn't expect us to spend too much time on it, but it is something that I do think we need to look at. But as I'm talking this out, I'm also remembering that right now we have restrictions on our alcohol, we have restrictions on smoking and now e-cigarettes and things of that. So I'm sure it's been talked about and it's probably been tested at the port level, but it's just something that I think about as we're putting together laws and regulations as the constitutional questions. But I think that would be my time, Madam Chair. It's an excellent, excellent report and I would argue or suggest, I should say, we should probably send this up to our friends on Beacon Hill because it's that good. And I think it could be a report that they could use very well in putting together legislation that they're considering now on sports better. Is that good? Very good job. Yeah, in response to that, I think there is a plan for some kind of distribution and certainly as I think Crystal, as you've been working with Chair Misha Cohen to perhaps have this presented at the G-PAC meeting, which is scheduled for early April. I think, is that on the agenda, Crystal? Is that what Meg is thinking? It will be on the agenda. The agenda is not out yet, but yes. No, but sorry if I spoiled it. In other words, I think it will be really interesting for that particular advisory committee and we can, I think that Mark and others can, and Crystal can work on a distribution plan. I think, Mark, you wanna safeguard it as a draft. Correct, yeah, I would. At this stage. Yeah, I was thinking, I wanna keep it as a draft. I would like to open it for public comment to see what others think that would be my recommendation. So that's another step that we can do. Good, well, I don't want to derail the commissioner's comments at this point, but Commissioner Hill, you've made initial ones, so we can circle back, okay, if you think of another item. Commissioner Cameron or Commissioner O'Brien? Commissioner O'Brien? Sorry, Commissioner Cameron turned off first. Oh, I don't, whatever. Who would you like to speak? I don't care. Do you want me to go? Yes, absolutely. I would agree that this is an excellent report. I really, I learned some things, which I always do with our research white papers. I did not know that cannabis had spent that much time tackling this issue and putting regulations in place, so I was kind of pleased to see that. And I do think we can learn from other industries, right? I mean, it really is a good idea. I guess a little disappointed that so little research already, because it has been legal in so many places around the world for so long. I shouldn't be disappointed, I guess, but I think we will probably lead the way here too, as we've done with other research. So I know that we'll do good work here. I really like the idea of the marketing committee, the stakeholder groups being involved and to speak to the concerns about whether it be constitutionality. I mean, I love the way we approached, kind of play my way, right? We weren't gonna mandate that, but we did get the licensees involved. And I suspect this may be another issue where the licensees will get involved and try to help us with this issue, meaning, okay, how do we make sure the messaging is appropriate? And I think with that kind of dialogue with the licensees, I think that will be helpful and there'll be some good eyes, ears out there, right? And this has been such an issue for so long. I mean, we talk about it all the time. When will it be legal here? I have to tell you, one of the things in New Jersey, and they were in the forefront, right? In making sure sports betting was legal. They wanted that to happen for a long time. They had gubernatorial support and whatnot, back in the 80s, I'm dating myself, but one of the things that made me very unpopular in the state police was banning all the final four, all the March Madness pools and all the barracks because it was illegal. And we couldn't be advertising and or sending that message that it's okay, even though it's illegal in New Jersey. So I had lots of calls from people with a lot more rank than I had saying, what the hell are we doing? But I think it was the right thing to do, right? You can't send a message that this is okay. But I think we're talking about legal behavior here and how do we do it safely? And we've approached that from day one. How do we introduce this industry safely? So I'm a team, excellent work. I'm sure we'll follow many of your recommendations. And again, I really like the collaboration that you talked about at every step of the way. So thank you, great report. Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, Brad, you answered one of my questions partially by talking about what the recommendations are in terms of colleges because a couple of areas that stood out to me the most, I'll stick with the rule of three and stop myself with three. But the first thought that came into my mind reading this was sort of the mixed population areas in terms of colleges for the first thing I thought of, not only just for betting on the sports, but you've got a population that all of a sudden crosses into 21 for maybe 20% or less of the population that's in there. So that 85% percentage was striking to me and that would take college campuses off the table in terms of how you try to market some of this, whether it's regular gambling, whether it's sports betting. I look at even before that though, because there's not a bright line between someone getting at the end of high school and someone going into college. And so I'm curious about some of the states that are regulating based on geographic area and trying to limit areas. And I was a little flummoxed by why they would say, DC don't put advertising within two blocks of a designated sports wagering facility that didn't seem particularly helpful to me as opposed to don't put advertising almost like school zones used to do in drug cases. Don't put advertising within acts of a park, a school, a community center. I remember during the Asian care report there was comments on, if you saw the amount of advertising, the buses that go into Chinatown, like the inundation in that area of advertising compared to other urban areas. So I'm intrigued by the possibility of regulations in terms of location that would really go and try to target those protected individuals and those groups, particularly, you talk about the sooner that they get exposed, the sooner they get into gaming, the greater the risk of problem gambling. And so to me, a priority I would see for us as a commission in terms of protecting vulnerable populations are people that have come to us that have already talked about their neighborhoods with their demographic being inundated or over targeted. And then also going in and doing the sort of protection intervention in terms of vulnerable populations. And I think the college part of it is the most poignant in terms of you get people who could actually start gambling, but I think that we should be looking or even earlier than that. I was also wondering, I know there's not a lot of research about this, but there are some jurisdictions that have had cannabis before us and to give Colorado in particular had a pretty robust industry, whether they've done any sort of assessment after the fact in terms of cannabis advertising, because it seems like they would have them. And Europe may not have been interested in this, but thinking about even places, I don't know how they advertise in places in Europe that have had it available even longer than states in the US, but whether there is any other areas to look for impact cannabis advertising. And then lastly, sort of a conversation offline, but the states that require the advertising to be submitted for a prior approval, that seems intensive and it seems potentially labor intensive. So I'm curious to just get some more information and I can get it offline, talking to the three of you, if you're willing to do that. How that exactly works? Who within the agency would have sort of the expertise or how that would work? Because it would seem that could get thorny, particularly in this area where we have, we have resort