 Thank you. Good morning. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We're holding this meeting virtually, and so I'll take a welcome. Good morning, Commissioner Bryan. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. And good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. OK. We'll get started. Commissioner Maynard will be joining us by video shortly. Today is Tuesday, April 25th, 2023, and it's a public meeting number 449. We have some minutes to address. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. These are very long minutes, so sorry. It took a little longer than usual to get them to you. So if there was any issues, please let us know. But at this time, Madam Chair, I would move that the Commission approve the minutes for the number 16, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioners' packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. I can second. There was just one typo where I think there was a phonetic. It was supposed to say, I love. I've lost it on the topic that I'm looking for. Yeah, that was it. But otherwise, I second the motion. We will go back and fix that. If you search, I think ILB, I think it just had the E out or something. Yeah, it was ILF or something. I had it highlighted, but I had to reboot, so I lost it. I was doing a public hearing this morning, and all the updates happened right beforehand. And I'm like, yeah. That's what happened maybe on your reboot, Eileen. I had exactly the same thing happen to me at 4.30 right when I was leaving, and a big shout out to Olivia. She came up, and my entire computer just. So I've got a gremlin or something in mind. Poor Caitlin had to resend something to me three times, because it finally came through. And then when I rebooted, it was not in my inbox anymore, so I don't know what was going on. Yeah, I couldn't send any emails or see any. And luckily, Olivia was there, and she came up, and we backtracked, and we realized, oh, you are in the middle of a restart. Yeah. I'm going to have to maybe figure that out a little bit, that it could be done executive director Wells in the evening, because of there's now significant fear. All right. So with that said, we will fix that. Yeah, so we've got a second with that minor edit. Any other edits or comments? Commissioner Skinner? No. I'm just ready to take it out. You're ready to go. I'll get out. All right. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And Commissioner Maynard. Hi. OK, and I vote yes. So 5-0, an excellent job on those minutes, and very helpful for us to review at this particular time. So thank you. We're going to move on to item number three on sports wagering. We have three matters today. Good morning to Mr. Carpenter and Hi, Sturl. How are you this morning? Are you taking the lead on the House rules, or is this Director Ban? No, ma'am. It's Operations Manager Carpenter. We'll start out with the House rules today. OK, excellent. Thank you so much. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Today we are presenting Fanatics House Rules for review and approval. Enclosed in the commissioners packet on page 14 starts the House rules. They were sent to us about three months ago, and then on April 11th, we received the updated changes for all areas of concerns. There were six areas that needed to be changed, found by the sports division. In review, all areas are now in compliance with 247.02 subsection 3. All areas changed included the removal of unapproved events and wagers. Just as a guide, Fanatics appears to list their sports specific rules in order of popularity. There were the areas of football, basketball, baseball, ice hockey, tennis, golf, soccer, boxing, MMA, motor sports, table tennis, darts, volleyball, winter sports, athletics, cycling, rugby union, snooker, pool, cricket, lacrosse, and Australian rules football, and finally, handball. So as you might be aware, this isn't as extensive as some of the others, but it is a very good list, and I found their House rules to be quite organized in a very good format. I'll open this up for any comments now by the commissioners. But the sports way during division finds these House rules to be acceptable for approval. Commissioners, I have one comment, but I want to yield to you. You have any questions or comments? Mr. Maynard, I don't have your facial expression. Are you all set for right now as we look at these? I'm all set with what's been said so far. So the only question I have, I'll just get started and then may come up with other questions. Sterl, if we look at the bottom of 16, page 16, The Funding of Wagers, and then it rolls over to 17. Commissioners, what I'm wondering about is, it says, customers may fund their fanatics account using any of the following methods. You know, debit cards is clearly cash, but I wondered if the other mechanisms for funding needed to be clarified that it could not be credit-based, or is that somewhere else, Sterl? I know it's certainly in our statute, it's certainly, but I wondered if we needed that clarification there. The several of our operators do state these types of wagers and that in the statute and in our regulations, we specifically prohibit the acceptance of credit. But if you would like them to add that. I may not have picked up on other sports rules. This was very easy to read. I have to say, it was very accessible and that's probably why I might have even caught it. Commissioner O'Brien? So it's funny, I flagged this in one of the earlier ones and because I saw the Venmo and the PayPal, et cetera, and it was explained to me, and Sterl, correct me if I'm wrong, that like PayPal, Venmo, Apple, they have the ability to distinguish how you've loaded. So there is an ability to block a credit card funding for a payment, but if that's not accurate, then yeah, we would need to obviously dive into this more. So we do have fanatics on this call, if they, if you would like to ask them in their specific. Hi, Mr. Smith. Good morning. Hi there. Good to see you all again. How are you? I'm doing well, how are you? We're well, thank you. Great, so yeah, real quick on this, it is correct that the providers can distinguish between credit and cash-based deposits. I'll also note our internal controls are clear that we're not allowed to accept any deposits based on credit. So if everybody's comfortable with, we use this kind of language across the board and house rules and it's that redundancy, it's elsewhere that I'm comfortable with this and it wouldn't be misleading. We could further clarify and then just across the board ask people to clarify and in no event shall any of these sources be themselves funded by a credit card. That would certainly cover any, anybody who tried to say that they didn't realize that they couldn't do it based on a reading of this. It's probably not a big ask to make that change, Mr. Smith. It's not, no, that's a quick, easy change. It might be just for, there aren't that many states with this restriction so it might be a helpful addition. And as I noted, I did find your rules to be very accessible. So I probably would be able to scan and it registered. We're clearly see if it prompted a question. My apologies. Commissioners, do you have any other questions? Just process wise, can we still move forward with these and knowing that there's going to be amended at some point? I'd like to make a conditional vote of some sort. Commissioner Brown, you're nodding your head. You think that's good? I think we can move on them and part of the motion be that maybe the direct reference to that section be amended accordingly, that the funding of wagers section be amended as discussed and agreed to at this hearing. Yeah, and then we would just depend on sterling and legal to work with fanatics just to get that language. It'll be just fine. And then circle back to the others to make sure, yeah. Okay. Anything else? Then you need a motion. I need a motion. You need a vote, right, Sterl? Correct. Okay, I need a motion, please. So Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the house rules submitted by category three, sports wagering operator, FBG Enterprises, OPCOLLC during businesses fanatics, as included in the commissioners packet and is discussed here today. And specifically pointing out that they will be amending the section funding of wagers to incorporate the reference to no credit card use as discussed at the meeting today. Second. Any questions or comments? Okay, Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. So five, zero. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Well done. Thank you, Sterl. Thank you. Madam Chair. Yes. Before we go on to the next item, I want you to know we found the edit in the minutes and it has already been addressed. So thank you for that, Commissioner Bryan. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So now we're moving on to item 3B. Director Band, is that going to be again, you know, is your carpenter or are you taking a lead on the approval certificate of operations? Madam Chair, that will be me handling this one. Okay, thank you. That is the operation certificate for better. We, with this operation certificate, we're looking for approval. They have to have approval of the internal controls. They need all their vendors and sports wagering employees in place, compliance with any conditions of the commission. They need to have GLI inspection of their software and geo-fencing. Up to this point, better has their internal controls approved with no major findings or problems with their submissions. Their staffing vendors and non-sports wagering vendors are all approved. Compliance with any conditions that the commission has is in place, including better sports book, completing operational audits and wagering procedures and practices and technical security controls as required by the commission's technical standards, governing, supporting sports wagering within 90 days of commencement of sports wagering operations. They have their geo-fencing capabilities have passed. Player management system has passed. Their responsible gaming plan has been reviewed. The house rules have been approved. And up to this point, they have passed all inspections and the sports wagering division recommends approval of their operations certificate. Any questions or anything? Questions, commissions. I'm just making sure everybody's having a chance to take one quick last look. Okay. So you're looking for about today. Yes, ma'am. Commissions, if you have no other questions, are you prepared tools? Madam chair, I would move that the commission find that the requirements applied in 205 CMR 251 have been satisfied and that an operation certificate be awarded to better Holdings Inc. DBA BETR for the purpose of operating a category three sports wagering operation conditional upon better Holdings Inc. DBR, better completing operational audits of wagering procedures and practices and technical security controls as required by the commission's technical standards, governing sports wagering at 205 CMR 243.01, 1S and 205 CMR 243.01, 1X within 90 days of the commencement of sports wagering operations. Thank you, commissioner Skinner. Okay. With that second, are there any edits or comments? Right. Commissioner Brown. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I thought yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you. With the upcoming draft, the NFL draft this week, we thought that it might be helpful if the sports wagering division reported on the status of our rules around the NFL draft. Director Bander, are you reporting on this? Yes, but both Mr. Carpenter and myself where we, earlier in this week, we met with the NFL on the upcoming draft and to make sure that our regulations and procedures were in place to adequately address the NFL draft and that our procedures adequately protected the mass sports books to, to protect our sports wagering procedures in this state. Our procedures did in fact meet all the requirements in the NFL and going forward with basically items like having all wagers for the first round made prior to the first round of the draft and so on. Sturro, if you want to elaborate on that a little more, please go ahead. Yes. So our rules dictate when a pick can be offered and when it must close. All are in our event catalog. These were confirmed with the NFL that the timeframe was adequate in their opinion. We are also reaching out to our licensees to assure that they will follow all of the stipulations of draft picks. They are separated into rounds, draft rounds and actual picks. Picks prior just as information must be picked at least two picks prior to them being announced. Now we are well aware and we were informed as well by the NFL that sometimes information can be leaked out. So that's why we have these requirements in our rules to try and mitigate any knowledge prior to a pick. We are also open for any questions one might have about the upcoming draft. So I did, Sturro very graciously answered a question for me. I had a question about were there any jurisdictions that don't allow the draft at all or had different rules about it? So I'm just looking for clarity, Sturro. Thank you for the list you sent. Some of them it appears you can bet on the draft, but then it's a block as soon as the draft starts. There's nothing during the course of it. It sounds like, and you'd have to refresh my memory on our rules that there's more of a dynamic interaction in terms of our rules on the NFL draft. Can you just walk me through that, Sturro? Absolutely. So we modeled ours also. I will let everyone know that we modeled after Michigan. Michigan has a very successful sports wagering structure. They have not, we, as a matter of fact, told the NFL, we modeled our structure after Michigan. And they also reiterated that that is enough time friend, they believe to protect everything. Just so that you were aware, our operators also have the ability to not offer certain selections, picks, rounds, anything that they feel might be prohibited to them or knowledge to be released. There are currently options right now on our licensees websites that everyone can wager on right now. So not only is Michigan and Massachusetts, there is one other one that's escaping my memory at the moment that follows this sort of format, but that most will stop wagering before the round on round picks. You do not want to have something going on as a pick for the second and third round while it's in the middle of a round. So I apologize if I haven't answered or clarified. Yeah, so it looks like, I think Tennessee was the other one on the list that was similar to Massachusetts and Michigan. And so my, I guess my follow up question really is some of them obviously, I mean, in Nevada, you cannot bet a specific player 24 hours prior to the start of the first round, things like that. Do we have similar restrictions in Massachusetts? We, so as I was saying with those restrictions, those restrictions are left up to the operator, but we can, the operator has the restriction that they cannot allow, if we are at pick five, they cannot allow wagering on pick six or seven. Right. Yes. That's not a block on a particular player, right? No. Now, I'm sorry, commissioner O'Brien, what they will do. Right. So just for knowledge, I, the current number one pick is thought. And I say thought to be a particular player so much so that the odds are prohibited for a play of some of our books to wager against this pick. Now you're still allowed to do it, but you have to put up tons of money to receive a little. So that's how they mitigate their risk. And in terms of integrity of the process or inside knowledge that would affect this, is it the position of the team that as written, it's sufficiently protected? So in our meeting with the NFL, the NFL does everything in its power to clamp down on all information for their players. As we have seen this week, the NFL has suspended six players and gambling to, you know, for violating their, their, their policies and procedures. So they do everything and try to do everything possible. But as they have said, a proud parent and I would be one of them might go to Twitter if it's minutes before. That's why we have the structure of, you know, somebody can't find out on Twitter prior to this pick, the person walking up to the stage, right? So there is no, these are all NFL teams and they are pretty tight-lipped as our history has shown as nobody wants to give anybody else an advantage because of the importance of the NFL draft. It is a hugely important thing to build your team. We feel, yeah, we feel that it has great constraints and protection for all of our wagering possibilities here in the Commonwealth. Okay. Thank you, Strahl. You're welcome. Thank you very much. Can I just have a follow-up question, please, Strahl and Director Wells, you were also at that meeting, correct? So you're cut, you also have the same level of comfort that Director Bannon, Mr. Carpenter have, right? So the only question I have is if that tweet went out, if that wouldn't disqualify Betts Place before the tweet, but it would disqualify Betts Place after the tweet, correct? Well, I think the way the regulations are structured is to prevent a situation where a tweet would impact the outcome. So it's an integrity issue. So the timing and the ban on, that's too close to when it's actually happening would prevent that. But they described to us, it's a television show, you know, so there's just a little bit of delay there. So that's why they're protecting it. Well, it's only, it's strictly with respect to the integrity. That's good. Okay. That's how it works. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Right. That's a helpful report. The draft begins Thursday, right, Strahl? Correct. What time? Um, It's usually nine, but I just, I just want to make sure. Nine Eastern time. All right. At eight, eight, eight PM Thursday, it kicks off. Eight. Okay. Always, always fun. All right. There are no other questions on that report. We'll turn to item number four. So under. You know, the meeting law, we are required. To perform. Our executive director. In review. And set her compensation. In a public forum. This is by far executive director. Well, favorite meeting of the year. So. Um, we, uh, We, um, We appreciate the process that's been set in place with the help of human, human resources department. And with, of course, Karen's. Very, uh, Helpful self-assessment. We were able to do. Our personal reviews and submit them to her. I don't know if commissioners, you had a chance to speak with Karen about your particular. Your own individual review, but you have that ability to do so at any time. Um, so today we have. Really a conversation about our executive director. And, um, her performance. Karen. You may want to start with, um, your. Your, um, So self-assessment and your, um, But I don't want to put you on the spot. If you would like to make an introductory statement, that would be helpful. And then we would go into our, um, Observations and review. And then we have the, um, The obligation to set your compensation for the year. Uh, and I, I think. I should know the answer to this question. It would be retroactive back to the calendar year. January 1st. Is that correct? Commissioner Skinner. Our treasurer. It would go January. It's calendar year, not fiscal year. Right. I'm not sure of. Madam chair. John is giving us the thumb thumb. Okay. Thank you, John. Okay. I also see commissioner O'Brien nodding. Yeah. So it's, it's, um, calendar year. So thank you. I just wanted to make sure. All right. So, Karen. Um, it's been a quiet year. I think my only statement. Uh, is a truly heartfelt thank you to the people that work at this agency. This was a rough year. Uh, we had a lot going on. There were a lot of people that put in a lot of extra hours. Even commissioners, executives, staff and line level staff. Um, and I am very grateful for all the work. Um, and the positive attitude towards what we had to accomplish. And also the focus on integrity and doing the job. Well, you look at everything across the board from the IEVs investigations to the legal departments. Uh, uh, promulgation of work on the promulgation of regulations, the communications department, crystal and organizing all of this, the IT finance research responsible gaming. There were a lot of divisions that had to, um, work very hard and work collaboratively on this. So my message is, uh, a genuine thank you to everyone. Uh, that works here and all that they did over the past year. Um, I'm very proud of this team that I am privileged to work with and, um, I'm looking forward, um, you know, to many, many more things from them because they're just an outstanding team. