 Just give me the thumbs up, Dave, when you're ready. Ready. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And it's so nice to see you. Okay. So we'll go ahead and take a roll call. Given that we're working from our virtual platform. Good morning. Commissioner Cameron. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. I am here. Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Commissioner Hill. Present. And so we'll proceed. Today is Wednesday, January 12th. 2022 public meeting number. 367 Gail. Been there for them all. Call to order and get started. Good morning, Karen, with your administrative update. Good morning. So I'd like to start the administrative update just with a little bit of an update on what we've discussed internally about a day of service and recognition of the MLK day of service. The national. Initiative. And Crystal Howard had volunteered to help out with sort of looking to what we could do. It's a little challenging right now with COVID and Omicron. So she did some research into what we can do. And I was very pleased with what she found out and an option for us. To do in recognition of the day of service. This is something I'd love to be able to continue sort of that service mentality for the agency and give more opportunities. It's a little tricky because we can't quite get together right now, but at least this starts the ball rolling and starts that, you know, that culture of service and culture of helping others. So I'll turn it over to Crystal just to give you a little information on what we have for you. Thank you, Karen. Yeah. So as Karen mentioned, one of the big challenges right now for any volunteer service is people and amongst the pandemic groups, large groups of people participating. But we also have some constraints with our scheduling because not everybody works nine to five. So we wanted to make sure we found something right now that we could kick off, but that was also inclusive. So we've been in contact with an organization called Building Impact. And they're very familiar with working with large groups and they go with a more virtual platform. So what we would be able to do is virtually create kits for the homeless, especially right now, while it's so cold, they're called winter warmer kits. And specifically, the organization works on the back end to compile those kits for us and they go to the Pine Street Inn. Pine Street Inn would then disperse the kits for us to anyone who needs them at this point. So what that looks like for us as an agency is similar to what we're doing right now. Everybody has the opportunity at one particular point for the kickoff to come together, hear about the organization and exactly how we'd be impacting with this winter warmer. And virtually creating each staff member who is interested would be able to create a kit, go into their portfolio. They have a virtual online system that allows you to pick what's in each kit, write a little message to include in the kit so it's more personal, and hear exactly how that works on the back end and that the impact actually comes with a report at the end of the show. Who was impacted, how it was impacted, how many different kits we compiled, and lots of fun data. Derek's on the next data. But yeah, essentially the nice thing about that is it'll also be open for 48 hours. So at any point we've had a lot of interest in this one with the survey that went out, but everybody's availability is so different. Some people cannot participate even though they're off on the holiday. Other people want to do it on a weeknight. So we'd leave this open for 48 hours and anyone at any point can go into it, create the kit, get the message themselves if they're not able to attend the kickoff is what I'm calling it. They call it the virtual home base. But that means that if you're working at the casino late at night, you can still participate when it works for you. If you have childcare issues, you can still participate when it works for you. So that is the gist of it. We will be just working with them to facilitate that. And it's really great. I've actually participated with this organization at a women's conference a long time ago before the pandemic. So it's great that they took hold of this virtual ability to do this with many different companies have participated. Thanks so much, Crystal. Any questions from the commissioners? Any questions or comments from the commissioners on that? Okay. Just a comment. I love the idea of where the pine street in and the good work they do. So I just think it, thank you for researching and coming up with a worthy project for us. And no, it sounds, it sounds terrific. So thank you. Excellent. Okay. Thanks so much, Crystal. And big thank you for the work on that. So the next item on the administrative update, I'm going to turn it over to Bruce band for the onsite casino updates. And I think then Loretta Lilios also has an update for us as well. We'll start with Bruce. Morning. Madam chair and commissioners. I'd like to start. I'd like to start this out by kind of telling you that during 2021. We helped intercept. 3,740,916 dollars and 57 cents for the department of revenue. These funds are unpaid child support payment and taxes, which this was a record year for the assistance and collection on this. This is a credit to both the casinos and our staff for making sure that these funds were intercepted. As far as reports, MPMs had a very successful Marine toys for Tots. They collected 24 pallets, which really filled up two full semi trucks. One of the most successful years they've had collecting. They had very successful years eve parties with no incidents and evidently lots of fun. PPC's New Year's Eve festivities went well with no incidents as well. Encore's had great festivities as well with no incidents to report as well. Encore is getting ready for their poker debut on February 21st, which will operate Monday through Thursday from 10 to 6 with 12 tables. They'll also be opening their poker cage as well for this. That pretty much summarizes my report. Any questions? Questions for Bruce? Go ahead, Gail. Thank you. Bruce, first of all, great work in this joint partnership with the intercept. I