casinos, they have advertising that's going to, put out their resort amenities and casinos part of that. And so at what point also, if we were to consider that, is a pure come to the hotel exempt from that kind of review, even though their amenity is going to be gambling. So those were the questions that I had in my head, some of which have been answered and some more that popped up after I read the white paper, but I think it's a great job. I think it was a draconian effort, especially having a slog through other people's statutes along I think that's a hard thing to do and then put in a nice table that's easy to absorb and process. So I thank you to all three of you. And I look forward to where we go from here. Thank you. There's some great follow up. Commissioner O'Brien, I asked or I was talking this morning with our executive director and I brought up the very issue that you just brought up requiring advertising be submitted to a regulatory agency. And we started the conversation that the meeting was about to start. So we ended it very quickly. But it's funny that we both was thinking the same thing on that particular issue. And to that point, I think Commissioner O'Brien, if you wouldn't mind we could, either if Mark and Marie Claire are appeared today to really go over that with us rather than being offline, we can invite another meeting because I think the content piece is so critical. This also looks like content evaluation is actually connected to what is imagined for future compliance efforts too. So that is a big piece. How it must be that other advertising is evaluated for content. So I suspect there must be some efficiencies that have been developed and we can learn about them. Really helpful thoughts to my fellow commissioners. I just have many of which I had noted as well, but also some which I hadn't. So I really appreciate it. I would love for us to look deeply at the Cannabis Commission there in Massachusetts. They know how we roll in Massachusetts. So we can, I like looking at their regs and then particularly interested in long. I think it was you who pointed out the fourth prohibition on advertising and around the issue around the 85% of the audience. I'm struck by what Commissioner O'Brien said too. I think it's a great idea to think about as Commissioner O'Brien suggested, where do we want prohibitions to be targeted? And yes, the Asian Cares Report alerted us in part to this issue. And I wanna thank that community. We've had three good reports now on the Asian community and the impact of gaming on them, that particular community at least in certain areas. And it really did for me highlight this issue. So location of advertising is significant. The regulatory thoughts that our fellow regulators here in Massachusetts have come up with are really helpful for me to see. I think one, we've touched on it but maybe not directly in our discussion, follow-up discussion. But I think my most concern right now and I suspect it is because the rollout of sports batting is the frequency or intensity of distribution of advertising, the prevalence. The content may be just fine, right? It may be fine. But if it's just hitting us, hitting us, you've mentioned now it's even can be hit through the social media platforms. But there are all kinds of means including size of bus targeting, MBTA advertising. All the different spots where our licensees want to remind folks of casino gaming. And then of course, should sports betting be legalized in Massachusetts, that prevalence will become just a very significant matter. I know even the operators across the country are thinking about this and they're understanding their obligation to responsible gaming. Is that fair or wrong? That you're starting to see the discussion shifting to where the operators know they know it for two reasons because they want to do the right thing. It's also hugely expensive for them. So I think this issue is coming at a right time where our licensees will be really receptive to discussions around this particular impact. So of all, I saw interestingly enough that Tennessee had a single regulation addressing frequency long. They must have a means of testing that. So I'd be curious, just like on the other issue, how do you test content? I test how do they test frequency? I just want to look real quick at my notes. Yeah, I think, oh, I guess perhaps too, I'm very intrigued and Mark, we had a chance to discuss this. Intrigued with the compliance process. And I think the fair deal tip, maybe just a really easy way to shift into this complaint reporting process, how we assess those complaints and actually determine whether, if we do have regulations, whether there are violations, I think that's really interesting. I'm always a fan of bringing in outside expertise, but I will absolutely turn to Todd and our legal team to make sure that the process works all the way through in terms of perhaps an ultimate finding of a violation. But we don't think about those details now. What I love is the idea that we are thinking about how we'd hope, how we enforce accountability. And I think that's a really critical step. So thank you for that. Karen, it's not a bad idea to maybe think about this for your compliance committee, maybe. You know, if it's something either, it's part of that discussion for even our reg now on advertising, but there's some good cross-departmental work that could go on there. But I love that you were thinking about the enforceability, Mark, and team. So thank you. Excellent job and comprehensive. I smiled broadly when Mark said we've got ideas on how we can implement this. And for those who haven't seen the document, they're outlined with precision. And I love that very much. It was, interestingly enough, there are many, but each were critically important and succinctly put. So the fact that you have one full page of how our regulations can be strengthened, I feel commissioners, that's on us now to really think about this. So Mark and team, thank you. Thank you. Do you want any follow-up comments now, Mark, Long and Marie-Claire? I'm reading your names as I see you. Yeah, I would just, one, it was truly a team effort. And I really think, both Marie-Claire and Long, that we, to help pull all of this together and think about it, we had a number of meetings. We met with a number of different stakeholders outside of the commission, and even outside of Massachusetts to talk about this. And it's abundantly clear that this is a tricky issue, that whatever direction that the commission goes, there's a lot of gray area that we're going to have to try to navigate and to come up with the best solution that we possibly can. It would be great if there was a clear cut answer, a clear cut regulation that we could succinctly craft, because I know Todd is really good at that. But I think that it's something that we're gonna try to have to figure out. I recommended just a few minutes ago that we open this for public comment and I think that would be really helpful. I do consider this a draft. I think that there is still room for feedback from a variety of different people, including our licensees, who much like you mentioned, play my way. I think that this is better when we can kind of put our heads together and figure out what the best approach is on this, especially when we tread into these domains where there's a lot that isn't known and we each hold expertise, but from a completely different perspective. And so I would welcome that, as well as any feedback from our community members and others in Massachusetts who obviously, especially when thinking about the Asian cares report have put a lot of thought into this. And so we hope to have a dialogue there too. Yeah, so thank you for all of your, really kind words and really helpful feedback. I think there are specific areas that we need to figure out and we can do some more investigation on it. So for that immediate next step, Todd, you'll coordinate with Director Vanderland and there's no objection commissioners, right? For us to put this out for public comment. But it will be, we'll get feedback, general feedback, and then we can decide how to revisit that Mark, is that what