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. Commissioners. What would you like to share about your observations on. Karen's performance. For the last, really it's the calendar year. Of course we're looking at a little bit later, mainly because we were finishing up some important work. Good. Good deadline of March 10th. So, um, who would like to start commissioner Brian. Sure. Um, I always start this off with, um, you know, I've known Karen probably for a long time. Anybody else who's sitting here. So I like to do full disclosure on that one. Cause I can go back to the prosecutor days with her. Um, so I'm not surprised every year when she does an outstanding performance. Um, I would agree that as Karen said this year was particularly tough. Um, there was a gargantuan task of launching. Uh, an entirely new industry and what tripling. Or quadruple. Or quadruple. Or quadruple. Um, and I am not surprised, but in awe of her ability to gather the third parties that were necessary to do that. And to support staff in the manner that needed to be done to have that happen. Um, I think the appropriate response, if we had the ability to give sabbaticals would be to give Karen a sabbatical for the summer and tell her she could go recharge. Cause I don't know of any other way to humanly let her recharge, which I think everyone on staff needs, but I think Karen in particular probably needs it more than anybody else. Given the demands that were put on her and what she was able to produce this past year. I would like to say. And I've said this before, but now with these licensees, I really do think we as a commission have to seriously have this conversation structure. About given Karen support. Um, in this, in the form of a, an assistant executive director or chief of staff or staff, something like that. Um, I know we've had additions in terms of HR that have been helpful, but I think. It's been a difficult task. Before and now with these licensees, I do think structurally we need to. Take a whole look at the organization and the agency to figure out how to do that. The mission and her. And then I constructively give this to Karen every year in terms of she's, she's sometimes too nice to the rest of us. In terms of not putting up boundaries to make sure that she's got the time to do what she needs and to communicate with staff and to communicate with all five of us. So I would encourage her to continue to do that. To get the support that she needs to do the job. And then I would encourage her to do that. I would encourage her to do that. I would encourage her to continue to do that. To get the support that she needs to do the job. Um, but quite frankly, other than that, um, I think she just did a tremendous job executing. What was an aggressive timeline and balancing five commissioners. And a number of staff and third parties to get it up and running. So thank you, Karen, as always, like I said, I'm not surprised. Uh, and I do want to thank you. And if I could. If I could give you a sabbatical, I would do it because I think you need it. Okay. Thank you, commissioner O'Brien. We would like to go next. I'm not sure anybody can follow that, uh, madam chair, uh, that that was, uh, very good and very precise. And I think similar to what we all, um, feel about Karen. And I, I too. I'm in awe of what you've accomplished over the last, um, last year. Well, since January, but before January, when we were, when we were given our marching orders by the legislature to get something done in a timely fashion, that would not have happened without your leadership and without pulling the entire staff together. You mentioned in your opening remarks, uh, you know, the staff that you work with and the work that they put into that. And I agree with you 100%. The staff was phenomenal. But it took a leader to bring everybody together. Um, I always think of it, uh, in nautical terms, because of where I live, you know, we were, we were a ship that was moving forward. It needed to stay on a straight line. Um, and you made sure that it did. Um, so I share in commissioner O'Brien's comments of, of being in awe of being able to accomplish what the commission put on you to get done. Um, not only for the commission, but for the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Um, in regards. You know, to particular, um, things that we had to fill out, you know, in our review of you, you know, I look at the subject of the communication, your communication skills continue to be very, very good. Um, your ability to build good relationships with everyone is one of the things I think is your strongest strength. You're very precise in your directives and effectively communicates, um, what you need to get done with your team members. So that's something I think isn't very important. Uh, you always gather all necessary facts and information before finding solutions to what can be very difficult problems. And there was a lot of difficult problems, uh, that were put before you this past year. And you were able to address them in such a great professional and direct way. Uh, I think one of your best qualities as a, the executive director is that, you know, when you are, when you're faced with a problem, you continue to listen first, take into account all the information, and then you try and come up with practical solutions. And you showed that time and time again over the last year. And your management skills, they continue to be second to none. Um, I talked to other agencies across the Commonwealth, your name comes up very, very often, uh, is somebody that people look to and want to emulate, uh, because of your organization and your, and your planning. And of course your interaction with others. Again, second to none. Uh, I have seen you personally continue to effectively manage your team. You treat your staff very fairly, equally, respectfully, uh, which I think has strengthened the entire team. And you've maintained the culture of transparency and acknowledge sharing across all levels of the commission. And acknowledge the employees, you know, good work, which again, we all look to the staff and we, as we're, as we sit here and recognize Karen, we also recognize the hard work that you do. So you've displayed a very highly consistent level of performance in your work. You've gone above and beyond this past year. No questions asked. Uh, I have found you always, you know, seeking opportunities to be more productive, your positive attitude. And believe me, Karen, that's so important, especially this past year, that positive attitude that you always have with your work encourages others to perform well too. So, um, thank you. I know it's been a very difficult year. I know, um, it's been very stressful for you and your staff, but your leadership afforded us the ability to get through what we needed to get through, especially with the sports wagering. And I want to remind people that, um, we weren't just doing sports wagering this year. We still had to do our day-to-day operation stuff. Uh, and you were able to corral all the issues that you deal with day in and day out as well as sports wagering. So I applaud you for your efforts in this last year. And I thank you for a job well done. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Skinner, would you like to chime in on Commissioner Maynard? I can go next. Um, I think Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Hill has pretty much, have pretty much covered it between the two of them. Um, so this will be easy for me. Um, I, um, was, um, I only served as commissioner for, um, three quarters of the year last year and two quarters of that, it was all sports wagering all of the time. And so I think, um, it doesn't need to be reiterated, but I will do it anyway. Um, you accomplished a Herculean task. You and the team and getting, um, sports wagering launched in, you know, what, uh, it felt like a, uh, a very challenging timeline. Um, but I'm not surprised. Um, you weren't kicking and screaming. Um, you, you, you got it done with a smile on your face and all while supporting the team and any concerns that they might have brought your way. Um, I said that Commissioner Hill and Commissioner O'Brien have already said everything there is to say about you professionally. So I won't belabor those points, um, except to make it clear that I agree with every single word. I think you've done an outstanding job as executive director. Um, but I'm choosing right now to brag about and commend you on your personal attributes that you bring to your role as executive director and a leader. And we, you and I have had the opportunity to meet. So you're not hearing any of this for the first time. Um, but I think Karen, you lead with kindness, humility, respect for and of others and a listening ear. And those are our qualities that are essential to the cohesion of this agency. We saw, we saw that during sports, way during implementation as you indicated, it was a very rough year. Very challenging to meet some of those deadlines, but every step of the way, um, you, you, you met expectations and often exceeded expectations, but above and beyond any professional achievement, far more valuable than your professional successes. I think both here and over the course of your career, it's your ability to make human connections and cultivate relationships that I think makes you an exceptional leader. And Karen, please don't ever lose sight of that because your team, our team relies on that. And that's what makes them to continue, excuse me, that's what makes them continue to show up for you and for this commission. All that said, um, before I can put a bow on that, I want to see you give yourself the same care and attention you give to others. And I hope you are finding that you're afforded to grace and a space to do that. So once again, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. You're doing a great job. Well done. Um, very proud of how, um, you have led this agency over the past year. Um, and I am looking forward to, uh, many, many years to come under your leadership, Karen. Thank you so much. Thank you. Commissioner Skinner. Mr. Maynard. Thank you, Madam chair. Karen, I have to say that, um, I think that, um, I think that was when it became public, I didn't start to August and oftentimes, um, the second thing said to me after congratulations from many people that I've met over the years, was you're going to love Karen Wells. And, um, and that really speaks to, you know, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from commissioner Brian. I've probably known you from the commissioners, the least, but, uh, everyone that I knew, um, um, you know, I've met thousands of people of my time in my prior position, um, leaders from every agency and, and government body in the state, um, said you're going to love Karen Wells. So, um, and that's been true. Um, I won't belabor the point on the sports way during peace. Um, I called you in your review and told you this, um, we spoke that you're a thoughtful motivator. And that's, that's, that's rare, you know, you really understand that people are policy. And that to get something done in this agency that you have to motivate the people. Um, but you never compromise the end product. You listen to everyone. Uh, you often have to deal with a lot of personalities and a lot of big personalities. Um, but you do it with respect. But at the end, uh, you make sure that the best product comes out of it. That's really an art form. Um, I think that, um, you know, it's been said, Take care of yourself, you know, and, and surround yourself with. You know, um, what you need to get the job done. You will always have my support. And I believe the entire commission support. And driving, um, the goals of the commission. And I'm just thrilled that I have an opportunity to work with you and, um, I think you are a fantastic. Executive director. Thank you. Um, I guess. I guess I'll pick up where everybody else missed out. Right. Executive director. Well, No, I just echo everything that my fellow commissioners stated. Um, Karen. Um, I've had the benefit of doing this a few times and. Um, And because of that, I can say that I've watched you grow. Um, In this role, but you started at an exceptional level to begin with, but you have, um, continued to grow and never just settle. Um, you know, I, Um, For the high standard race where you started when I first met you. Um, as IEB director and then came over, um, As executive director. So I've had the benefit of watching you not as an old friend, But as a professional colleague. And a partner. So I want you to know how much I appreciate you. In that role. Um, We spend a extraordinary amount of time together. And I am part of the burden of your day to day role. Uh, and responsibilities. So I'm hearing everybody saying you, You need a break and I just want, um, You to know how much I. Appreciated these last and I'll just say. Really just from, from August. Um, The, um, Accessibility that you granted me. Uh, so that we could, um, In fact, Meet the deadlines that the commission set. Um, Um, But the benefit of the Commonwealth, That was our mandate. Uh, to, to set, um, Uh, deadlines. And in setting them, There wasn't one time. Where you did not assure me. That your team would not only. Be able to meet it. But also that you would meet it with the extraordinary integrity that we expect. Of the gaming commission. And that's the Commonwealth. And the citizens. Expect of us as a regulator of this new industry. So, um, You, You had your white board. You had your, Your lists. Uh, just recently you spoke in Las Vegas about that checklist. And I just heard from someone today. I got an email about the exceptional job. Did. Um, I'll start at the very end. We have. A nice, A nice, Format for assessing. And I did say Karen demonstrated exceptional leadership and managerial skills this past year. As she worked to implement the new sports wagering law. She pivoted with the commission's decisions and directions and respond to priorities. And values we set. She is emerging as a recognized leader in the field, deservingly so. Um, I'll start at the very end. A nice, a nice format for assessing. Um, She is a recognized leader in the field deservingly so. She continues. And this is the most important piece to me to nurture the culture. Within the MGC. This is critical. As exceptional new hires. To expect a workplace where mutual respect and excellence are fostered. And your leadership. Is grounded in that last part. Not for me is the most meaningful. And I agree with. Commissioner Hill that your interpersonal skills and their ability to foster your team are. Off the charts. Exceptional. But. As I said. Where deadlines were clearly established. You. Were able to have your team. Meet them. I said that you. You noted yourselves as a result oriented leader. And I had said. At one point that. Where deadlines are clear. Established the staff is extraordinary and meeting them. Attribute to its professionalism and dedication. And no more. No greater. Form was that tested this past six months. And it was. Attribute to your leadership. And as I said, the professionalism. And dedication of your extraordinary staff. I never doubted the team's ability and commitment. And you know. Karen should be very proud of this past six months. Results are eight months, wherever we are now. But I also want to note that. This year. Started back in January. Of. 2022. And I was pleased that Karen noted in her assessment. Her effectiveness and transitioning the team to the hybrid. Model. That is going so well. We've seen. More and more members of your team coming back. Under your hybrid model. As I think they like being together. And that is not happening across the country. And so I think you should be really proud. Of that hybrid work model working nicely. You have, you were pushing forward with regulatory review. And it's a really important piece of work. Given that you were at that 10 year mark. The regular work model. The hybrid work model. And I think that's a really important piece of work. Given that you were at that 10 year mark. The regulations. And I know you want to go back to that. And you drove implementation of our DEI. Action items. And for that, I am so grateful. Part of that vision was to hire. Our chief. People and diversity officer. And he has been. Really woven into your daily management. And I think to really. Add it of your leadership and management. Has been so effective. And nurturing the culture of the organization. I also wanted to commend you for something you didn't mention. I don't believe unless I missed it in your assessment was that you implemented your fair pay framework. And that was a very big piece of work that you. You did in such an equitable fashion. And that's how you lead with fairness and equity. You want everyone to be treated equally and fairly. With the same degree of respect. And, and that's across the agency and among commissioners. And we feel that Karen. And that great work of the fair pay framework really established. An equitable approach for. And that's what we're going to do. And that's what we're going to do. And that's what we're going to do with this agency and a framework that you can depend on. And I know that you will just as you're doing to the regs, you'll continue to tweak that and make sure that remains an effective tool. So. Those are a little bit more granular comments because I just wanted to make sure that everyone did understand this commissioners held it to that business was going on. And we never missed a beat. And that's what we're going to do with this agency. And finally, I think I would just. You know. Say that. You know, where commissioner Hill mentioned in the others, I applaud everyone's comments. But you're here. We have these five categories. I think it's five. And your interaction with others. And that is internal and external is exceptional. You can laugh. And you and I have laughed sometimes when we might as well have been crying, but you can always see. The. The positive side and commissioner Hill use that word as well. And to get the job done. And I. I sensed. That it's not just ever checking it off. It's always done with the degree of intentionality and purpose and thoughtfulness. That the, this exceptional team deserves. And what you as an exceptional leader. Can effectuate so for that. I'm grateful Karen for your leadership. I am grateful for your work. Standing up sports for a drink. To the benefit of the commonwealth. There is a lot of work ahead. And I do hear. Commissioner Brian suggesting a sabbatical. Karen. Would you wait maybe a couple more years please? No, we all want to be very sensitive. To the health and well-being of all the entire team. I do have on face Robinson's list. Who is a great event planner. Some kind of a celebration that will be at least. A break in the course of a day, Karen, for you and your team. But we do. I joined all of my fellow commissioners thanking you for the extraordinary efforts. That you and your team have performed. It's standing out with sports, wagering. Industry. As we were required to do by law. So thank you. And with that, I guess, unless we have other comments, we probably should turn to. Setting the compensation. We have a document in our. In our. Our packet. That I want to commend the team effort on that. We got some information from. HR and truth. And they looked at other jurisdictions as I think. We had suggested might be helpful. And of course we looked at. Immediate. On purpose. As we've done in the past. We've done it. We've done it. We've done it. We would like to start with this conversation. Everybody loves to talk money. Where's Derek. He's, he's always comfortable speaking money commission. And then we've got no end Derek. I was kind of teasing, meaning you're always comfortable talking dollars. But here we are commissioner. He'll are commissioner Brian. I see your. I was wondering if it might be helpful to just go over. A little bit. That. That. Put together to sort of lay the framework for the conversation. Yeah, I think that makes sense. So that's on page. 179. Of our packet. This is the long packet, but I assured grace that it's not as long. I think we have had one that goes over a thousand pages. So that. Was our biggest day yet. So here we are 179. And I'm going to ask the comparables that I just mentioned. And executive director Wells. Her salary is right now at $207,400. Executive director. Of the post commission is at 198, 550. And the executive director of the cannabis control commission is at 201. 