you're thinking? Yeah, I think that's what makes the most sense to me is we can, well, assemble all of the feedback and decide whether do we wanna bring it back before a public meeting or how you would like us to integrate that into the document. Well, I think at the very least there's a postscript conversation sooner than later, postscript conversation because we've had a few questions today. So maybe that will be a natural vehicle when we get those comments back for an update on this draft or an evolving draft. Does that make sense commissioners? So you'd put it out for comment for a few weeks, but more than normal two weeks or whatever because it's a paper, right Mark? Is that what you think? Right, yeah, I was thinking a couple. I had one last thought and I'm sure I really wanted to respond to your comment of how this may really help and I think leveling the playing field in Massachusetts so that there's a set of rules that everybody is following in this domain I think would be really helpful. And I think you respond on and in our research in this area I was thinking the same thing. That's why I called you doctor earlier. Well, excellent, I think that that, and you're very, very good at making sure to keep the licenses in the loop. So I think sharing it with them and getting their feedback. I see we probably have some of licensee representation today who are listening carefully. So I expect that we'll hear really good feedback from them. All right, any other questions other than huge applause? I know that you've got many team members listening. This is so core to our mission that we we're all listening carefully and looking forward to the developments. They will take some time and they will be done incrementally but I know they'll have good, good impact. Okay, Director Vanderloon, anything else for today? That covers it for today, thank you. Marie Claire, I'm missing you. I'm hoping you're leaning into the fluff and udders that Commissioner Hill has provided to you and who is my closest office buddy. I'm missing you too, so. All right, I've been taking notes on the back of pieces of paper so I've got to find my agenda now but I believe it's commissioner update which is actually you Crystal in terms of the annual report, am I right? Yes. I put it aside so I can move it. So we could just skip right past me but I'll go give you guys this quick message that we did receive the draft which I have distributed. I mean, we've had a lot to read so I don't anticipate that that was your highest priority but we're prepared to give them any of your remarks. I have started combing through for my comments and you may see some of those comments as the version I shared with you is also the version they can read live. So if you want to put your comments in there you can go ahead but feel free to send them to me and I'll input them. There will be a few bigger revisions just in the content, not in the content in the layout. So you will probably see another version before we approve this but I just wanted to get if anything stands out to you immediately that we can make sure we address that. But that's it, we're making progress. That's excellent Crystal. So it's on us now commissioners to review Crystal's draft and give her feedback, Commissioner Cameron. I hate to give an assignment but if you could take a good look at it we would love your insights on this report. So you've got a little bit of time, right? Crystal to get to receive some comments. Excellent job, important work. And then of course, Crystal's going to work hard to get it, right Karen? Into the cadence that we want. So it will be actually ultimately easier Crystal because you have the content will be closer in time. So again, thank you. It'll seem like it's coming up quick but I think it'll be much, it'll be more fresh to compile. Yeah. Commissioner, is there any questions for Crystal on this? Okay, everyone's saying no. That's not a reflection of anything but good work. So thank you so much. Pretty simple update. Thank you. Great, thank you, Crystal. So Crystal had put in our time we could have a break but I want to see do commissioners feel in need of break at this time? Or should we move right on? I see no from Commissioner Hill. No for Commissioner O'Brien. No, okay. And I see Chief Delaney, right? He's in the middle of my screen today, appropriately. Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners. So today we will be continuing our discussions on the encore East of Broadway matter. So after the meeting that we had on Thursday, Todd and I put our heads together and based on the input that we got at the meeting we prepared a set of conditions, a draft set of conditions that were routed around to the commissioners and have been sent to our licensee as well to take a look at. And I think today we want to discuss those conditions and if the commission is comfortable with those we would be able to take a vote on this matter. And I believe we have Jackie Crumb here from encore. Let's see, I'm looking for her. Oh, there she is. Hi, Joe. Hey, Jackie. Good morning, everyone. And Jackie, do we have the folks from Mintz 11 here as well or? If they're not on right now I believe they'll be joining very, very shortly. Okay. So we have- Oh, I see Tony. And Tony and as well as perhaps Katie Hill from Mintz 11. If there are any particular questions that you need answered from the encore side. So I think with that I'll turn it back to you, Kathy to see how we want to proceed with the review of the conditions. Commissioners, I know that there were a few changes made to the original version. I think those were incorporated late on Friday. I'm not sure if everyone had a chance to review what was ultimately distributed to encore. I think it would, because of that I want to make sure we have a chance to reflect on what is proposed. We have, of course, none of us have spoken with each other about this. So I don't know what changes somebody may have recommended and it may be helpful for me to learn from my fellow commissioners. So, and perhaps others feel the same way as me. So I think it makes sense if we could bring the document up and go through each condition. Is there another part of the process commissioners that you want beforehand? Anything that we need to discuss? We all remember where we left off on Thursday. I'd like to share my screen. Yeah. And Todd, maybe just to set the stage you can remind the public if they are to happen to be joining this, how this came to be just very, very briefly. Absolutely. Last Thursday, the commission went through a comprehensive review of a four-part test that it established at the outset of its operation relative to figuring out whether a particular amenity or component of an amenity would be considered part of a gaming establishment. And in going through the four parts, there were a number of concerns that emerged amongst the commissioners, which we set out to address by way of amendments to the existing conditions that my screen is bouncing all over the place to the existing amendments to the conditions to the gaming license. And that is the draft that is before you today. The more narrow question was whether part four of the four-part test, whether the commission has a regulatory interest in including all or parts of the proposed development as parts of the gaming establishment would be essentially addressed by way of these conditions. So that's why these conditions are important. And they were drafted as precisely as possible based on the commission's input last Thursday, but as you've mentioned, Madam Chair, this will be helpful to make sure we comprehensively address all of the commissioners' individual concerns by way of these conditions. And you'll see that there are seven before you. The introduction before it gets into the numbered components, it really just sets out that this would be in addition to the existing conditions to the gaming license. Could I ask a favor, please? If there's any way to make it slightly bigger? Yeah. I'd like to explain that I slept with my contacts last night. There, I can see now. Thank you so much. And again, as a reminder, commissioner, this is the hard part of these kinds of