80. All three agencies are independent agencies with them. And I think that's the. Level of oversight. Cannabis control commission, I think nearest ours almost entirely. And then the post commission. Has a slightly different commission oversight structure. So madam chair, I guess, and maybe someone answers this for me, but one of the things that I forgot to ask. I don't know if you can hear me. I don't know if you can hear me. I don't know if you can hear me right now on this, on the meeting, but. In terms of the options when we get into that, I know that there are. Merit increases versus bonuses versus coal is also. Impact the pension differently. And I was just a little unclear on. Exactly which impacts what I know, you know, retro and coal is just go in, but whether. Merits are sort of taken off the table. I don't think Derek can explain that. That was put in there really to mark that conversation, right? Derek is a reminder. The difference between a bonus perhaps in a salary increase. Go ahead, Derek. Correct. So merits and colas are salary increases. So those would impact the pension. Long term. As far as a bonus goes out to one time increase, you know, those year after year. So that wouldn't impact the pension. Got it. Okay. That's because they're treated like one offs basically. Correct. Got it. Okay. Thanks. I think it's, I think the general rule for the pension is the top three. Annual salaries are average out. So that's why. Right. That could, it could, but it might not. Right. Impact ultimately. The next paragraph. As a reminder, the MGC did provide our team with a 3%. Now that says retroactive to the start of the fiscal year. Derek. So that the team got back to. 2022. And a July 1st. 2022. Right? I think it was July 3rd or fourth based on how the pay period split up, but yes, it was July of 2022. Staff have always been on the July fiscal fiscal year review. the executive director has been on the calendar year review. We can always adjust that and go retroactive if timing would be better over the summer to do this review. It's just we're going historically. John was correct. We've always gone back to the calendar year for the executive director. Yeah, that was my memory. Okay, and so then we could consider an increase in salary whether it's at 3% cost of living or something else. We could also consider the merit bonus in addition to a salary increase and that would be part of her salary if I understand correctly. And we could do a combination of hybrid of the salary increase and a bonus. And I think I suggested that we include that bonuses have been awarded to staff, including the executive director in the past. And Derek, I don't know if you want to elaborate on that at all. Yes, so so there have been two types of bonuses that have been given to staff in the past. One was a on top of salary increases and that happened in 2015 when Plainville opened up for to recognize one time efforts. And then for a few years when up when the category one operators were not pulling in any revenue, we didn't do raises for people that were making we set a threshold. And anyone above that only got bonuses and no increases no colas. So their salaries stayed flat. We're not I can't really talk to that right now because I report directly to to Karen about a recommendation but I don't think that's a situation we're living in right now. So and john can help on this and that's why john is here today. Correct. So I can give you all the history I just can't make a recommendation because Karen appoints me. Nice statue. Yeah. Okay. And so john that's all just straight back to correct john. Excuse me. Was that Kathy? That's all that's all all facts situation that Derek laid out. Right. Okay. And then we have on the memo. It was really helpful how it was done in terms of the the jurisdictions and those that have both gaming and sports play drink. Not sure if any of them also have eye gaming. I don't I think Michigan might New Jersey isn't put in here. It is a slightly different construct or a different construct as is Nevada but these are really good comparables. We of course, I think Commissioner O'Brien, you had considered you know, what do we look at in terms of the near the jurisdictions near us because of our high price of cost of living. So we have New York there which is a good comparable and then of course, Maine has a different cost of living and then Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, of course, it might not have the same cost of living but it does have a high degree of complexities because they have so many casinos and I think that's probably a distinguishing factor there. So Maryland might not have the same high cost of living but I bet it enjoys that in some places. It's a 2020 number. Right. So some of them are a little more stale than others. Yeah. So, Karen, I am going to and I don't want Karen's words to work against her but when I before we got this memo even I asked her about the cost of living increase and Karen at one point you said I wouldn't want to get higher than the 3% cost of living that cola. We could go higher on the cola but I'd like to be consistent with that perhaps and then think about where we could increase her salary or grant her a well-deserved merit or bonus increase but Karen that 3% was that measure that you mentioned that seems and that would go retroactively back to I guess it would be January 1 in our case. With that said I allow her that but I want to make sure that her leadership and the review that we just gave her is very well reflected in either both a salary increase and a merit increase or a bonus or both. So I'd love to hear we could do a higher we could do a 4% or 5% cola but I just wanted and John is shaking his head that's absolutely within our realm of I just wanted Karen had noted that but we don't have to I know that mainly because I want her keen to hear that we can go higher if we want on that three that cola as well. Thoughts? I'm sure Brian. Yes you shipped it on me. I should pin you. No good. Go ahead. I was I was going to recommend 3% cost of living. Yep. Yeah, and then I'm then I'm up for discussions if anybody wants to add anything to that but that's that's my starting point is 3%. Okay, Commissioner Brian. I like even numbers so the 3% if I'm not if my math correcting John you know went to law school for a reason. Let me know if I'm wrong. It would be up to 233-622. So my recommendation my recommendation would be up to 215 and then I would like to have a conversation about a merit bonus or some sort of bonus for the sports wagering effort. I know there's probably a deeper conversation about staff all in. If I'm reading Karen's thoughts you'd probably like us to hold off on that too we talk about staff in general to see what the budget can handle on that but I absolutely believe that is in order for the performance for 2022 as well. So a 4% increase would put Karen in the realm of 215 and change. So that that that would make sense. Okay and then the 3% is the 213-622. Give me one sec I'll get that for you right now. That's the number I got Commissioner O'Brien. When I waitress I could calculate the 15 to 20% really quick. That was about what I focused on. Commissioner O'Brien did I hear you say that you would wait on a bonus? Is that what you just said because of the budget issues? I'd like to know about the right and then I also think there's probably a deeper conversation about staff also in terms of a sportsway during merit bonus and Karen's nodding her head at me. So I absolutely think it's warranted here but I'm wondering if it's a bigger conversation where we look at the budget and figure out. So I know that the 3% is 213 and change. Okay so Chief Maldrew is going to be working with Karen on the bonus the merit issues and that's really within the the HR world and not really in our realm right. We want to respect that. I understand the budget issues what you're saying. We do have our budget people here and today is our obligation to set compensation. I wonder if we can consider the the three or four percent increase and also grant a merit bonus in light of today's discussion unless and then and that those dollars would be the first up and I know that we have the ability to budget wise to to do some kind of a recognition for a bonus. We could then revisit if we wanted to increase it after the staff but I would think that we would have missed an opportunity to acknowledge Karen in compensation for all that she's achieved at today's meeting if we rolled it over completely until the staff discussion. I don't want the apples and oranges to get mixed up. Certainly Karen doesn't want the burden of either saying you know I've got to you know figure out this because it's also Derek and me you know and we just you know it's not so I think today's burden is on us to figure out that if we want to go forward with a merit or so Kathy if I could maybe give you guys some perspective I'm happy to do that you know just kind of as like one metric that's out there social security this past year was increased 8.7 percent now speaking as to our capability with the budget you know we are within budget and by definition we're like under spending which is good. Typically as good stewards Derek and Agnes my predecessor have reverted between two and three percent each year back to the licensees and this year will be no exception we expect to do something close to that as well and just to give you some some perspective on what one percent is you know just for the game and control fund one percent is around 360 thousands so you know what we're talking about is really just a drop in the bucket as far as you know savings goes we have had some savings like with MSP we've had some vacant positions so there's some turnover savings there we've increased our FTE accounts for the agency as a whole like to up staffing for sports wagering and our initiatives and you know we still have some open positions and some savings there and then you know a big kudos to the revenue group you know Doug O'Donnell and his team and also with the licensing group Carol Brian and her team we have an additional one million dollars that you know we were not expecting or wasn't really accounted for for revenue from licensing for sports wagering so we were we have the capability to do this. Right and can I just add that John just went through of course those are state dollars right they there's an assessment and it's it's to the operators but in fact which they are state dollars so I when I liked John's leading with that we are very very responsible stewards of these dollars and we have always been very transparent and careful I I think are the operators witnessed this team's extraordinary work they appreciated the team's attentiveness with respect to not simply making sure the process was filled with integrity but also it's the highest standards with respect to consumer protections with respect to diversity equity and inclusion with respect to community engagement we asked of the operators so much in terms of their assessments they saw Karen and the team leading that process and they saw how it was led kindly fashion in an exceptional fashion they also know that we are responsible regulators and so today I think we can have an honest discussion in a fair discussion to compensate Karen for this work that was so well done but I really appreciate your leading with our that rule goals the frugality John that we all very very much uh you know my husband often says I wish that you treated our dollars like you treat your work dollars so I am I'm comfortable with getting to a number however we do it at the the four percent would increase the salary for pension purposes that we get it up to two fifteen commissioner brian um I um I I am imagining a a merit bonus of some some degree of substance is anybody thinking of a number Mr. Skinner you have your I was hoping to weigh in on the the salary increase okay for Karen um I I'm certainly in agreement with 215 but I would um go slightly higher than that actually and you know however it is um we need to do it to get above that slightly above that I think we should go for it whether we identified it as a cost of living increase or merit increase I would like to see somewhere around the ballpark of um 217 308 and I got that number by taking New York and Pennsylvania the two closest um uh states uh to Massachusetts that are included on our sampling in terms of um similarities in terms in terms of uh jurisdiction um and that that's the average of those two numbers so I'm sorry again which two um New York and Pennsylvania so that's the number I would be comfortable with I'm happy to see that the starting point it seems to be 215 um on top of that Madam Chair I think you're right I also would like to take advantage of this opportunity today to also assign um merit um bonus or some kind of bonus to really recognize uh Karen and her work over the past year particularly on sports wagering and as has been mentioned the pay equity assignment Commissioner Maynard do you want to weigh in? I'm comfortable with a four percent and then um I heard what Commissioner Skinner said you know however we have to figure it out or compensate it into this um I would want to see some sort of merit based bonus for sure. Do you have a number in mind? It's okay to say not yet if you're not I'm not listening on you. I mean in full disclosure I've reviewed the numbers that were sent over from HR and looked at those um I believe and I could be corrected on this the number was somewhere around $15,000 bonus from HR their recommendation so I would have to start with that number and then adjust accordingly I think um but that's that's kind of where I am but I am comfortable with four percent. Commissioner Bryan? So yeah I'm trying to find the memo I know there was another one that laid out different numbers for us um I think what Commissioner Maynard said is kind of where I was to uh the four percent and then uh the the bonus for the the slog of the sports wagering launch um I couldn't recall the number um Commissioner Maynard at the 15 but that is yeah that's what it was and it was a bonus he did put it um as a bonus which would of course mean it would be external to the salary increase correct yeah and if I look at Massachusetts numbers that puts Karen in a at 215 a very um good place for salary um with a $15,000 bonus that which certainly um recognized again um not just back to August 1st but uh the work that preceded it which was eight months beforehand so um you know the launching sports wagering happened this year but she was ready to go at the end of the calendar year she knew she was making her her deadline so um the path forward uh into this year Karen you um you knew that your team would make it uh you pivoted it with us and our demands as I said earlier uh I'm comfortable with that recommendation I think probably it's a massive question before yeah we move forward I'm sorry sure I wasn't going to move forward that was just me commenting sorry Commissioner Hill no I interrupted I interrupted you no I was just comfortable with the four percent three to four percent but the salary at 215 makes sense to me um Commissioner Hill the 15,000 that that number was put out there we could discuss that but that would not be part of the salary understood my question my question is when it comes to bonuses um we did we didn't ever discuss this last year when I was here so this is first uh that I'm hearing that we give bonuses for or that we are suggesting a bonus um have we ever given any bonuses to any of our employees have or is it only to our management team no it's actually we have yes and it's actually going to be part of Karen and um David Maltrew's work going forward the the entire team um has been informed that that that's a possibility for them and Karen and David will work on that so that's the go ahead to put a finer point on it in terms of sort of event-based bonuses the one that sticks out most recently to me was COVID because we had certain people who kind of had to come back you know in person earlier than others facing more exposure than others during that time period and so we had pretty in-depth conversations about bonuses to people as a result of COVID closing and reopening that's the one that jumped out to me most so to be clear management and employees of MGC yes correct online and um and uh executive staff and the executive director I know in the past um that that preceded Karen um received a bonus of some sort there correct um um it a different size bonus um that's correct that is that is correct and the first program um is more along the lines of what I think Commissioner Hill is getting at where we had a committee that reviewed all the recommendations put forth that was made up of both management and staff level and then a lot of the bonuses went out to staff level for their individual contributions to the opening of Plain Ridge Park Casino and getting all of that ready to go so that I think that's more of the program that Karen and Dave are looking towards establishing for for awarding bonuses for this last effort and I think that what you're hitting on is completely appropriate Commissioner Hill for us to think about as as Dave and Karen put that program together so this was this is new to me so thank you I appreciate the history of bonuses because that it was well weighing very heavily on me that we may only be giving it to one individual when I'm looking at the entire staff and seeing what they did this past year was just as miraculous as what Karen did um you certainly have answered my question and thank you Madam Chair and Commissioner Hill I just you know we have a lot of a lot of material in front of us but that was an important note that I did ask to be added to this memo that it does say bonuses have been awarded to staff including the executive director in the past and so I I missed that I'll stand no yeah so I just wanted you to it was a really important point that you raised and it was memorialized there because I you know it's it's an important piece of information so so with all that said I'm happy with 215 and I'm happy with a bonus okay so now we can talk about the 215 I know Commissioner Skinner you were thinking higher how are you feeling if there's a little bit I think I'm leaning toward to the the four percent as well so to give us at 215 how are you feeling about that I feel I feel fine with that given that it's consensus consensus no problem with the 215 okay thanks and now in terms of the bonus the number that Commissioner Maynard raised was one that I think us from the chief diversity chief people and diversity officer chief all true how are we feeling about that I'll throw out a number for discussion and to start the debate I thought ten thousand dollars was appropriate okay thought 15 was just a little high yeah Miss Jones I'm okay accepting the recommendation that came from HR on this which was $15,000 Commissioner Browningham um I I don't think 15 is outside the realm but acknowledging Commissioner Hill I could go as low as 12 five splitting the difference so I could do 15 or 12 five I'd be comfortable with either and then we do our best to give her a sabbatical I'm sorry just to add short of that I think you know I want to make sure that we're factoring in the retention value of any bonus that we're settling on and and I think I just think that's an important factor here agree yes retention is important um so Karen retention right I certainly could go up to 12 five as a compromise I still think 15,000 is high that's my opinion I had and I referenced this earlier I had a unique position where I got to see thousands of people hired in the Commonwealth right and I think that the number one thing that that we can do is make sure that we keep talented people especially in this economy because in the in the worker the working market economy people are you know competing for employees right and oftentimes and I do believe we should be good stewards of tax dollars I built my whole life around it but being a good steward of tax dollars also means that we're getting the best bang for the buck with the employees that are hired by the Commonwealth right and so for that reason I would stick with what Dave Muldrew recommended on the 15 understanding that and sharing Commissioner Hills hope that we come up with something equitable for every employee across the commission but I I would stick with the 15. Commissioner Hill I respect your frugality and I know it comes from the right place but I am going to also align myself with Chief Muldrew's recommendation I feel that in this this is this is a bonus and it's an acknowledgement for this exceptional year the full year and again all of the work in addition to standing up the sports wagering the sports wagering industry I can tell you that the current New York and Pennsylvania they've already done that so this this bonus reflects this past year and I'm very at ease of giving that bonus of 15,000 and then if we want to bring the salary up to the 4% mark I'm comfortable with that as well but I do respect Commissioner Hill and I think I think it's fair that we all want to make sure that the public and operators understand we respect very much our responsibility of being good shepherds with respect to these funds but in this case I feel the work we've performed reflects this bonus should we do a vote are we we're not talking we're not talking a lot of money here so you know the consensus is 15,000 then 15,000 it shall be then okay like I guess we should probably memorialize this discussion in a in a vote if we're ready to move on it but we also can expand in troop D I do see that you're here thank you for the memorandum we appreciate it so of course can I ask I'm sorry can I so the 4% is retro to is it seven do we have the date seven four twenty two or she she won one twenty three she's won one twenty three we've done it on the calendar so it's retro to January one of twenty three okay I'm happy to make a motion madam chair thank you commissioner ready for it madam chair based on the conversation today and the evaluations submitted to executive director wells I move that we adjust the executive director salary by increasing a 4% cost of living retroactive to January one twenty twenty three and in addition that we authorize a $15,000 merit based bonus for the 2022 performance review period and can I just clarify that that bonus is a separate and independent of the salary yes yes okay all right any further questions or comments okay mr. Brian hi mr. Hill hi mr. Skinner hi mr. Maynard hi and I vote yes and thank you you all that's extremely generous thank you come here all right I think it's 1130 I need a break we do need a good now we have a slew of rags to go through I don't know exactly what the timing will be but Todd is okay if we take and would it make sense to kind of take an early lunch break right now 1130 noon or do you want to do something different commissioners I prefer to have a little break and then maybe at one o'clock take a break if we need it okay all right and that's what we'll do and just a reminder for those our work will extend into the evening tonight we will be conducting a public hearing at Everett City Hall in connection with Encore Basin Harbors expansion proposal so we will keep on working into the evening commissioners and for that a big thank you Amina does that work for you I just see you coming in we're going to take a short break and then we'll get going yes ma'am chair I was coming in to say that I think if if you took a break we could very well be done by one but I hope those aren't famous last words let's give ourselves a quick break and we'll get going all right um we can be not uh what around is that good yep okay 1145 thanks everyone and thank you Karen like Dave thank you no problem all set okay so we're all back this is the convening of the Massachusetts gaming commission convening after a short break uh you know real call because we're holding this meeting virtually I'm sure Brian I am here Commissioner Hill I'm here Commissioner Skinner yeah and Commissioner I'm here excellent we'll get started and we are now um the last item on the agenda but you have a slew of rags to get through and good um like good morning still uh both uh Todd and Caitlin Caitlin good to see you I hope you had a nice break with your family I did thank you so much um so almost this afternoon we will be uh bringing a few rags back for you for your review as you know um you will recognize some of these rags 138 238 247 and 248 in particular are the rags that we will start with um the commission has reviewed and approved these previously they are currently in effect but as we move through um both the regulatory process and just standing up sportsway during in the state we're learning more and more and we would like to bring some amendments on these rags back to you now so as you probably saw in the memo the amendments are relate to a number of different issues um and Mina McCary us from A&K we'll walk through those for you so it's a little bit more I won't use the word disjointed but there's going to be a lot a lot more little issues today than than you usually see so with that I'll turn it over to Mina thank you good morning good morning madam chair um so madam chair I'm going to uh just very briefly before we start uh give you an overview of the four that we're going to talk about and the uh we've received a couple of comments from the attorney general's office as well as uh some of the players associations I'm going to explain how those fit in as well um the uh they're sort of on two separate issues but that's that's why that we've been in conversation about um the four rags in front of you are 138 and 238 that's um uniform standards of accounting procedures and internal controls generally 138 for everybody and 238 are the one specific to sports wagering and then uh once we're done with those we'll talk about 247 uniform standards of sports wagering and 248 sports wagering account management the reason these four are grouped together and are coming up before you there's really uh three sort of thematically uh purposes that we start we're starting with these one is to reflect some updates and this is predominantly in 138 and 238 for category two um wagering um fairly much fairly minor overall but uh important edits uh the second is if you recall in the process of developing the advertising regulations we were in uh conversation with the attorney general's office and we I had also uh mentioned we would be coming back with a data privacy and security regulation um and that would be working with the attorney general's office directly on that um we have a draft of that that's been shared with their team um and that they have started to provide some comments on just for you know as we develop it we are working through that that reg it should be before you shortly most of however there are some portions that affect some of these other regs and since they were due back today we wanted to take sort of the lower hanging fruit in these ones but I think and Caitlin, Carrie, and Todd can correct me if I'm wrong the idea would be to take a vote and hold on filing for these four so that if there are as we get through the data privacy issues we're done there. The last part is with the benefit of some time with the industry being stood up in Massachusetts um players associations have made a handful of additional comments on some of the regs to make sure uh that uh comments I had made before were sort of properly interpreted and make sense in light of uh some recent events in terms of player safety so those are sort of the three thematic things they don't all show up in all regs but that's that's why we're going through these today so with that I'd like to start off on 138 I'm going to direct you to the packet and I'll note when the AG's office or other comments have come in where they are and we can we might might have to talk about those verbally there's not many they're mostly um fairly minor so uh the first place is at page 184 of your packet is 138 just as a reminder 138 because it was a reg that's in place already already shows up as a red line so many of what appear as as track changes or red lines here are not actually new so I'm only going to cover new ones if other if I go through them if as a hint of their double underline they're probably not new that's sort of the that that means that they were in a changed as part of your earlier process um so the first change you'll you'll note is in the table just in the table of contents 138 73 um it's it's actually not noted in your packet um we are using the term confidential information as well as personal personally identifiable information uh to go beyond a bit beyond it in the data privacy reg so really throughout this reg and all of the regs whenever we use personally identifiable information you'll see the phrase personally identifiable information and confidential information the distinction being confidential information might have to do for instance with someone's patron activity etc as opposed to just their personal banking information um you know and personal um secure information like birthdays and and social security etc um okay so um just take your attention all the way down to 138 uh oh three um on page 189 uh small edit there was a little bit of confusion around the use of the term that the gaming licensee had to implement and abide a system of internal controls uh within a period of no more than 30 days uh that was really more of a transition provision for both gaming and sports wagering I think at this point internal controls are in place uh before uh wagering happened so that that was that was a small removal there um Nina I'm sorry um I must be looking at it where the language that's omitted um isn't showing up I'm looking or it's just a comma on 138.03 that's taken out is that the um am I looking at something and look at the sorry it's 138 oh I apologize 138.07 that's that's why um madam chair my apologies oh that makes more sense okay now I see the peer thank you my apologies no problem and then um does does that impact the um those natural licensees that are in the pipeline um as I understand it it should not because the way you've been approving uh internal controls first and then issuing um operations certificates and Todd or Kayla like again let me know if I'm misunderstanding that procedurally so I you know so it shouldn't because those should be in place beforehand I think it's okay so that's really just kind of an edit that reflects our practice as opposed to something correcting for the future all righty correct correct thank you um the next um place of call to your attention and there's very little in this one to be honest 138 in in general in 138.09 uh this is just um at the end of 138.09 um on page 199 um we um we this I think was in here already that but there's a question that came up about it just to in the in the comments I wanted to address uh this says essentially that nothing in the internal controls relieves a um an operator of having to prepare or maintain records for any other purpose including 223 or 205 cm there was a question um was that cross reference supposed to be to the sports wagering internal controls and the answer is no is intended to be for anywhere else in 205 cm so if they're a gaming operator they may have other obligations their sports wagering operator might be somewhere else in the in the 200 series uh for instance with respect to their advertising logs which would be in 256 let's just a brief pause on that question apologize as as Katelyn said this will feel a little bit less uh less fluid because there's a bunch of little things uh to go through no apology needed okay well thank you um it's not new so I'm just gonna keep going going pretty far down here so I'm just uh getting us to the right page again a lot of these were edits made in previous iterations um and I'm working off cheaper so we are actually going to go all the way down to let's take in the very end of this reg in 138 73 so this was the section uh if you recall that had to do specifically with data security uh it was a longer section we were splitting out to the other reg most of the changes here reflect comments from the attorney general's office initially which have to do with uh aligning this section properly uh in their view and just making sure we're covering all our bases with other state data protection laws and you you'll see that term confidential information and personally identifiable information pop up again that will be defined when we get to the when we do the privacy reg but essentially personally identifiable information is slightly broader than what the what is protected under state law generally as personal information confidential information goes even beyond that to information about individuals activity on a site um me now could you just give the page please so sorry that I did 261 okay 261 we can put that in thanks so much about that yeah 73 so that's really the only change from what we considered before right correct it's it's really the purple language is a change is that update the attorney general's office in in reviewing the data privacy regs did make one other suggestion that we would recommend it's a fairly small one at the end of D the very last section of the subsection here they would add the words or any other personal entity so D would read the procedures to be used in the event the gaming licensee determines that breach of data security has occurred including required notifications of the commission or any other personal entity and so that's to ensure that their data breach procedures are you know are capturing not just reports of the commission but any other required notification like under 93 h and 93 either so that was the intent under section one but this is to avoid any doubt so no we would suggest adopting it and that is it and I think that was the only substantive comment from the attorney general's office so far on 138 okay commissioners any questions for me now in this regard it makes sense for us to not you you want us to hold our vote did I get that right or I would like you to at least hold your vote till the very end if that's possible and take them all together is that just in case we need to go back and forth but we're going to hold filing thereafter as well so the filing so right now we have a consensus no questions right commission okay thanks correct so I will proceed on to 238 again fairly light edits here these are the ones the regulations applicable to sports wagering internal controls and in this case red lines are new so there's just there are there's no old red lines here these are all new so I'll walk through these the first set of changes to highlight is on page 271 so the way that if you call way back 238 and 138 interact is with respect to physical facilities so initially at a cat one and a cat two the portions of 138 that have to do with things like physical security surveillance monitoring etc would all apply to sports wagering areas or sports wagering facilities equally that always contemplated cat two as we're developing the category two regs we wanted to call out places where there might be distinction um for instance uh in uh two so you'll see three paragraphs in 271 the idea here is that in one um in account one facility an individual who would be uh supervising a surveillance department at a casino that also has sports wagering um account one would normally be a key gaming employee because cat two employees would not be gaming employees we want to make sure was clear that they had to be at the level of supervision where they would be required to have an occupational license under 205 cmr 235 so that's just calling out that distinction um to to make sure there's someone of a sufficient um seniority and and supervisory ability overseeing the surveillance department uh the second one has to do with the requirement that the facility be protected by security uh at all times um cat two facilities unlike cat ones may end up not what may have times when they're closed cat one facilities are essentially open uh around the clock so that provision is to ensure that their security even when a category two facility is not open and the last one um there were some advantages a cat one had in terms of already having room for law enforcement bureau and sports wagering um division personnel to be there um in within the cat one facilities as we move to cat twos uh the floor plans might not necessarily have those spaces so we wanted to call that out separately so those were the three issues and sort of cross walking between the 138 requirements and things that may not already exist in the category two facility that we needed to call out here any questions on that commissioners who is sharing hill oh i think he's talking to somebody else um i i guess i'm just asked i guess i'd ask to pick adequate space for law enforcement does that mean office space or does that mean standing space i believe it it it could mean either um and this may be a i don't know if um director lilios is here but i i would say that this as i've understood this to to operate with the gaming side it's really whatever space they might need to be able to do their jobs adequately so that may be in some places uh space simply to monitor the floor but in others it might need some more operational space or to the extent they need to have some permanent um space for equipment etc i didn't get a chance to look at 205 samar 133 and 220 233 um i don't know if that explains it karen i don't know if you have any insights on that i just don't i want to make sure we're not being ambiguous if there's an expectation to have built an office space for them yeah i don't know who's who's just joined to um it's office space karen for people do audits and uh uh you know complete their their daily work on operations in the facility so i think the expectation is that the way it reads is we would want them to have office space for staff is that the question maybe i'm just understanding the question yeah the question is in the rag itself it just says that the cat in category two sports wagering facility the floor plan required by the rag shall depict adequate space brahm enforcement officers for the bureau and sports wagering division and for designated agents for the purposes of these two rags and i wondered if that meant that means building out office space not simply being able to monitor yeah and what we did done in the past with the other properties is the basically the commission has to approve it so the commission does have the authority to say that's not enough space you've got to give it some more space if necessary i mean i don't know if it warrants the word office space but i think the monitoring space on the floor is a given but i just wanted to make sure all right um madam chair i might say um if or if you if we want to call it explicitly i would say adequate office and other space because i wouldn't want to limit it to just off i agree i agree it was in severe office surveillance in other space i mean because it's a there's a me for surveillance spaces flow so we will add that in office comma surveillance and other space maybe all right thank you um then the next section um is on the following page 272 um there are two sections that are new here um with the oh sorry actually three sections um the three three edits in case slight wording change uh for clarification that house rules must comply with with 240 205 cmr 243 which is actually the gli 33 um reg and that's just to clarify that the gli 33 reg doesn't itself tell you how to write house rules they just have to comply with those rules um l and m um are to to connect to the data privacy issues um l is the internal controls requirement to have internal controls to safeguard confidential and personally identifiable information as talked about before uh and ensure compliance with two xx is the privacy rule it will have a real number it's not so private that it won't have a number um and the statutes and other um and other and regulations from that exist in the state for data privacy protection um m is a comment uh that was suggested by the attorney general's office um to allow some transparency on how operators um use computerized algorithms automated decision making etc in their processes this was i believe a version of this was in the original 138 73 before it was before we sort of took it out and put it some of it back in here um so this the idea here is again to have have a plan on file and internal control explaining how the operator will use these so that they don't get misused uh two small additions to the draft you have before you uh one there's a typo and permissible there's two p so we only have one uh it's on the fourth line down in m and then at the end the attorney general's office has suggested and this is you know for your for your discussion and to add the words and a description of the measures the operator utilizes to minimize the extents to which its use of any such systems promote addictive use so that is going a bit beyond having a plan for how we'll be used but also including a plan for how to minimize use of of algorithms etc to in a way that might create addictive use so that's this section i don't know if there's questions or or feedback on on this particular piece but this is repeat in the internal controls the g's office is can you tell me mina and commissioners i'm waiting for you to interrupt me but can you can you tell me you said this language was in the earlier version or was it in the i'm going a little bit off of memory here madam chair so i i don't misspeak but um the the beginning of the the language not not to minimize the use of language that's new but the language regarding use of computerized algorithms or how they're used i believe was at least discussed in or in a very early draft of 138 73 the data privacy reg i'm not sure and i know it didn't make it into the one that was enacted but it is being suggested here as as part of of this round and i just wondered why we didn't include it we didn't include it because as uh because we at the time when we were doing the internal the first round of the internal controls regulations we took what was a much lengthier 138 73 and we had started getting comments from both operators and and the attorney general's office that i think led us to the conclusion that we should have a separate data usage and privacy reg altogether that made more sense for sports wagering rather than trying to glom it on to 138 and so it's now