exercises. Try to remember what might be omitted, right? That's what you were suggesting, the making sure it's comprehensive. That's right. So as you noted, Madam Chair, the commissioners were unable to discuss these things together. So we did circulate them privately and commissioners reached out to Joe and I privately, individually to make some observations. We attempted to include them all in here. The first one before you here pertains to that live entertainment venue, which of course there was some concern surrounding. And you can see that it addresses at least that part of the statute that prohibited the construction or building out of a live entertainment venue that contained between 1,000 and 3,500 seats as part of the gaming establishment. So this one is tailored to ensure that any new construction right across the street from the casino would not run afoul of that prohibition, even if it were not determined to be part of the gaming establishment. So the first sentence in there targets it expressly, says that it shall contain less than 1,000 or more than 3,500 ticketed seats, whether such seating is permanent, temporary, or a combination thereof. So we use the term in here ticketed seats, just to express specifically what we believed the concern was. And then of course, just clarifying that as far as seating goes, it doesn't matter for purposes of this condition, whether the chairs are permanently affixed to the ground or they're folding chairs that may be brought in. The interest is in ensuring that there are no more than 1,000, excuse me, no more than 3,500, no less than 1,000, or that there are. So that's the first part. And then the second part deals more specifically with the conduct of events and points out that to that end, there can be no more than 999 ticketed patrons, whether paid or complimentary, permitted to entry for any live entertainment event at a single time. So the intent here was to ensure that for any one specific show or what have you that there would be no more than 999 ticketed patrons. Of course, that doesn't include employees who would be working at the venue. And it also recognizes by use of the term at a single time that there could be some type of show for which patrons come and go and things of that nature. So as long as there aren't 999 ticketed patrons there at one time, this would allow for that. One question, Todd, to see if at the 1,000 to 3,500 and then the 999, hypothetically they did something with 3,501 seats, they'd not be able to do that because of that provision of the 999 tickets? No, they could, that's the point. As long as it's more than 3,500 or less than 1,000 they would be in the clear. I think she's suggesting the second sentence conflicts with that. I think we need to reinsert the 3,500 threshold in the second part of that sentence as well. Todd, were you trying to say when you said at a single time, I'm assuming a single event. And I think I'm gonna be very transparent here. I'm not sure what the space is going to look like, but I think initially I heard reports that there could also be, and Karen, maybe this is what you're touching on too, events like a flower show, which is not live entertainment, right? But we wanna make sure that there's never a theory that they can't have more than 999 people at an event or they could have more than 3,500 at a live entertainment venue. So it's interesting how we wanna make sure that there's a distinction that the distinction's made, what live entertainment is, and then what's under the 1,000, right, Karen, and what's over the 3,500. Because so theoretically, if they had this massive space and I don't know enough about the space that Karen's imagining they could maybe set up 3,500 seats, right? Well, if you rewrote that sentence to say further no more than 999 ticketed patrons, paid or complimentary, maybe for entry for any single live entry event, does that address the issue which was a flower show would not be considered a live entertainment event? I also think Karen, so it's two things. So maybe I mixed apples and oranges here. Yeah, so it's, I think they can have a 3,500 live entertainment event. Correct. I don't know if they're imagining that because that's a lot of seat room, but perhaps, right, they set up seats, Karen. And I think that was your point. Right. Yeah, I mean, I think it's, from what I understand, it's not currently contemplated for this. But we either have to say that this is based on the current plan that has been submitted to us and or I think we need to put the 3,500 in to properly reflect the statute in the second sentence. Yeah, yeah. The 3,500 was just added in there to come into line with what the law says. It's not what's, that is not what's in front of us. They're not saying that they're gonna put 3,600 people in this place. No, I know. I don't think they probably could be given the size of it, No, but Joe, what we're talking about is the, so the first sentence really restates the statutory requirements and restrictions. The second sentence is we're laying on another responsibility or restriction. And right now, as written, it eliminates the possibility of anything, 1,000 or greater. And I don't think that I did not intend to do that. I don't know if anyone else did. While that's not part of the plans in front of us, I don't know whether they plan to do this in the future. I agree with Commissioner O'Brien there. Yes, so. So the question is, do we repeat the 3,500 in there? Or do we just make it clear that this pertains to the proposal that was submitted on February such-and-such 2022, and of course, subject to further review if the plans change such that a venue greater than 3,500 is contemplating. So, yeah, so maybe let's kind of help out here. So to move along, so on that second sentence, to address, not Karen's point, but maybe my point, which at a single live entertainment event, right? They can have no more than that. Then maybe repeat that sentence. It may not be artful. Let's say, well, let's do that one, at a single live entertainment event, right? And then you can go right to the next sentence. Yeah, now Eileen on the 3,500 entertainment event, which is not contemplated, but we might as well address that. You can say nothing in this. We could say- You can give it a single time. And should be deemed to prohibit the licensee from conducting live entertainment events greater than 3,500 consistent with the statute. You could add it at the end. If you went to the end, nothing in this, I don't know whether you want it- Condition? Condition should be deemed to prohibit the licensee from conducting live entertainment events that exceed 3,500 ticketed seats, consistent with the statute. Nothing in this condition should be deemed to prohibit the licensee from- It wouldn't be the licensee, though. The operator. Oh, pre-prohibited live entertainment events for 3,500 seats or greater, consistent with the statute. But I think that should probably go with the end, Joe. And the viewable sentence, I think probably, we should probably end with the nothing in this condition sentence to move that to the end of the paragraph. Do you want the word ticketed still, Todd? Yeah. Yeah, probably just to be consistent. Consistency. So Karen, does that fix your issue? Yeah. The only thing I was thinking, if you want more clarification when it says further or you could put something on there, saying in accordance with the plans current and submitted, no more than something like that. It's about this plan they have now, and then you have that caveat that Elaine suggested at the end, and then I think that covers everything. So at the end of this sentence saying something like that. Further, where it says further and then comma. Yeah. For the plans, something like, for the plans under consideration on this date. I'll get the date. Yeah. That it was, that they were submitted. And then just put chapter in 423K at the end of the paragraph. Yeah. Yeah, I'll figure out what the right chapter is for that. So further in accordance with the plan submitted by Encore on that since such a date, no more than 999 ticketed patrons may be granted for a single live entertainment event at a single time. I thought