sort of it's now coming in to reflect that new regular regulatory piece so this was this was one of the ones taken taken out of 138 with the attention to put back in here trying to understand the i guess i think it's interesting that we're going to have at a minimum description of permissible and impermissible uses of such practices and capabilities i hope there aren't any impermissible uses that they would be reporting on well what's important is just to remember this is for the internal control section so when we say the description of impermissible uses it's not to say it's to allow an operator to make sure that their employees know you may not use the algorithm for the following yeah okay good thank you so that's for the control and if you were to give us examples Bruce or others of the permissible uses outside of the suggestive language of the AG's office what would that be first is it for security for instance is it for integrity are there other with those those issues yes i want to understand what we're using this for i could i could see AI being used for trying to find bedding rings or people that were sort of trying to influence bets or odds something like that um you know something where you're using that kind of algorithm to find a problem integrity issues yeah integrity money laundering yeah i know one of the i don't want to speak for the attorney general's office but for my understanding and conversations with them about where this some of this idea came from and from their comment letters just to highlight a few things i think part of this is to make sure that the commission has a set an understanding within the internal controls of what algorithms are being used for and so that you can assess your comfort so for instance if there is a use of these for certain marketing practices but it is um benign in the sense that it you know it it might be a regional algorithm to figure out who might be interested in learning about games in their region but isn't targeting isn't creating that might be permissible for instance you may decide that's permissible but you may decide uh or an operator may decide that's permissible use but more um invasive marketing that if that an algorithm that i don't know targets somebody who's who does show signs of a problem um another permissible use that i know has come up is if if the operator is seeing problem behavior to try to get somebody help so in some ways yeah so that's another permissible use so you are so you really are connecting it to the marketing that was really my question that this i was wondering if it was also integrity and security initially and kaitlyn gave the good example of the money laundering and the use of that um or integrity issues but are you saying is this the genesis of this really around marketing you know well i will again i don't want to speak for the ag's office but i think in their letter part of the desire to see this was to to get us to have for the commission and the commonwealth to have an understanding of what operators were using their algorithms or ai for so that if they are using it for marketing you could make the appropriate judgment call if that's consistent with your existing marketing regs and other efforts you've made around responsible gaming so i i do think that's a concern that the attorney general's office has had is um this these algorithms made you know the this kind of um machine learning algorithm work may not actually be something where we today know exactly how it's being used and this would surface it i suppose i'm if it's used for surveillance and security and integrity we'd want to make sure it was being used in a permissible fashion too meaning and correct they're non-targeted perfect right um commission commissioners what do you think if you want to see the language that the ag should we put that up in front of us to see about the language that seems very geared toward marketing at the end that was why i was asking the question that suggested language commissioner skinner do you want to see it i think that makes sense but i think really it's all of the above to to your point um i'm appreciative of the ago's insights here um and rather than us trying to come up with the universe of what is permissible and what may not be permissible um this sounds like a good way to get disinformation in front of us for review um yeah probably to be flagged by the sports wagering division if there are any anomalies you agree with me though commissioner skinner that it's broader than marketing and that was where i was struggling with it i do yeah i bought up i think that's okay i don't i don't yeah yeah yeah i do too commission over i any yeah no i i agree with what mr skinner just had and what you were saying i like the language i mean part of this is is you know forces introspection too on their part right to be more deliberate about what they're doing with this data and then we're going to know too and if we find something that we think is an unacceptable use and or we want to direct them to be able to use that information in a proactive way for responsible gaming and the like i think this language gets us there right madam chair i'm happy to share a red line that shows the great thanks i need to make it a little bit bigger please is that better yeah yeah so the red is um is is what you see in front of you that we added prior to the most recent set of comments of blue is a description of the measure the operator you utilizes to to minimize extent uh to which is use of such systems promote addictive use so the way this sort this may be a little bit more marketing focused but yeah it does tie into the permissible and permissible uses so a use that might be um permissible in one way but in the hands of someone who does have uh who might suffer from an addiction um could be a problem what this is asking for is to also see what are the internal controls you're going to put in place as an operator to make sure that there's a way to avoid the sort of machine taking over and making a problem worse um because of that but i i do agree that as a whole section m or subsection m would go well beyond marketing it could be for other ai purposes or other uses of ai yeah yeah that's what i was thinking it was going for when i first read it because i didn't have the blue language and then when i heard that language it threw me a little bit i'm sure that's what you're thinking i don't chair when i was reading through it i i looked at it as basically a disclosure right on behalf of the operator through their through the rules so i i'm probably fine with that i think there has to be a larger conversation of what we do with this information once we know how the information is working i did think to myself when i was reading it the way ai works right is it's always ever changing so perhaps we would have to even get additional information over time but you know i looked at it as more like a disclosure and how do you feel about the um recommended blue language that's in front of us because that's new from the ag's office right i think that i'm all for the um the language that our team provided and then the ag's office has picked up on typo and then added that last clause which is more directed toward marketing fine with that i i think it goes a little broader than marketing i i think i'm okay with yeah me too we'll ask our legal team any concern about the phrase framing from my perspective madam chair i i see it very similarly to how um commissioner maynard sees it that this is a disclosure we'll find out how they're using it um and i also agree with what commissioner bryan says i think excuse me one of the the benefits of this is causing the operators if they haven't already and you know they very well may have to put down in writing what you know what they're doing with this and have their own internal conversations of what isn't isn't appropriate uses um since they do have to disclose it and so i don't have an issue with that you're not um requiring necessarily any particular measures um to minimize and you're not banning any particular uses up front but it gives you a chance to look at it i might suggest the word may in front of promote um i think a lot of operators going to have trouble believing that any of its practices promote predictive services but that's just my my mind i don't want to diminish if that that diminishes the ag's um intent or if it helps it i should uh madam chair this may be just a good opportunity to know we are going to because one of the reasons we're holding this is that they will have another chance to to sort of see any changes you make to it so um we can certainly run this particular point by them uh um on its face i don't see that as an issue i think you could actually read that as a good catch-all so that somebody couldn't say well we're not doing addictive use so so we're therefore it's okay as opposed to seeing what the i think our operators would not say that they are any practice that promotes addictive uses so may i think that that was my only question all right thanks that's really helpful for me i mean the whole conversation commissure bryan commissure thank you commissure hill and if i may i'm going to stop sharing madam chair and we can always do that was really helpful thank you um so if there's no further questions on that section on that portion i'm just going to scroll down to the other changes in 238 um in 238 07 um this is on page 276 there's a few additional cross references on there's already some information security responsibilities in the internal controls regs here but this now kind of standardizes the language we're using to refer to personally identifiable information um and to make clear the cross referencing to other data privacy laws this was important uh from from the attorney general's office that we were happy to incorporate uh similar changes on the following page 277 i will note there may be some places where when you do see the final the words confidential information will need to be added if they were missed but that again it's that sort of phrase of the two taken together um 238 13 is on page 281 this is a entirely different issue altogether back to the we're killing multiple birds here this is a a question that's come up as i understand it to staff and the lead internal legal team um the 238 13 was intentionally supposed to be very simple and follow the complimentary services um this uh tracking and disclosure requirements for uh the gaming entities 23k requires um a sort of monthly statement that goes to patrons this was in the statute um for um for any complimentary services or or goods including i think um and again totter or katelyn correct me if i'm wrong but uh including sort of a a status of how you you know what you played or when you played in the past month 23 n does not have that requirement and um i think on further reflection um staff and legal's recommendation is that it's not necessary and in fact in a context where um one could get could engage in sports wagering just by picking up their phone as opposed to having to drive to a gaming facility there actually may be uh uh unintended consequence of sending someone a monthly invoice uh to say here is what's been happening with your account um if you're not using your server reminds you that you might have one so the suggestion is um everything else in terms of internal controls around complimentary services disclosing what's been given tracking etc for record keeping stays in place but not the sending out of monthly invoices uh to um patrons so mina can i ask is in as part of that conversation was mark and his team part of that conversation and do they agree that it's better to not send those out um i'll defer to todd and katelyn on that i i so this will we kind of have this conversation perhaps in a in a serial way todd or katelyn i don't know if you know mark was part of that i am i am not sure but we can absolutely circle up with him and and get his take on that before filing and if if he disagrees with this um come back to the commission yeah if he disagrees i'd want to have a deeper conversation but if he's of the same mind i'm fine with it any other questions on on that section on page 284 there's a small addition disclosure um to this was about disclosure of confidential information um provided in for the purpose of investigating or preventing any inappropriate conduct we had already had a reference here to disclosures to sports governing bodies or or operators we had understood that implicitly what was no means intended to override a players association's rights to information but the players associations did ask specifically for for a reference to it their concern is they want to make sure that they have um um you know the operator uh you know isn't just giving the information to the governing body especially if it's if it involves player misconduct or alleged player misconduct in that case so that that was added there um the following page again a few sort of cleanup edits to use the defined person personally identifiable information and confidential information and a little more of those but let me just see the next place where we may need to discuss um this is 238 35 um on page 299 um we removed a section um and and for reference you'd need to go to page before it to see what it is um there were concerns i think as as once you know we start to see this in action um that there might be confusion or too much discretion uh as to when uh a bet could be canceled for human error uh without prior notice to the commission and an opportunity to weigh in uh so the recommendation was to move uh subsection high essentially out of the category of times when a bet could be canceled uh or wage excuse me could be canceled automatically or without further requests of the commission by an operator which are generally easily objective measurable things an event is canceled a change in venue things like that whereas i had a little bit more um potential judgment calls in it so the recommendation is to take that out of uh of subsection one um and it would still be captured although no new language is needed in the all other circumstances in subsection two so it's not that it could never happen but it would require um a request of the commission to cancel when in those cases keep in mind that this is cancellation by the operator having a reasonable basis uh as opposed to um if the the bet um you know clearly has um when the the patron requests the cancellation are avoided because they made an error that still stays under subsection quick i mean i may madame chair if i may um i may be asking a dumb question but how does this interact with um 247 oh three subsection 11 not not a dumb question at all uh wish your major because um we will talk about uh how this interacts with 247 and 248 there'll be there's a cross-reference back to 238 35 and that's that will be one of the updates so all right okay i'll wait yeah thank you fantastic sorry um commissioner maynard did you say 247 0.11 okay so page 315 in the packet subsection 11 yeah so we can talk about it now because that's the substantive issue is really there um so the if you go to page 315 you'll see a new language inserted there's sort of two pieces to it um the the new language inserted i'm actually looking for actually if you go first to 312 sorry that's that's where you want to go first 312 requires one of the things now to be in in house wagering rules um how the operator will cancel or void sports wagers in accordance with 238 as opposed to for obvious errors so that sort of takes out the obvious errors piece and commissioner maynard your question i think is a sort of second issue on 315 which has to do with parlays um the the answer is that house rules may have in them and i believe some do some don't is my understanding uh the ability for the sports operator to maintain the rat the bat and do not cancel a bat or to cancel it depending on on their house rules if one leg of a parlay um is cance is itself cancelled however those would still be uh in objective circumstances so let's say it's a multi game parlay and one of the games gets rained out that's you know during baseball season one of the games gets rained out the operator may in their house rules have uh have said if that happens the parlay stays in place or they might say it does not but that should just that what what 247 will do is to say you just have to be clear up front about that in in your house rules um if you're going to cancel only the portion that's there how it interacts with the provision we were just talking about is um a little less direct but it wouldn't be considered an obvious error and if if what the what the operator can't do is determine that well no one would have meant to do this parlay because it doesn't make sense anymore because of the rain out so i'm canceling it um they just have to follow their their explicit objective house rules as opposed to making that judgment call got it and sterl i don't know if you i saw you pop in i don't know if you had anything else to add on that piece but no that was that was very good thank you oh um this girl that does mean affirm that they need to affirmatively address it one way or another yes when we review their house rules we looked at the address that um what happens when the voided leg of a parlay yep okay so any other questions on uh so we're back on to page 299 just for reference so back i'm sorry to which page uh 299 yeah thank you and when you said it's all encapsulated in section two section two is untouched right section two is untouched that's really any other circumstance where the operator wants to uh would like to cancel a wager and has to ask ask to do so yeah if there's nothing further um i'll keep going to so on page uh 303 just more of the cross-referencing to data privacy and and the and the series of statutes and ranks there same again on 304 um and then on 305 uh this language so in e the first change is just uh make using the defined term the second larger change is that the suggestion of the attorney general's office from their march comments not the most recent ones um this has to do with the uh use of personal confidential information it's sort of the permission to use data uh personal data and personal information um and the attorney general's office suggested and i think this is consistent with some of their other regulations or at least their their the best practices they recommend that authorization for use has to be clear uh and conspicuous and receive apart from other agreement or approval um i apologize i don't have the states off top of my head but i do know that there's at least one or two other states that require the same and essentially it's not so when you sign up to the to sign up your account you have to also if you're going to acknowledge for use of data it has to be separately acknowledged um and most of the other languages just details on what doesn't uh count so acceptance of broad terms is not um simply hovering over an authorization or keeping it open for a certain time you have to affirmatively say that your data can be used so this is a a practice that ag recommended as a as a way to further secure personal information and data questions on that commission guess we're all set here yes and i one um suggestion we did get um just the other this was this came in i guess yesterday uh from the attorney general's office um and we can talk about how to handle these particular this kind of suggestion uh they did suggest that perhaps 238 45 um two basically after c on this page same page excuse me prior page 304 the last red line where it says 205 cm r2 xx the attorney general's office um would suggest taking all of the remaining language uh into the data privacy reg instead of the internal controls reg so just the language we just talked about on 305 and and the a through e um i think this is more of a placement or repetition piece uh my suggestion for the moment uh would be uh i think because the internal controls regs kind of function to tell you what to put in the controls the data privacy regs may be what the what an individual patron who's worried about an issue might open up that it actually may be preferable to have it in both um would be our recommendation uh in our conversation that we plan to have with the attorney general's office we'll see if they see any major flaws without thinking but i my preference would be to keep it in both places one for really the operators and sterling and bruce's team as they're going through internal controls to know that it's there and one for the um for the public to be able to see what their rights are with respect to data usage so i don't know any any reactions to that that would be fine with me yeah i agree with you i think both thank you sorry sorry i'm jerry i think i think that um everyone's in agreement with that great okay um so with that um i can move on to 247 if that's okay or would you rather pause on these two and