we're taking out at a single time. I thought it was for a single event. For a single event. Okay. And that at a single time. Yeah. I think that was just a, any single live entertainment event. And there's no need to clarify what a live entertainment event is correct. It's when there's performances, right? It's not flower shows, right? I suppose the greater clarity we can offer the better. Perhaps everyone agrees as to what a live entertainment event actually is. I don't think the commission has ever really discussed that before. Oh, well, maybe this is a good time then. In my, I think Karen, you first mentioned to me that the plan contemplated perhaps having exhibitions of some sort. And I think of the flower show. Other types of exhibitions that wouldn't be live performances. I don't know if we need to ask any clarification from Ms. Crom. But I'm presuming that commission. Oh, so Kathy, what I hear you saying, Kathy, and maybe I just want to clarify what the intent is of the commission. If there's a flower show, could they give out like X number of tickets, like 2,000 tickets, but as long as there's only 1,999 in the space of time, are you comfortable with that? Or do you want them only getting 999 tickets? I'm actually not concerned that 1,500 people are on the floor at once. That might be me. Oh, okay. Is it a live entertainment event? Or is it something else? Like, I guess, Ryarik, what if it's a conference of some kind that has a series of prominent speakers? Is that a live entertainment or is that a conference? I mean, do I want to get into defining that right now unless we have to? Yeah, you know, the presidential debate. You know, I know that we've had that in Massachusetts at conference. So, you know, I don't know how many seats or how many people attend those, but I, and I don't know what the space is here, but I wouldn't want, at least for me, and maybe we need to do a little bit of a poll here for my fellow commissioners, I can't see you all, but at least in my mind, I don't believe that the I-Lev implicates those types of events. And so it wouldn't restrict the number of people on the floor at the time. They wouldn't be seated necessarily. They might be seated, but they wouldn't compete with the type of performances that I understand are at the sort of the core of the I-Lev. What do you think commissioners? Commissioner Hill, commissioner O'Brien, if you want to weigh in. So what I'm envisioning is when you bring up a flower show or a home show or something of that sort, that was not my concern when this was first brought up. Being able to go see live entertainment, somebody who's come into the facility to entertain you. I don't see a presidential debate as being that. I certainly don't see a flower show or a home show. I don't think the building's big enough to have a boat show, but for example, maybe a golf show. When you go in and you look at new clubs and you can swing the clubs around, that's not what I envisioned as an issue when this first came before me. It was the entertainment that I would go see in a small theater, which to my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong, anybody, I don't go to any of those theaters to see a home show or a flower show. It's two very different things in my mind. Yeah, it's not live entertainment. So to the extent we need to clarify that, in case anybody hears about those 1500 people attending something, it's the something that matters. Okay, should we move on to number two? Maybe Todd or Todd's team thinks about that. Kathy, I do see the way Todd and Joe drafted that. I think it actually does read the way you're attending because it does talk about that live entertainment event. So I just added, we just added that. So I just want to make sure that. That may cover it. I think that sounds pretty good. As long as we all agree with live entertainment, that was my point, yeah. Not just number of people on the floor. Okay, why don't we go to number two then? I mean, commissioners, are you all set to move on? If we decide maybe a clarifying sentence is helpful, I, Todd, to your point, a little clarity never hurts, right? So. Yeah, we can try to define what we mean by the term live entertainment event. I wouldn't think it would be that difficult, but I think where everyone seems to be on the same page is what is intended. Commissioner Cameron, you're agreeing, right? Yes, I bet those things discussed are not live entertainment. Yeah, good. All right, item number two then. Okay, number two talks about just the radius restrictions that the commission has talked about a number of times over the years. And I believe the gaming licensee anyway, pledged in the RFA two application not to include in any booking agreements. And this just would bring that agreement over to this new development as well. Any questions on that one? Commission, I don't hear any. Brad, are you all set on that? Commissioner Hill. I am, I'm actually, as you're talking about this, I'm going to see what the law insider defines live entertainment as, and it gives us a very good definition, I think that can be used to alleviate any concerns that we may have. Excellent, yeah. I think all of us probably didn't have concerns, but a couple of years maybe there might be something where it prompts a discussion. And number two is fine with me. Okay, good. Commissioner Cameron, how's number two look for you? All set? It is just fine, thanks. Yeah, and Commissioner O'Brien, all set? Yep, all set. Okay, thanks Todd, moving on to number three. Sure, number three just recognizes that this project is likely to trigger certain MEPA considerations and would require the developer slash licensee here really to ensure compliance with all that and ensure that a copy of any such filings are provided to the commission so we can see where the project stands. Any questions on the MEPA language? Okay, I think we can move on to item number four. Thank you. Okay, number four discusses the security plan for the parking garage component to the new development and you can see at its core, it requires that a plan be submitted to the commission for approval of 60, no less than 60 days before the garage will open. One of the primary concerns of course that was raised was the same one that was raised as it pertains to the garages at the actual casino facilities which is the potential for minors being left in motor vehicles while people go inside to the facility. So this language here mirrors the exact language in chapter 23K would essentially make it applicable to the garage across the street as well and just it does that by way of ensuring that's included in the security plan that's submitted to the commission. And then of course it requires the notification of any such minors that are detected to the Everett police department. Any comments on item number four for Todd? I have one suggestion. I understand it's gonna be a full plan but where it states at a minimum on the minors, I think, and I'm gonna turn to my public safety experts here that if we could just have something that says a provision that requires some kind of regular I'm struggling for the word but monitoring, right, of the garage and then the specific checks of the minors because I think we also given the proximity to the casino and our public safety research it just makes sense to know what's happening in the garage generally in terms of public safety matters. Commissioner Cameron, you have thoughts on that just the regular drive-thrus, whatever it was the word I'm looking for. I think patrol. Patrol, thank you. There we go, Karen. Thank you so much, patrolling. And then that specific look, right? That additional look and careful look for the minors. And I do think it's important to get those reports on at least the minors. You're saying, Kathy, do you want those reports to come to the commission? Well, it's gonna go to... The report, we're proposing it before it goes to the every police department. The police, do we want, right? I actually, I did misread that, sorry. I don't know if it's overstepping or overreaching to learn about, we would want to know if minors were left in the cars and they were on the gaming floor if the parents were