take those take the other two separately i think you'd like us to to wait hold on on the boat so we'll proceed right commissioners okay 247 in that case we will march onward and they are getting shorter as we go on i promise um 247 uh there are not many changes here we actually already talked about two of the more significant ones on page 312 the cross reference for uh the operators policy for canceling avoiding sports wagers is now in accordance with 205 cmr 238 35 as opposed to for obvious errors so that's not an available option uh at least without asking initially to the next change is the one we discussed on 315 that uh commissioner maynard pointed to pointed to that's with the parley rule that would be changing there and then i'm just trying to see if there's any again on page 323 this is another clarifier tying back to 235 and making sure that's correct this is sports wager and operators canceling again of of uh any wagers um madam chair can we talk about the notification piece and and and how that works because i do see that there have been some changes about so i see that the languages used must immediately cancel an unauthorized or prohibited sporting event back to 11 but but it's also can you say where you are though jordan please i'm back into 11 i'm back into 11 i'm sorry i apologize we moved the page i'm back on 11 yes on section 11 and page so not the actual language 315 looking out of the language not that was changed i mean the the parley language but the unchanged language yes it is dv it's all yeah yes i'm sorry i i commissioner maynard i should have gone over that and i have forgotten that we didn't talk about that piece of it um the suggestion there is um um there was a concern um that if the operator does canceling and refunding uh they may not the way the language read before um suggested that you could wait until after you're refunded to note that there was a cancellation and the desire after again with with a bit more experience now was for the commission to find out when bets are cancelled um and if the refund isn't you know simultaneous to find out again that to make sure that it's been refunded so that's i i think commissioner maynard is raising an issue that we probably need to pause briefly on i need a quick clarification with the legal on that um can we pause and i can make a call Todd could you call me please can we um madam chair could we identify the the issue is it appropriate well i think it yes i think um if i'm correct i just want it may i don't want to raise an issue if i'm wrong completely unnecessarily do you mind if i just pause for a quick one minute call with legal um thanks uh we'll reconvene and then if it is then i'll i'll share a little bit more commissioners get it but if i say something and i'm just completely wrong it would be an unfair all right um we'll return in five minutes at um at 255 thanks thanks dave good to go great we had a very brief um break but i will um just best practice um when everybody comes on i do a quick little call again once everybody arrives um oh here we are okay commissioner bryan good afternoon good afternoon mr hill good afternoon hello that commissioner skinner good afternoon good afternoon and good afternoon commissioner maynard good afternoon and and thanks everyone you know at any point in time um any commissioner can pause if they want to just get some counseling i um as i was thinking about our review of this particular provision i did need to check in with um general counseling and um the deputy general counsel monahan joined the conversation so thank you for um for that and the quick break everyone so after conversation with the chair and out of it abundance of caution we would advise holding uh the commission's conversation on this particular section 247.0311 until after uh some of the current uh deliberations on potential non-compliance events are closed just because discussions could um potentially get into that territory so we can just hold this if it works for the commission we'll hold this particular provision and bring this back once deliberations are closed commissioners does that make sense to you are you okay with that and are we going to have a tight window are we going to have others that come up are we going to have a small winner to come back and adjudicate and move on we'll take a it could be tight we'll take a look at the time we'll take a look at timing and um make it work i think we need to get those deliberations done so this is a good uh we'll have um proving and grace work their magic okay commissioner maynard are you all set with that i am i'm perfectly happy to table the conversation but like commissioner brian said i do want to revisit this soon and um you know to be clear any modifications and any reg does not have anything to do with whatever's come before us and the facts and circumstances that have already presented themselves and there's been a change in this already but um i would like to get it sooner rather than later um madam chair just for my clarification um since so we can help prepare the the next draft of this um we're only speaking about the last sentence i take it here the sports waging operator must notify correct or set for the whole change section 11 i think it's related to the first sentence also sorry to interrupt sorry i'll turn to katelyn on that yeah i would suggest just uh tabling this whole paragraph subsection 11 all right thank you now and and i agree absolutely with commissioner maynard and that was certainly the point that the council raised as well uh it does allow us to be more transparent with our discussion if we just hold briefly thank you um um madam chair that that break actually uh gave me the opportunity to to note that we should stay on page uh top of page 316 for change okay so uh i saw that one yeah so this is uh one of two comments we'll address today and actually the other one is in 238 which i will address we're going to go back to at the end because it's a new section in 238 uh but this one is in 247 uh we had added the language uh the integrity health or welfare of athletes as one of the reasons that a wager may be canceled for good cause again this was at the behest of this players association the idea being that if there is um to use an example internet chatter that um players being harassed or costed uh with respect to a particular event that's being wagered on because their performance might lead to a certain outcome on a wager they may end up requesting uh that there not be wagers permitted on that to kind of take the temperature off again this is not uh it's not the end all beyond it's not just a request there's a whole process and the governing bodies have always had this ability but it adds in other the reasons to going beyond just the integrity of this of the activity to the integrity health or welfare of the athlete um after this draft was put in the agenda we did receive slightly different wording um as a subsection e rather than doing this change in d simply adding subsection e may undermine players safety or the safety of players families um as as an alternative um the concept is the same um but that the idea is to to be able to to deal with that kind of situation if it comes up do you want to comment after integrity uh I I would although I'm in um also because I'm willing to take just uh what the players association offered it would you would actually undo this change and add a subsection e that would say may undermine players safety or safety of their families yeah okay good yeah fine I think this was a big issue for them yeah and not only did they discuss it with us via a letter but they followed up with us a couple of the commission not with us but with the commission staff um I'd be okay with adding the new section Mina got it I agree kept coming up over and over and we have seen too many things happen lately over the last couple of years so I think it's appropriate thank you so we will make sure that's in me so it's not added on it's a substitute it will be a substitute as a sub subsection correct yeah thank you um so the next edit is in page 323 um if that is unless that is part of what we should not discuss so I just want to be clear about that is that okay Katelyn okay this is fine yeah okay uh this is just another cross-reference to 238 35 for how bets are canceled 324 uh this is a couple more comments uh from the last round of edits from the attorney general's office in section 24709 about promotional offers um the um the last addition here is the conditions this is in terms of what must be documented uh in record keeping by the operator for promotional offers um conditions or circumstances under which the uh promotion is displayed uh really to round out how it was advertised so this would be captured in part by 256 but uh sort of the belts and suspenders to make sure that how how promotional offers are are advertised or shown to a patron are also recorded or kept in kept there's a record kept of them excuse me um subsection two has a few uh suggested edits uh drawn from comments from the attorney general's office using the phrase clearly and conspicuously in the disclosure of terms which was always the intent but just to be uh slight rewarding from from where we're before the that uh subsection sub subsection b i guess uh shall provide full disclosure before anything of values exchanged again uh that was always the intent but made a little bit clearer number three this will actually be this is one we wanted to discuss a little bit further with the AG's office they suggested taking the 90 days to down to 30 days my understanding of this is a concern that promotional offers that get stale may be harder to track or harder to you know to fulfill uh we want to talk with them and just make sure we understand this before recommending shortening uh especially because in this particular field uh wagers may be made pretty far ahead of when an event happens i that's something that for instance on parlays or a longer term prediction um wager might factor in too so i just want to make sure we understand that so we are kind of holding that one for further discussion as well whether to shore it from 90 days the last two in this section yep the last two in this section are uh also the suggestion of the attorney general's office um four would essentially prohibit a promotional offer based on referrals as a sort of referral bonus as a promotional offer and five is a item that would have been true but again given that these regulations are both public facing and operator facing a reminder that promotional offers have to comply not only with this section but all other provisions of law including everything in certainly your regulations but also the consumer protection regulations um this is a bit of a savings clause so um again it's a little different than advertising when we talked about through advertising i think we tried to stay very broad uh because those were that's just general advertising as opposed to particular promotional offers which is what's issued so any questions on all of those just mean out of curiosity the provided that 940 cmr and then the series of subjection what is that um it is part of the retail advertising regulations and those particular carve outs came from the attorney general's office um i don't have them right in front of me of make a commissioner brian but they were provisioned that they just want to make clear probably wouldn't make sense in the sportsway during arena so that they they didn't want to have a challenge to you know to that piece of it they were they're very clear that they don't believe these to apply in this okay okay thanks um i believe that's it for 247 may i will take up 248 begins on page 329 um uh page 250 again um changes to refer to personally identifiable information um there was a request from the attorney general's office a suggestion i should say that they have a telephone number be added for as a way something the operator collects for the patron um which i think is just another measure to ensure security um and to have a sort of another point of contact um a couple of other places again where we use that information or use the sort of cleanup edits um the uh edit on page 331 under item 3h is a requirement that basically allows for verification that the person using the account is using their own debit card um not somebody else's um this is consistent with other rights you have that you you may only set up an account for yourself but that's that was the intent there um 331 uh sorry bottom of 331 very small edit just moving words around slightly for a little bit of clarity because i know there was a slight the ag's concern was being um read that it would be their social security number at the time and as opposed to the whole thing at the time um uh section 332 uh again another suggestion is to utilize identity authentication questions uh at that at the time of account establishment this is on page 332 and 24804 um i'm just making sure i'm not missing any new comments but no thanks again uh bottom of 333 um again several changes just to update for a confidential person identifiable information so it's a lot looks like a lot of changes but it's actually falsely capitalization um mean on on just subsection 4 on 332 well i guess i guess like i was just thrown off by the commas structure got it then the next change uh that we should discuss um is 248 16 um this uh sorry on page 338 thank you um so there was a the suggestion was again to make clear that uh responsible gaming limits be clearly and conspicuously posted for uh so that's that's included here um we included this with respect to the first time an account is set up or the first time a deposit is made into the account um in the first time um there's a missing word there apologize places a wager from the account the attorney general's office would actually um there there one place where we didn't pick up the edit is uh rather than say the first time the patron makes a deposit will be each time a patron makes a deposit i think that's a policy judgment for the commission whether to require re-notification of responsible gaming limits at that point uh for every for every uh deposit not every wager but every deposit so i don't know if there's any feedback on that at this point i guess mine would be the same i had before in terms of mark's team do they have thoughts on whether it's helpful or harmful to send notifications out in that circumstance um so commissioner brian this is one of the comments we received just yesterday so we can certainly discuss it with mark we haven't had the opportunity okay um other than that and of course fixing a wager here um that that's it for this one here we are before we take we discuss how to proceed with all four i do want to just note one other section in the sports wagering internal controls i was suggested by the players association as an additional section um and so i will um go to describe this it's it's a bit longer and i'm not sure that we have uh unless i can get it up on the screen if you give me one second um the the issue here has to do with um within the internal controls um they the sports the players associations have asked for a section called deference to collectively bargain agreements and the provision would essentially require that um an operator well and the commission as well consider and where possible give deference to rules collectively negotiated between the league and the players association governing player safety misuse of biometric data coordination with injury in other states uh investigation of of gambling related charge involving professional athlete um so it's uh again we just received these um i think at the end of last week um and our team only had a chance to look at them yesterday um we'd like to since we are likely to revisit these regs anyway discuss this at that point i'll put up on the screen just to see if there's any initial feedback um the concern i i believe in our conversation with the players association is they just want to make crystal crystal clear that nothing in these regulations um would up and uh negotiated for agreements with governing bodies um i understand the concern i don't think there's uh much reason to fear that it would um as between the governing bodies and um the players associations you don't regulate um you don't really regulate that relationship or really the the performance of sports or the um even the gameplay what you regulate is simply wagering on it um and elsewhere if you recall when we talked about discipline or when we talked about um how information would be shared with players uh associations um so and excuse me in governing bodies we've also made it clear that we weren't trying to get in the middle of what happens uh if a player is supposed to be suspended or suspended with or without pay or whatever else it might be find that's not up to the commission as as respects to what's under their collective bargaining agreement that would be with respect to the governing body so i think there's reasons not to insert this um but i you know again the commission may want to review this more closely so it's as we just got it we didn't want to go too far i'm going to try to share my screen the only issue is we have this in a very small form so i'm going to try to zoom in on all the way if i can okay this was a comment in a pdf so i don't know if i can make this any bigger than that but um quite easily so let's see if we can do this not really everything else gets bigger but that so i'm not sure that helps but that's the gist of the provision that would be added um madam chair i'll defer to you if you want to hold this for now for a future conversation or if there any if there's any feedback we did receive them in our own um emails so you gave it yeah um if you read it out loud it might did everybody have a chance to look so i can certainly read out loud it's in the body of the email as well um which just wasn't a very easy way i can share that either and can you just um it's 248 again the subsection sorry it's 230 it will be a new 238 51 it'll be a new added section that's what okay yeah and so they would just define covered persons and really to mean everyone affiliated with the league um or with a sport um including um pyres referees medical professionals etc and then i would say unless otherwise described in law regulation on any charge involving the conduct of a professional athlete the commission shall consider and where possible give deference to rules collectively negotiate between the league and its players association governing player safety misuse of personal biometric data coordination with inquiries in other states and the investigation and resolution of a gambling related charge involving a professional athlete um so essentially the concerns i have with the language just on its face um one is it does leave open when is a lot another law regulation in place i i also think it suggests maybe more involvement on the part of the commission than the commission really has um so for instance if someone is accused an athlete uh does an endorsement deal let's say that violates 256 um and you decide to take disciplinary action under 232 you would be treating them as an individual who should or should not should be licensed or was violated your regulations 205 cmr uh you would not at that point be weighing it at all on whether that person ought to be fined by their league uh or ought to be suspended by their league or anything else that's sort of on the discipline side so that's that's why one reason i don't see a need there with respect to player safety or misuse of biometric data um the player safety issues we talked about a little bit uh are ready uh but to the extent for instance uh a collective bargaining agreement requires um a governing body to use or not use biometric data in a particular way the contractual relationship would be between the athletes and their and their governing body and so again there's not really a role for the commission to play other than to get the information from the governing bodies and since you are also worked we did add provisions to make sure players associations are adequately you know at the table and getting information when needed um if there's an objection to it that may be something you take into account before you decide whether that uh league data is appropriate to use uh with reference perhaps to the collective bargaining agreement but ultimately uh there i just the sort of again 24 hour was worth a reaction to this not then there may be some further thought on it i i do wonder if we would need to think a little bit more about um any concerns of the commission um being asked to arbitrate with a small a disputes over what what a collective bargaining agreement means which is not something you're really quick to do or or or task to do in your jurisdiction Madam chair my first thought my first inclination is that we would not look at adding this to our