on the gaming floor, I think. Commissioner Bryant, help me out. Well, I'm wondering if it should just be a requirement that the statistics be submitted to IED and that IED allowed to ask for the backup. Because right now, IED is really the ones through GEU who would be alerted to the events in the garage. Yeah, I would say IED certainly when rather than the commission, IED, but right now it only goes to, it's not, I don't think that's overreaching if the parents are on the gaming floor. That's what we're concerned about, that nexus. Right, right. Did we just say any such reports should be also copied to the... I agree here. Joe, these are these ones are for any child left in the car. So you could leave a child in the car and go to the flower show. I think that the commissioners are saying is if they're aware that someone's been left and a child's been left in the car while the parents have been on the gaming floor that they would want to know about that. Am I correct? Well, the gaming establishment really, right? I would say the gaming establishment. Because who knows where they've been, but I would urge those visiting the flower shows should also be carefully monitored too. We care about the children period, but we don't need to have those statistics. Commissioner O'Brien, you were suggesting that it be reports to IAB or stats. My concern is the timing of that. If they are accumulating statistics and we get them in a delayed fashion. The interval, I mean, how... I don't know how it works currently in terms of if that situation is identified in the garage, is it GEU the response? And so therefore that's how we find out about it or is it an independent requirement that they provide stats? Security works hand in hand with the gaming enforcement unit. We've had very few complaints, by the way, over the years with regard to this, one in particular where we took action against an individual. But I think that they work very closely now. So I think if it's necessary in here that those reported incidents would also go to the gaming enforcement unit. I know how closely Everett PD, they're part of the gaming enforcement unit. So it was my understanding that they'd have that information anyway. If Everett had it, it would be part of the gaming enforcement unit. But if you feel the need to include that line, that's fine too. So it will happen. But there won't necessarily Commissioner Cameron because there really is a division now between when it won't be necessary, the gaming enforcement unit might be the state police. Here's Ms. Crumb clarification, please. So thank you. I think it's a practical matter. If the parents, if we're looking for the parents of a child and those parents happen to be in the gaming establishment for any reason, that would go out to everyone as quickly as possible because the idea would be to try to reconnect the parent with, reconnect the child with the parents. So I don't think this is an issue for us to immediately try to notify everyone in an effort to find that parent. Yeah. So you'd notified either IEB or GEU as opposed to the Everett police, excellent. But that would be, so it's a... Kathy, and it also may be something that we just ask for stats from IEB on because while the primary desire may be to reunite the child with the guardian, there's another concern of, is a 51A going to be filed and what's the situation for that child that would sort of go beyond us, but certainly something we'd want to be aware of. I mean, as Commissioner Cameron said, it's an unusual circumstance, but if we came to learn that this was a trend, then that might be something else that we would want to be more proactive in terms of GEU. Are we being redundant? The gaming enforcement unit is part of IEB. I think so, yeah, we can just do IEB. Yeah, thanks. I think I was just hearing Commissioner Cameron because the gaming enforcement units would likely be the first on the floor maybe to hear. I just didn't want to necessarily be dependent on the city police to tell us Commissioner Cameron. So that's why this is helpful here. Here it would be now, your licensee. Great, well, thank you, Jackie, for that. That's really helpful. Okay. Okay. Item number five. This provision addresses any future development proposed by either the gaming licensee or the parent wind resorts limited in the area of lower Broadway in Everett and simply requires that the parent wind resorts or the licensee notify the commission so that it can review the development as it has in this case to determine whether it's part of the gaming establishment. Notably, it limits the area of interest to lower Broadway and Everett. The general theory in that was that anything outside that area is less likely to be considered related to the gaming area, which of course is one of the elements that's considered. But certainly if there is an interest in reviewing developments beyond that area, we can add that. Todd, can you help me out? I'm not, I don't have that graphic. I literally just closed the windows earlier this morning that had the graphics app in terms of that map. But when they revised their urban redevelopment renewal plan and they expanded it to take in that decommissioned area, is that included in the definition of lower Broadway? Because I would want it to be consistent with that the urban renewal plan, because that seems to be going hand in hand with the development that could arguably enter some analysis in the future redeemed part of the establishment. I mean, lower Broadway is really kind of defined as from really from Sweets of Circle all the way down to the city line. It's essentially that area. It would incorporate that area that they basically expanded the urban renewal plan in last summer. That's the question I'm having. I'm not sure if that would, you know, lower Broadway is just kind of a term that folks use, I think to define that area south of, well, Circle. Well, I'm wondering a better proposal might be that the reference to the urban renewal, the designated urban renewal plan area, rather than lower Broadway. Because if they amend that, would it change? If they amend the plan. The urban renewal project area, because it seems to be that that seems to be all, the area that's the focus of the development and the land purchase is wrong. Yeah, for the most part. Because I mean, I think it goes all the way pretty much over to the Chelsea line. So are you suggesting if the license, any proposal for the development within the confines of the urban renewal? Yeah, I mean, that's what I, that's what I would, if we're gonna do that, then I would, that's what I would be looking for. I don't know what the other commissioners think. Is that one limiting though? I'm actually thinking it's a barrier than lower Broadway if I'm all right, Joe. Yeah, I think, well, yeah, I think it probably is a little bit larger because I think that includes like those, all of those oil tanks that are a little bit further afield than what we're talking about. So the, I mean, the way it's submitted to DHCD, the literal term is the lower Broadway district urban renewal plan. So if we just said lower Broadway district urban renewal plan area. So the lower Broadway district urban renewal plan area, that would cover everything I think we're talking about. Because that was the second amendment that was submitted, I believe July 20th of last year. Yeah. Can we have a check in from this Chrome? Either way is fine, but we understand the district well. All right, if Todd, if you have a need to just check that, I have to say, I know that Commissioner O'Brien brought this up, but I didn't see that distinction. So I'm sure that I defer to my fellow commissioner if there's any kind of a shift that we need to do. I just want to, or there was a massive parcel, they call the station parcel that goes down toward the Mystic River that my understanding is the July 21 revision, the amendment to incorporated that into the area. So I just want to make sure we're being consistent with sort of what the vision and the plan is. Yeah, that's the power plant. Yeah, the power plant. Is that included in this Commissioner O'Brien? That was the amendment over last summer in 2021. Then