regulation at this point and meaner i don't know if you can look for us to other jurisdictions but i'm not so sure that any jurisdiction would adopt such language i think it's out of our belly work as they say yeah i'm not aware of any that has it uh when we were pointed to other jurisdictions in the past around this they might have had reservation clauses to say that ultimate disclosure obligations might be governed by collective bargaining but that's about as far as in life which is similar to what we have already other comments are we in agreement with the commissioner huh in that case um madam chair that email just for reference also had a reference to section 152 of your regs that will be coming before you add on a later date so i'm not going to discuss that now um and we are trying to incorporate the concept if not the exact language into those regs um that was a concern about player safety uh as well right so we've been able to be quite responsive overall correct yeah and commissioner hill you're you're nodding your head but that you feel the same way right okay so with that i think we've wrapped up uh these four regulations um and uh given that there are some outstanding issues um you certainly could take a vote to accept them as modified today um but we will try before and then kate and then todd and kary and i don't know how if you want to proceed that way and then we'll prepare clean drafts just to make sure everything looks in order as well as provide any other updates based on the conversation with the attorney general's office on the privacy rick yeah i think that would be very helpful um if we could get a vote you know on the on the commission's consensus on these four today uh what we'll do is at a later date in the near future bring them back um and we can highlight at that point any additional hopefully minor revisions but then we don't have to sort of walk through it all again and refresh everyone's recollection um also because you know the next few meetings um i know we're going to have a bunch of rigs so want to be cognizant of time so yes if if the commission is amenable a vote on those four would be helpful before we move on to 256 and we would just have to address that subsection of them right there are a couple of things we talked about today where we said you know if mark has a difference of opinion or that that particular subsection your referencing chair um we'll bring those back so well we have our notes to bring those back when we come back um a second time on these you will see the what i will say to you today is even if you vote on them today you're going to see them again for a final review before we file does that make everybody more comfortable about the timing issue okay so do i have a motion on these first four then we'll go back to the um did we did we want to do them separate madam chair did we want to just do a very big motion you're comfortable doing a big motion does that work for or we have to do the business statement seat as well so what works best for you legal individual votes i always like individual votes i know it is a little cleaner okay commission hill let's go for the beginning uh 138 so madam chair i move that the commission approved the small business impact statement and the draft 205 cmr 138 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today i move that the staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process relative to this regulation i further move that the staff be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process okay okay commission right hi mission hill hi uh mission skinner hi and commission me hi my vote yes thank you five zero before we get started on 238 is up where there was at least a request to address uh raise um the question for director bander lending was it 238 or 247 238 right there were one in each i believe one each yes okay thank you okay on 238 do i have a motion i move that the commission approved the small business impact statement and the draft 205 cmr 238 as included in the commissioners packet but only to the extent reflected in discussions here today i further move that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process relative to this regulation i further move that staff shall be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserve or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process second thank you commission right hi mission hill hi mission skinner hi mission me hi i vote yes five zero all right then um 247 that the people to i would address that section 11 as well as clarification from director bander lending i have a motion 247 sure thank you okay i move that the commission approved the small business impact statement and draft of 205 cmr 247 as included in the commissioners packet and specifically is uh limited to our discussions here today and further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth by emergency and thereafter and begin the regulation promulgation process relative to this regulation further move staff be authorized to modify chapter section numbers or titles or file additional regulation sections as reserved or make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process second questions edits commissioner bryan hi commissioner hill hi mr skinner hi mission hi and i vote yes five zero all right uh 248 i move that the commission approved the small business impact statement and the draft 205 cmr 248 as included in the commissioners packet and specifically as limited to our discussion here today i move that the staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process relative to this regulation i further move that staff shall be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process second any questions edits mr bryan hi mr hill hi mr skinner hi mr maynard hi and i vote yes five zero thank you minna thank you for getting us through that and uh now we have that last drag that right at the end of our document correct and uh this this one uh should be fairly quick and i believe uh again i'll look to the rest of the legal team we're not actually asking for a vote on this one today because there may be some some other things we want to think about with 256 before voting on it again uh but this is a uh just a small oversight uh i apologize i think it was my oversight um we had um discussed removing the word branding not in every location but in some locations where it did make sense to require that a logo for instance be accompanied by all of the surrounding messaging required for uh responsible gaming and under uh prohibitions on underage gaming etc uh it was called to our attention that 250 6051 uh inadvertently still had the word branding we went back and checked for all other uses they all fit except this one so this um um change would simply take up branding as part of the requirement to show to say that uh patron excuse me under 21 years of age or older um cannot participate i use the example i believe when i shared this draft of you know the signs i could think of at least two operators that advertise on the green monster um and that was not the intent what was not to include the messaging there um so i think all we're looking for today is a consensus that that you agree with our intent and perhaps procedurally and kate when i i see you might jump in i'll i'll defer you procedurally on how to do that but um perhaps as a waiter but i think so one of the things as as you can probably tell um is that we're now dealing with when we change a reg it kind of locks it up for two to three months um and so what what we would suggest doing here is just uh voting on this particular subsection of the reg voting on the amendment to this particular subsection so it will sort of lock up this subsection that being let me open it up 256.05 but to the extent there are other advertising related issues in other sections we want to bring back we can do that separately um so the long and short of it is i think it would be helpful to have a vote on this we will file this we will get this started through the the process but the rest of advertising will remain open and well it's finished but uh uh it will be able to to make modifications if necessary going forward does that make sense well i think it's important that we we clarify this issue commissioner brian you've got a yeah so i'm i'm curious as to why branding is being removed from this youth section so there's uh commissioner brian this particular section requires a disclosure that any uh any of the listed categories of advertising just close that it has to be 21 plus in trying to distinguish the just what these different types of advertising mean we've used branding throughout to really refer to when a logo appears without any as i think one of the operators put any call to action it doesn't necessarily tell you what the logo means or where the website is other than just the name of the entity so to use a generic one um you know a coca-cola logo would be branding as opposed to drink coca-cola or or getting you know here's here's what you should enjoy about this uh yeah i guess my my conundrum with that particularly when it comes to the youth however is this isn't coca-cola you know this is something they cannot use so the having a bet mgm or a bar stool have something on it that says must be 21 plus to me i think is appropriate i think we did vote on this before we had this discussion yeah so i thought no no we had the discussion to exclude branding that's why well well i guess i guess i'm glad that people are perfectly i'm i'm troubled by the idea that you would see images the purpose of which is to perpetuate sort of brand loyalty and affinity and not have something that just says even a 21 plus um not necessarily an rg message but the reiterating that it's a 21 plus somebody i'm not sure if that's meant is that um i'm sorry if somebody was speaking on that i couldn't tell who was speaking just now i think karen said something karen you were on i couldn't i couldn't see who was speaking my apologies no no i just say it again please i was just saying that i think crystal had uh flagged it and had been working on this for the sport trading position yeah your audio is just slightly off karen just so you know um which is interesting it goes around you're not in kathy so it has to migrate down karen's i know i know michael somebody else said that there's something in there because you can't i mean that you know me yeah i have problems with my email um i can offer a little bit of context if you want i think um that and from the conversation before a maybe a better clarifier here of why it's not just the advertising piece it's t-shirts letterhead when you include branding the operators now have to on a letterhead or or a business card a t-shirt or you know coaster anything that's just logo base would now have to have that branding and in other industries even anheiser bush you know doesn't have to put must be 21 plus under theirs so it's um i think it just kind of brings it in line with that but that was the context from before madam chair yeah the way i'm looking at this commissioner brian i've thought a lot about this too um is when you add the advertisement piece to it then you've really got the you know the issue but you know i'm thinking of i you know i love sam adams right and i do look at the coasters when i'm at the sam adams and that you know they don't you know that it doesn't have all the disclosures that they do in some of their advertisements and so that's how i'm trying to compartmentalize this i don't know if that helps or hurts but um yeah i guess i hear you and i guess what i'm struggling with is even in the example that crystal just gave of you know a coaster that's probably going to be in a bar or you know so the likelihood of it being something that is an image or a branding impact on an under 21 is already by the nature of it contained i guess what i'm struggling with is you know you know the bet mgm logo or the mgm logo at on the green monster and you've got kids seeing that at the football game at the baseball game i it's i'm just wondering if there's some other way of making sure we're protecting that impact no and i i'm sorry to interrupt commissio brian um i i anticipated incorrectly um it might be helpful because this piece of the rag is kind of just taken separately but what we are talking about is inserting responsible gaming language correct and um 21 plus yeah would have to be on it so we're taking branding out from the requirement to say must be 21 plus on it it would be more than that right didn't we try to define what that responsible gaming messaging must be in and included things like the logo dph uh logo but this this subsection only says you shall have you know you shall say patrons must be 21 plus or older to participate it's it's restricting it's up to that line okay so that's what i wanted to add yeah so it's just the shall state language not anything else so um to commissure maynard's point on a let's say um we have one of our operators have a t-shirt with just the the name of it what you're saying is that they would have to add that language branding commissio brian they're walking down the street is it that they're going to have to include that so what i'm wondering is so i i'm and i'm drawing a distinction commissio maynard like you were saying on certain things versus branding in environments where to me it's different than you see an adult wearing a t-shirt that's got that on it they chose to put on they're walking around and you're on the street versus they're almost advertising by the nature of how they're putting up the branding mark and and i would like to see a way that there's got to be something like you got to be a reminder that is 21 plus in that context as opposed to um the marketing paraphernalia that crystal described commissio brian just for completeness on this the rest of this section i just want to be clear we're not proposing to taking up branding for provisions where there might be the target audience certainly can't direct it folks under 21 so yeah exactly so i yeah no i know yep i hear you and then my other question is is it in line with the casinos with the gaming piece too right like if i'm an mgm shirt right so i want to be fair there too yeah it's it's a it's a part that when i realized it was on the green monster i had the same i had the same reaction to it in terms of saying geez you could have lily day where they're all filing in the stadium and then you're branding something with sort of subliminal messaging i'm going to be the devil's advocate though and say they're going to be sitting next to a beer to you know a glass of a beer not one that has any you know it's they're going to be you know sitting next to someone who may have a cannabis product um well hopefully not out in public like that right you're not supposed to be smoking it in that regard not smoking not smoking no but you know um it's i um i i felt i had some reservations when we first visited this commissioner brian and that i i i got more comfortable so i just maybe you know just have had a little bit more thinking um and and i was at venway and i and i did notice um but we also up until up until august 1st i went to fenway and our other licensees have their their brand there yeah it's a concern i have um in that regard too quite frankly right and that's why we did turn to advertising last september in a way that we hadn't really dug into advertising and it continues to be an area where there's great exploration really pleased to see you know so many of the leaks come out this past week with affirmative statements around it but i wonder about if we if that if that or language were added commissioner brian up on the we shouldn't just pick on the monster that with that satisfy you know really all of our issues right can i just add one quick clarifier there so the green monster add by the way the bet mgm one i think we're referring to that has a call to action and does in fact have both the game sense and the 21 language on it but an example here from a recent game i was at the Bruins logo on the ice where it or sorry the um there's a operator logo just on the ice as part of the ice where the other there are other non-industry logos so that's what they're talking about here but the monster at is an ad well crystal i don't know i don't know if that's true i think there was another operator too but i if that language was there it certainly wasn't visible so um on on the green monster um maybe i'm wrong but i just saw the rain look again i that was one that i had looked at that they had given me so maybe a different location but the one that i have shows that um it's just um i might be wrong i there could be several placements they're often are but so that might not be the same one but i had just seen the one on the other hand was and there were a couple of our licensees that had the branding then way um and and from my perspective when i saw it i did say well it's in compliance because i was thinking of this reg as amended um to take out the word branding so misters where are we on this how are we feeling mr skinner mr hill i have no problem with removing the language but i understand the concern likewise i i don't see a reason to revisit i don't personally but i do respect commissioner o bryan's concerns and so if we need to revisit um we should we should do that but for today's purposes i'm trying with um proceeding without uh that language in mr maynard uh i i'm fine with removing the language what i will say is i share commissioner o bryan's concern and i really don't want the exception to swallow the rule and then have an operator say well oh no that wasn't an ad that was just branding that's right and that's however we have to manipulate this reg to make sure that doesn't happen that's how i'm okay with an operator having a logo on the parquet right on a tv garden but but again i don't want the i don't want it to swallow the rule that's well put uh commissioner maynard i think that i feel too um i share um commissioner o bryan i think i i noticed earlier your concern and just might have just been gotten a little bit more comfortable earlier uh it it does a practical problem for the operators commission uh uh misha hill yes so mina um i like the word that commissioner maynard just uses a way we can manipulate this regulation to um alleviate the concerns of um commissioner o bryan and leave it as is until you come forward with that manipulation um i i think one way we could do that and try to get at a more nuanced version uh would be if if the consensus you know i think what the the operators are wondering is whether they can or can't do something in the meantime and so if the and obviously some of these um i i'm glad i'm not the only one that watches the green monster signage more than the game but it had the same had the same reaction you know obviously sort of pretty big signs that would not be easy to change overnight if the commissions take is that you're letting these be during that time perhaps through a waiver while we bring it back i think that might work but there is this concern out there about um you know is it is it or is it not okay right now if that makes sense commissioner in other words yes we can certainly try to come up with something that says for instance uh i mean just thinking on the fly um we might say um you know because what i want to do is make sure we're we're already covering a lot of the targeting in other portions of the reg so that's already captured but if there's some other nuance that we could add to it that might help but we don't but there is still they're out there now so this is i the commission's aware of them so the operators just want to know the the stance on it could we define branding meaning sorry commissioner when i was going to ask that very question but i wanted to clarify for the commissioners as i am looking at the green monster images from 2023 i do not see any language other than mgm and that's how i remembered it when i went um recently as well actually it's it may have changed they did change it was um mgm the casino before and actually i'm looking at an article so i feel like i'm not speaking out of turn from just my own right but an article came out march 8th from the sports business journal the logo for bet mgm will be smack and the logo and i think that might be our defining point for bet mgm will be smack in the middle of fenway parks green monster in left field as part of the betting company's new role as the official sports betting partner the red stocks goes on to say that boston-based draft kings which has been the team's official daily fantasy partner since 2021 sits atop fenway's green monster seats and those are the two that i did observe i did not see any language i saw strictly the logo without any call to action and that was how i remembered this discussion so i might as i was enjoying my green onions green peppers and onion sausage i am i am this being a little bit worried about compliance so um so i so mean i and i do see mgm rewards here so that must be an older an older one um that's probably not because it was definitely bet mgm now so so mean other question is can we define um branding um we can i'm just confirming that it's not already defined in the statute but um we can certainly try to define branding i we want to give it some thought the the issue with defining it is i again i think what i'm hearing is not necessarily it can the branding may be in different in different places so for instance let's use a t-shirt example i i think you probably will define in a way where a t-shirt covers it does it you're ready if you make kid-sized t-shirts that'll be barred by other sections if you made t-shirts that had a boston college logo and an operators logo that will be barred by other sections um but if you made an adult-sized t-shirt um i i guess if the consensus if that is okay if that is part of branding um that something can fit into that it's um trying to figure out where the delta is you know what we want to call branding that is covered it isn't covered also keep in mind branding is using a lot of other places in the statute where we do want it want everything to go with it so branding of any kind including just a logo can't be on like i said a kid's t-shirt we don't want to define branding in a narrow way to do that i think what would make the most sense is if you're trying to allow for just a display of the logo without a call to action we can look back at the comments i do recall several operators some operators that said to strike it some had thought of other ways to sort of add more complicated language about that if it's in a in signage um or other places so we could look at that i still have no problem removing the word branding but i understand the concern of a couple my fellow commissioner so if we can somehow come up with a um alternative for the word branding maybe that will answer and address our issues christa did you want to add anything further just to help us out and i'm i'm an agreement with commissioner hill um or maybe future uh but christ don't just make sure we've thought about this probably anything else i would also have to review some of those comments but i'd agree with mina that there were a few um examples of how other jurisdictions have handled this section um the particular use of logo especially in in a business context as opposed to in a marketing conference um right and and or um just actual sports placement alongside other brands but um i don't have anything further to add i just think that the clarifier there that a lot of them were articulating was like business card letterhead like really the way it is now it has to be on anything and everything um and sounds like you guys are working toward a way to define or identify the separation i guess that's what i'm looking for like you said christal this is maybe those comments have it in there how to thread the needle of this is purely business plus 21 at you know no risk of exposure this is really a marketing slash branding and and in that context for me then there should be a 21 plus in the latter let's see where we are commissioners i think that i was hearing a consensus um with respect and recognition of commissioner bryan's consternation um that we could go ahead keep the the word branding out for now and then explore perhaps opportunity for clarification is that a fair assessment um i am don't want to speak for you so everybody trying to i'm probably a no um absent reaching that language that threads the needle but i think you've accurately conveyed sort of the the temperature of the commission um i i'm not sure that you are accurate in the way i was thinking i was i was willing to keep everything as is keep the branding in there until we received um clarification i was willing to do that for commissioner o bryan i'm going to join commissioner o bryan also i'm going to point out that the reason um why i'm having concerns is that i am appreciating the issue but there might be significant practical issues here um and i guess i'd want to think about that because what we'd be saying is that we keep branding in um folks at benway and any all those letter heads and all they're going to have to be altered immediately are we okay with that to add that language i i think i heard minna say we could do an exemption for those until we got the language did i miss hear that that's when i that's where i need the clarification so um yeah which we do which we did before by the way i i i want to get it right i mean i i think that getting it right is more important than anything else and i mean obviously they're operating right now i was i've been to a few self-excavations and i saw it it's the branding on the floor um i mean i i would want them to not have to immediately as you said chair make these changes but i do want to get the drawing of the bright lines correct how long of a period of time do you guys think in terms of going back looking at the other commentary and being able to come back with proposed language do you think you would need i don't think we need long on our end commissioner brian my only can you know only a couple of things it's it's just a timing of when it can come back to you for a vote is really what i'm thinking of you know what do you have any recommendations i um you know i am thinking of crystal's list of you know even letterhead business cards anywhere that logo is um you know i as i mentioned in that article though it was a word logo right and and no call to action um at a certain point in time i'm wondering are we are there any legal restrictions on us in terms of what we can actually impose on it or we can there are limits but i do think requiring a 21 plus wouldn't be you know outside of that okay i know that i do think the takeaway from some of the prior meetings was at least an understanding and i think that's why yourself and others you know didn't blink to see to see it without the 21 plus in a place like Fenway perhaps uh myself included um so one suggestion might be um since we are trying to both get this right but also not cause a people in the middle um perhaps if i could suggest a sort of more limited waiver than you a waiver you know for a week or two i don't think it's going to take us longer than that to come up with language or to come back and tell you that i think there's just that i think that what i'm struggling with is um i appreciate the desire for a bright line rule um at the end of the day whether something is i think the business purposes part is easy it's sort of not coming out as advertising i might argue that that's not you know really captured anyway but you you know you could sort of cleave that out pretty easily it's the branding you know it's i think the commission needs to have a decision would you want ideally a 21 plus uh sign or or message in some way uh on those variety of other things and then it gets more complicated if you're talking about um you know a sign in a public place like the garden or the green monster um a t-shirt um and would you distinguish product by product um so that's that's where i think you're it's going to be hard because all of those you could probably move one into a definition of branding or not that they are clearly used for marketing and advertising a brand um so there's it's it's how you want to distinguish them or what you want to be the defining factor is i think what i'm looking for that between when you want the message and when you don't and if it's place of usage i think you're already are covered by the rest of the regulation if it's targeting of underage folks you're probably already covered by the regulation so if we're talking about um medium that i think we just need to think about what what media are okay and which are not i would also add you know one of the other things is you can't put it on things that are target i think we've talked about this one before things that would be um where the medium itself might be conducive to or sort of suggest underage use you know you're not going to put on that not to be used extreme example are rattle right so that's that's obvious one but there might be obviously other ones could you give the obvious again i missed it sorry i rattle right you're not a baby rattle um so um yeah but or or toy um i think that's actually might be explicitly in here uh toys or other paraphernalia like that um so i i apologize to i don't mean to make it more confusing but i think that the dividing line isn't necessarily going to be clear by defining branding because it's really you know i think reasonable minds could differ whether you want a 21 plus sign or not uh at the garden at the on the green monster it doesn't change that it's branding it just changes whether you're going to add that feature to it the business use i think is an easier carve out that that we could probably do you know with it very easily enough something within a couple of weeks madam chair that i'm comfortable with that i i feel what you have said i think a couple more weeks won't hurt i might suggest then a waiver for a call it a month um we'll get it back to you within a month and then when we bring the new language back if it's approved we might also have to consider a secondary waiver for things that are sort of already up and we take a little bit of time to change depending on how this goes but um i think just said to get through today a waiver would work and then we'll come back to you quickly could i ask if we could look at what other jurisdictions have done on this issue please in addition to the comments that we've gotten already i mean in addition to the comments we've got already yep uh thank you i think um the aga we should turn to them too to see if they've addressed this in any way they've been coming out um really quite proactively on things most recently i'm not sure if they've addressed this particular issue okay other comments um so we're going to give it uh Caitlyn's asking for one month commissioner hill are you comfortable with that i got a thumbs up from one commissioner commissioner skinner how you feeling about this waiver is and whether it's 30 days or or longer um if that's the only way i can kind of come on board with with this i think Mina laid out the conundrum quite nicely i really am struggling with the impact to cali of requiring um you know the branding in or not removing that language as it applies to you know t-shirts and baseball caps and the like so i do think we need to figure out a way if we are going to define branding we need to put our heads together and and gather some additional information so that we can so we can um make it make sense um and and easily understood by um the industry um but i'm okay with um some form of a waiver um and whether we need to have that uh language added now or how do we determine the process of the waiver in the application of it is it just across the board does an operator have to apply for it how does that work process wise i would do an across the board waiver i think um just because like you know like they said there's probably business cards out there everyone's probably probably has the issue um so i would do an across the board waiver for that particular section related specifically to branding and if i can guide that conversation a little bit in terms of what you guys are looking for in terms of spreading the needle where i'm drawing the line conceptually is to be the recipient of a static sort of forced exposure to me on something on the green monster is different than an individual adult who has chosen to purchase a baseball cap a t-shirt coasters in an over 21 bar that to me is a line that can be drawn that's where i'm looking for this is that if you're going to be coming in where you're going to have people even above and beyond you you can't mark it there at all if you don't know that 75 plus is going to be over the age of 21 even if it's static and it's going to be sort of this forced exposure i think the 21 plus is warranted that's where i'm coming from and i i agree with that 100 and i acknowledge your distinction but i i thought i also heard nina say that in the in the latter situation our reds cover us did i misunderstand that nina uh uh commissioner skinner i think um we're talking about two slightly different things i think in a situation where you know the event is going to be uh or the arena is going to be 25 or more underage folks uh call it or cause it is the work but particular children's event at fenway they might have to cover it up however a regular baseball game is really no way of knowing and there isn't an expectation is not an expectation will be more than 25 percent and i think what commissioner bryda say you'd like to see that 21 plus message there as well correct correct okay so the waiver would be for one month we'll explore other jurisdictions other um stakeholders who can inform the size of the conversation operators do not have to do anything different right now they relied on the fact of our earlier conversation um today was actually to bring the reg into conformity with her earlier vote so they are operating in compliance with our earlier vote is that fair um so it would just be a waiver of our earlier vote um to exclude branding from this this requirement um madam chair just a waiver from the earlier vote a waiver from the inclusion of branding at this moment okay that's good thank you um but in other words we don't have to do it um we didn't act today on this this was done in the past so the operators had been complying it's really not my point is um right uh branding was not to be um required under our current reg was not required or because it was a mistake made was it required you know i'm i'm sure reading the reg it was required but if you're looking at intentionality of the prior vote that's right they were they were they might have been moving as if it was all we all are in agreement with that correct okay thank you that's really my point and so they can continue to operate as they were operating for one month and we're going to visit this for one month and we'll see if there's going to be a change okay everybody in agreement with that mr skinner yes um my question is do we need to vote that's i think we do i think very just disseminated some waiver language which i'm happy to move on to keep the ball rolling now i moved that in accordance with 205 cmr 202.02 sub three that the commission issue a waiver to all licensed sports wagering operators from the requirement currently outlined in 205 cmr 256.05 sub one that branding stating that patrons must be 21 years of age or older to participate and shall be in effect through may 25 2023 as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 cmr 102.03 sub four and is consistent with the purposes of general laws chapter 23 in second i have actually a question about this so this is my concern it sounds as though we're giving a waiver to exclude to exclude branding but we actually already excluded branding um madam chair i'm not i think just to be clear what i said it was a miss miss you know inadvertently left in there we included branding in some places and not others this was not a simple clerical error i think we left it in there and didn't discuss taking it out so we were coming back to make sure you knew it was delivered so i do think a waiver is necessary because what's on the books with the secretary state's office includes a word for it got it thank you all right thank you for the second commissioner hill okay and other questions or clarifiers mr brian hi mr hill hi mr skinner hi mr mater hi i vote yes thank you everyone all right so um that concludes all of the items on our agenda do we have any other um commissioner business we have one item and it's just an idea but the aga there was an article that was just published in las vegas review journal that the american gaming association is um looking at illegal gaming gambling websites and they had line is how they continue to prey on trusting players we just had a really nice um and bold some discussion with mark vandalin and honor research agenda and in this article it does address the aga's been really looking at the impact of illegal gamblers and they've actually even written um a letter to a year ago to attorney general merit garland to ask the justice department to aggressively pursue prosecuting illegal operators to protect american consumers um i thought it might be helpful to not only us but even perhaps the aga ultimately if we might consider looking at the impact of legal gambling uh sports wagering on the illegal market i don't know if we have room in the agenda um in our research agenda framework but um i i think it's an it's interesting people do no question the benefits of of this industry that we were asked to stand up and and we think about our regulatory responsibilities every every day and part of our job is to assess impact so i just wondered if there some if we could maybe circle back to mark and see if there's an opportunity there for us to think about the impact um kind of early on if there's a way to measure it over a certain amount of time the impact on the legal market so something for us to consider and bring to um director vandalin and if you're in agreement i know that he's going to go to the gpac may 4th um for the feedback on as well so i might as a as a member there also raise this issue but i just wondered what your thoughts were too much can i sure it's big i mean i love the idea but that's a that's a broad research scope um i i'm wondering if there's a way to get more specific about it yeah so then yeah i took a broad brushstroke today but maybe um more specific christian and michelle brian i didn't mean to interrupt yes no mr skinner i was just thinking along the same lines as commissioner brian particularly if we're talking about the fy 24 uh research agenda i don't know you know how much um the timing plays into you know whether or not market his team can pull something like that together um i also wonder about the availability of data on the illegal market i mean and i know that um the aga has conducted its own studies as as uh you know we alluded to madam chair but you know i think a deeper dive into what it is that we might be able to focus on in that uh in that research would be helpful but the concept for sure um makes sense to me okay mr mear christian hill i'm highly interested in it madam chair especially you know a big motivator for me um from august 1st forward was to you know really put the hammer down on the illegal market um and that's why i wanted to to move forward so quickly and so i am interested in it and i think it's a great idea okay so let's see um thanks commissioner hill you said agreed okay got it so let's see um i don't think uh director vanderland's here but maybe something for him to put on his radar uh and just maybe being able to get some kind of baseline but i agree it could be a big in scale but maybe there's a way to do some kind of a pilot some sort so all right that was just on my mind and i commend the aga for its fore come in this area anything else okay so we need a motion to adjourn and then just a reminder grace where we headed today that's uh you are headed to the everett city hall for a public hearing that will begin at 6 p.m this evening um and if you didn't see the email from joe there will be parking available for the five commissioners um and he sent directions in your inbox okay and with the address and we should probably get there just a like quarter of six um the latest right something like that i think that would be good keep traffic in mind keep and we'll be rush hour and uh grace we've we haven't received too many comments but you're going to make sure we um before the end of the day that we have those in our email box yes we have received one written comment so far which i will send to you all um and we have a few three speakers currently lined up but i'm sure more will be at the hearing that's right and and if it's three then it's the three that we'll be happy to hear from and we are happy to be there two hours in commission meeting you'll be joining my um video um we are thinking of your family okay um thank you welcome um there's a filet of fish right down the street so jumping on that before we come oh commissioner you know um i i may actually jump right on that so is it drive through because otherwise i'll join you in person all right um i have a motion to adjourn and great work everyone today thank you so much mission to adjourn thank you commissioner um i'm sorry commissioner brian thank you second second excellent all right any discussion all right mr brian hi mr hill hi commissioner skinner hi mr manor hi and i vote yes five zero and again thank you to executive director wells for um living through today's uh uh meeting uh it was a very very good discussion and we're we're very very grateful for your work thank you everyone