that's helpful. I guess I could also say if for some reason this plan doesn't include something that's relatively pertinent to the encore of Boston Harbor that I know our licensee will be coming back to us for some reason, appropriately. So I guess my thought is this is certainly with respect to this area. If we're not thinking of something, I know that would be pertinent that the licensee will come back to the commission just as it states here. I don't know if we need that language, but I'm kind of banking on now. So I'm good with that. Thanks. Anybody else have any comments or questions? Okay. Number six. Number six recognizes the idea that employees at the new development will not be subject to the commission's licensing and registration requirements. And accordingly won't be subject to any background reviews or what have you. So this provision here just ensures that those individuals are not granted access to the restricted areas of the gaming establishment as an employee of the actual casino would, unless they follow the applicable visitor access protocol which are in place to intubate bedding and identification and things like that. So that's what number six is designed. Eileen had raised that really important point. Are you all set with that language, commissioners? Yes. Yep, I am. Okay. Commissioners. Okay. Excellent. Provision number seven addresses the pedestrian bridge and there's a couple of points to have a look at here. The first is that the licensee shall submit a plan relative to the following things. And the request was that it be submitted within 60 days of the execution of this decision which may very well be today. So we just wanna make sure that that offers ample opportunity to prepare the plan and what have you. And there was some indication that perhaps 90 days may be a little more workable from the licensee's end. Is that, is that the case? 90 days would be very much appreciated. I'll say I have no problem with 90 days. Commissioners, anybody? 90 days is appropriate. Excellent. So that's with respect to the date and then we will just wanna go through the points. Yes. So part A talks about the issue that was raised relative to egress from the pedestrian bridge as it leads into the gaming establishment and ensuring that there is a point of egress for individuals who should not be allowed into the gaming establishment for one reason or another. And it requires that that point of egress be depicted so that the commission can see it and that it be included in the final building plans that are submitted to the building official for final approval prior to construction. That is what paragraph A talks about. And then paragraph B talks about the actual security issues that were raised last Thursday relative to the bridge and requires that as part of the plan that's submitted that it include description of surveillance, a schematic of the security checkpoint and the interior area of the existing gaming establishment where that interface would take place, a copy of the security department patrol procedures and a plan identifying the coordination with relevant law enforcement authorities to address security and incident response and recognition of the fact that there are a number of jurisdictional issues that may be associated with that bridge given where it's physically located. So that's paragraph B. And then of course, the language at the bottom would just require that once it's approved that it actually be implemented and followed. And that was it. Any questions on, I can't see the number, sorry, but the subsections A and B? Seven. Seven, thank you. There we go. I know I had brought this up last Thursday to some issues and as I read this, I'm fine with what has been put forth and it addresses the concerns that I had last Thursday. I'm fine with the language as well. Commissioner Bryan? Yes, I went through this and edited some of the first draft. So this reflects what I wanted in there. I'm all set too. So with the 90 days, that amendment, are we close in terms of finalization, Todd? Yes, so I think, of course, perhaps Joe and I can just spend a few minutes after polishing up some of this language, but I think we have a really good sense as to what the commission's intent is. It's really paragraph one in particular, we wanna make sure reads well. But otherwise, yeah, I think we're all set with this. So if the commission is so inclined, the next step would be either to just adopt this or we could set out a plan to draft some kind of written decision that incorporates this. Either I think work okay here. So can I ask a process question? You've presented this to us today. I would have to assume that Encore would have to agree to this moving forward. If they chose not to agree to this, then I would not be supportive of it, obviously. I would like to see all of these things incorporated. So I don't think I would be ready to vote on it today until we have a final say from us to them. And then, of course, their response back to us. So help us out on that process. In terms of, these are conditions to the license. We, I think that you've indicated that there, we have Ms. Crum here. I don't wanna put words in your mouth Todd, but there's been some exchange back and forth in terms of how Encore Boston Harbor views the conditions. I think so. And I think we can let Jackie certainly speak for herself. I think if they're agreeable, then that I think makes things a lot cleaner, but why don't we hear from her first? We are agreeable to all the conditions as settled in this meeting. Thank you. So what could happen? And I've seen, I've seen both. I've experienced one and I've seen both where there's a written decision that outlines sort of the thinking and the rationale behind the findings of the four factor test. And Commissioner Cameron, you were part of that where it was formally done in a formal decision. We also, I think in our minutes today, I was reminded that with respect to PPC's expansion of its gaming establishment, it was simply a matter of discussion at our meeting and a decision that a vote. So I've seen both. There's always some merit in memorializing our thinking and decision. I don't think, I think I'm hearing from you Todd, it's not necessary for us to finalize our decision today. And perhaps we could ask that memo be prepared to memorialize it. That's not a formal part of our decision-making. I don't know if that's so important. We do have really great records because we record our hearings. So with that said, Commissioner Hill, to help you out, I think what Todd is saying is that we could vote today to allow this to move forward because these are conditions to the license as opposed to an agreement, right? Where Mr. Starr would have us signing some kind of an agreement between the parties. Bear? Yeah, I think that's right. So section 21 of chapter 23K talks about the commission's authority relative to conditions. And there are a number of statutorily required conditions. There's also a provision that says that the commission may include any reasonable additional requirements to the license condition. So as with many things, I think the commission has very broad authority as to how it would amend a license conditions. In this instance where the licensee is agreeable to them, I think the commission can comfortably just amend the license and we needn't go through any further procedure. But as the chair kind of reiterated the ultimate question, at least for me would be whether the commission is comfortable with the analysis it's already conducted on the record. So there is clearly a record of the discussion and the thought process that went into the analysis that led you to this point or whether you prefer to see it all in writing and we could write out the analysis and flush it out in a little more detail and simply add these conditions to that decision. I think those are the two options before you as to how to proceed from here. If you're inclined to pursue the written decision, we should probably wait to finalize these conditions until we're done with that. If you're comfortable with the analysis and discussion that's been conducted to date, considering this is not an adjudicatory proceeding, so there's no written requirement for any final decision, then you could finalize everything now if you're comfortable doing so. I'm comfortable moving forward and comfortable with the analysis, the discussion. We do have a record. There was no question from anyone about the validity of the four part test. So I personally don't see a need to have a written decision and would be very comfortable moving forward with just amending since everyone is in agreement and we do have a record. Mr. O'Brien, thank you, Commissioner Cameron. I don't wanna slow anything up. My preference would be to have the written analysis. I just think going forward it makes everything more understandable. You've got people shifting off this commission but I'm not gonna hold up a vote if the consensus is to go forward. I do think it's been pretty sufficiently laid out in meetings that we've had and the conditions that are there. My preference would be to write it out more formally but I'm not limited to that. Commissioner Hill, get the notes. I'll share in Commissioner O'Brien's thoughts. I too would like to have seen maybe a little bit more in writing before we vote it on it but we've had more discussion on this issue than I think we've had on any other issues since I've been here. So I too don't wanna belabor the issues. So I'd be comfortable moving forward today. I'm looking at what you have prepared for motion as a draft motion. These are always draft motions. Everybody understands that, that we use that for guidance. We would be voting on our findings with respect to one, two and three before we can move on to four. If I recall correctly, this discussion may not have happened as robustly in other times and that it was really driven by the document before. And now the decision is being driven by our robust discussion. I think it's always helpful for the purpose of giving guidance down the road to memorialize this kind of decision. I am wondering if we can kind of do both. Move forward today, Commissioner Cameron. I don't wanna put pressure on the fact that we have changing transitions in our commission. So if we were to move forward, any edits to the conditions would be just nets, right? So not substantive. We might add a definition. I think we're all in agreement on what live entertainment is, but two years from now, I don't think we wanna have to return to it. We vote through, vote on the conditions and then for our internal purposes, Karen, I think it might make sense to have legal, reduce it to writing in a memo form as opposed to a decision form. And that will reflect, it will always be backed by the record. Does that help, Commissioner O'Brien, a little bit? It doesn't necessarily let us undo, but I think we have had such a consensus here that there's very little chance of any kind of returning to this once we were to see it reduced in writing in any case. No, but I do think given the fact that clearly if things go well, this is not going to be the last development in that designated area that we may have to assess. So having something more readily, excuse me, readable by someone, members that may not be here today as this commission, I think it would just help the process going forward. Doesn't mean we can't vote on this today, but I do think memorializing it would help going forward. So rather than an official hearing decision, it'd be a memorialized in a memorandum, like I proposed, but we go forward with the phone. Okay, I think we're on the same page. I think I'm inclined to, as Commissioner Hill and Commissioner O'Brien to typically have it reduced in writing, but I think we're all clear on the fact that we've got a record into we really have had clear consensus pretty much. What's interesting is our consensus, the consensus was developed from our four perspectives, many of us having looked at it through a different lens. So it was a very robust conversation. Commissioner Hill, how do you feel about that? That would be fine with me. Okay, sorry to add to the plate, Todd, but I think it's a good exercise. So thank you. All right, so commissioners and maybe some guidance along the way from Joe and Todd, we need, it would be helpful to move forward. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the commission find that each of the components of the development of East Broadway and Everett as submitted by the licensee as in discussed on March 10th then today that is situated across the street from on core Boston Harbor, satisfies the first three parts of the four part test discussed at the meeting on March 10th and today's meeting. And I further move that the conditions attached to the category one gaming license awarded to Winmass LLC be amended to add the new conditions discussed and edited here today. With the addition of these conditions, I move that the commission find that pursuant to the fourth part of the test that the commission does not find that it has a regulatory interest in including the components of the development as presented as part of the present gaming establishment as its concerns will be adequately addressed through the conditions. So three part motion. Is everybody comfortable with moving ahead on three parts? Okay. Second. Thank you so much. So I broke it down to three parts because it's a little bit for us to think about. Are there any edits to the first component? Okay, any edits to the second? Any edits to the third? All right. My only comment will be before we vote. And I know we'll have some comments afterwards to Joe and Todd and team. Thank you, Karen for all the good work that's gone into this. Let's have a vote. Commissioner Karen. Hi. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. And I vote yes. 4-0 Jackie and Mr. Starr. Thank you so much for your good work and thank you to all of the members of the public that participated in this and the stakeholders. We did hear you and we're looking forward to the continued cooperation, Jackie that we have with the licensing on this project. So thank you. Anything that you'd like to add in Tony or Jackie? No, just to say thank you. I know a lot of work went into this on the staff level and for your consideration at the commission level, we very much appreciate it. And we'll be back in front of you shortly with plans. Great. Mr. Starr. No. Thanks for the opportunity. I'll go to my end, Todd and Joe, I assume as you do the little knits, you'll send over that to Jackie and me. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that courtesy. I appreciate it. Little knits to us attorneys sometimes become little problems. So thank you so much. We're gonna be good, I think. Okay, excellent. Anything else commissioners on this topic? Okay, great work. Chief Delaney, you can check this off your list. And I'm very glad that I took typing at high school as I got to watch 20 something people watch me typing while they're going around. Oh, that was you. Well done by my high school teachers. Well, you know what, I think anybody who's typing in public like that gets special credit. I can't have anyone looking over my shoulder while I type, I really can't. So there you go. I thought it was Todd and I was feeling his pain. So thank you, Joe. I was quite impressive. Yeah, it really was, wasn't it? Brad, I thought so too. Robust 45 words a minute I got. And you know what? We would have waited no matter how. So there we go. But excellent work overall. And I know, Joe, you've worked so hard to prepare us well. And Todd and your team, you've prepared us well. So thank you. Karen, do you have anything else you wanna add to this? No, thank you. Okay. So next on our list, other business. Anybody have something else they wanna add to our team? I'll set. All right, then commissioners, it's a beautiful day. Do I have a motion to adjourn? I moved to adjourn. Oh, couldn't, can't do that fast enough. Gail, do you want credit for, you got credit for that one. Okay, second goes to commissioner Hill. Any discussion? All right, commissioner Karen. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you, Crystal for keeping us going and organized. Thank you all. And thank you to the team who weighed in. We appreciate it. Thanks, Dave. No problem.