read those numbers when you sent them out and I thought they were tremendous. Just a quick question. I've always wondered if folks are surprised when they're made aware that, look, a partial portion of your winnings will go to your unpaid debt. What's something that really surprises people? I think some are. I mean, some to the extent that they try and switch the jackpot to somebody else. Oh, I know. Yes. Yes. But yes, I think that they are. It's become more common knowledge, you know, now in the Latinos, but it's certainly a worthy program. This is the only state that I'm aware of that has such a program and it's certainly worthwhile. I agree. That was, again, a well-written legislation because that was built right in. And I know your team picked right up on it and I'm sure helped educate the casino team and made them aware that this is a priority. So great work. Thank you. Thank you. Do you want to just say that number one more time, Bruce, so that we can get it down for our records? $30,740,916.57. Great partnership. I have just a quick question, Bruce, at the very end of your report. You said that Encore would have 12 tables and then the poker and I didn't get the last word. Poker cashier's cage upstairs will be opening as well, which has been closed. I didn't hear the poker cage. I didn't hear that. Okay. So that will be convenient and it's 12 tables at this at this point in time. Right. Okay. You know, doing training and everything else as well. Any other questions? Commissioner Hill. Okay. How's that? I think that we're going to turn it over to Loretta. She may have some additional updates. Loretta. Good morning. Thanks. Thanks, Karen. Good morning, chair. Good morning, commissioners. Yeah. Once again, I thought I would report on some of the COVID aspects of how the casinos are continuing to adapt. Since I reported last, they adapted quickly with some new signage. Regarding the new recommendations around. Masking. And of course they continue to report the number of COVID positives in their employee population that they are aware of. Their numbers have always tracked what's happening in Massachusetts and in the nation. And you're all watching the graphs. So, you know, those are high now. And those ports are high now. They contain vaccinated and unvaccinated employees and symptomatic and asymptomatic people. So, you know, I think we're going to turn it over to Loretta. All three casinos have been able to meet their staffing requirements on the gaming aspects to the IEB's satisfaction on occasion. Their amenities have been impacted due to staffing with some, our reductions and that sort of thing. And I think that the city of Springfield does have a citywide indoor mask mandate that will be reevaluated on March 1. So all staff and all patrons at MGM are masked at this time. On core and MGM are now requiring unvaccinated employees to get negative COVID, see our COVID test on a weekly basis in order to continue working. And those tests are to be performed at the employee's expense. Encore is still running its vaccine clinic five days a week on site. That clinic is available to employees and to family members. PPC is currently continuing to require proof of vaccine status from its employees and unvaccinated staff are required to mask. They have mask, they have not implemented the weekly testing for unvaccinated employees, but they are working with corporate and watching that Supreme Court case on the on the OSHA rules so that they're ready to adapt as necessary. So I think those are the high points that I had to mention. But I'm happy to help try to answer any questions if you if you have them. Christian, Brian, do you have any questions for Director Lillios? No, I don't. I just is it both EPH and PPC that are requiring the negative for non-vaccinated employees or just EPH? EPH and MGM. Oh, and MGM. Sorry. OK, thank you. Thanks. That was my question to weekly. Loretta, they do weekly testing weekly. So essentially, they have implemented the OSHA rule that is under consideration at the Supreme Court now. So essentially, they have adopted that rule, even though it may not be required yet, because it's under the judicial review. Yeah, other questions from Loretta? Can I just ask in terms of the signage? What do we expect of the is a compliance with CDC or state? What is it? What are the compliance with CDC and guided by DPH? So if there are any, you know, usually it's aligned, but if there is any misalignment, they would consider DPH as well. I think the most recent changes had to do with masking and additional attention for those vulnerable populations. So they posted, you know, had new signs made, updated their virtual signage and websites. And in terms of quarantine time, do you know what is it? Are they following CDC? Well, I think they are following the CDC guidelines. That has required some adaptation as well, you know, because those changed recently. Ultimately, it's my understanding is it's a little more helpful because it's a five day piece instead of a 10 day piece. So it's ultimately been helpful, but it required some adaptation in their protocols and communication and HR policies with employees. OK, any other questions? But what we're hearing from Loretta is that consistent with the past, the trends that are casinos, the three our three licensees. Really reflects the trends that we're seeing. Extra. Right. So they are there yet. Thank you so much. Really important update, Loretta. Thank you. So that's it for the administrative update, Madam Chair. I think the next item is under community affairs. Good morning, Chief Delaney. We have in our packet a lot of background information. And so, Joe, why don't we get started with your update? Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. As you mentioned, I did put quite a bit of information in your packets, just so you have some background information on on what we've been talking about with respect to this development. So as you know, Encore has proposed a development across Broadway from Encore, Boston Harbor. The plans have been submitted to the Everett Planning Board, and they include an 1,800 seat entertainment venue, about 20,000 square feet of restaurant and about a 2,200 space parking garage. Now, today, we were going to start the process of reviewing this development to determine whether or not it should be part of the gaming establishment. But in the intervening time between when we had agenda setting last week and now, Encore has decided to pause the permitting process for this development so that they can do some re-evaluation on whether the development as proposed is the best use for the site. I think some issues came up with respect to whether it's part of the gaming establishment or not. That has certain impacts on their development as well as COVID and other things that they're considering at this point in time. So Encore has indicated to us that they will come back to us once this evaluation is complete and they have essentially a final proposal to move ahead with, whether it's this one or with some minor or some major changes. Encore will also be pausing their process with the Everett Planning Board Essentially, what they will be doing there is they will continue that here. They're not going to withdraw the plans, but they will continue their public hearing until such time as they've completed their evaluation and have given the Commission an opportunity to weigh in. So once they've completed this evaluation, they'll first come back to us and we'll go through that process about whether or not it's part of the gaming establishment. And then they will proceed with MEPA and Everett and the other entities that have to do permitting on this project. So that's where we are today. We expected a much more robust discussion today, but given the circumstances, it seems to make sense to put that off until we have whatever their final proposal is to be in front of us. And with that, I will open it up for any questions from the Commission. Commissioners, I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Sorry. I just think it makes sense to for us to it makes no sense for us to move forward with an evaluation without knowing what the final submission will be. So I think this is a good move. Appreciate looking at all the background information. Joe brings back a lot of I remember how hard we worked at those issues and they're not easy issues, right? So thank you for that. But I agree with the decision that we should pause as well, because we do not know what the final submission will be. Commissioner Hill? Commissioner Perry? Yeah, I'm agreed. Okay. Commissioner Perry? No, I agree. And I know that there are now more open lines of communication with our office in terms of their thinking. So hopefully we have the ability to get updated before we actually sit down and have this discussion in the evening. Yeah, I appreciate the pause. I guess the question I have, Joe, did Encore give any sense of timing or no? No, we didn't really talk about a particular timeframe. Okay. No, I think what has been presented obviously makes very good sense for us. We really couldn't go forward as Commissioner Cameron points out. But I think always there's an opportunity to reflect that's excellent. So thank you. And thanks for your careful planning beforehand, Joe. It was a good plan, had we needed to go forward. So at some point, probably we'll be reinstituted. So thank you so much. Okay. Thank you for the question. Okay. Thank you, Joe. Have a great day. I think we're all set with Joe. We're not going to see you again today. So thank you. Then we're moving on to Dr. Lightbaum. Good morning. The topic we have today is the quarterly local aid payments. And I'll turn it over to our financial analyst, Chad. Thanks, Alex. Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. Good morning, Chad. Good morning. Today, I have the local aid payment for Q4 ending on December 31st. And local aid is payable to each city and town where racing operations are conducted. The amount of aid is determined at a rate of 0.35% times the handle from the quarter that ended six months prior to the payable date. So for this request, we'll be using the handles from April, May, and June of this year. The city of Boston would receive $159,073.69. The town of Plainville, $46,894.49. The town of Rainham would be $22,326.04. The city of Revere would receive $79,535.64 for a total of $307,829.86. The details and the calculations of the amounts are included in the packet. And this does ask for a vote. So sorry, questions. Yeah, Commissioner Cameron. No questions. I'm always, this is one of the good things with racing and gaming, right? The monies, they go back to the cities and town. I'm happy to make a motion. Sure. I just want to commend Chad as always. You're so thorough and prepared. Thank you. It's very clear report. Commissioner Hill, I believe this is your first quarterly local aid report. But I suspect as a former member of the Board of Selectmen, I guess select board, these dollars are meaningful, correct? Very meaningful, especially now. Especially now. Commissioner Cameron, you have a motion. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the amounts and authorize payment of the 2021 fourth quarter local aid payments outlined in the memorandum in the commissioners packet and discussed here today to the city of Boston, town of Plainville, town of Rainham, and the city of Revere. Second. Any questions? All right. Commissioner Cameron. I. Commissioner O'Brien. I. Commissioner Hill. I. Yes, four zero. Todd, thank you. And Chad, thank you. I don't know if we've seen you, so happy new year. Yes, happy new year to you. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Leipan, are you all set then for today? Yes. Thank you very much. Excellent work as always. Thank you. All right. Now we're going to move on to, I think it's really internal. Based in correct hearing on the COVID-19 policy. Thank you. Correct. And there are a number of issues just to inform the commission and get some feedback from the commission and also potential vote. So I'd like to start out just on returning to the office. We had the opportunity to return to the office for a couple of months. And one of the issues we are working on is the public meeting setup for when we return to the office again. And we had some discussion about the live stream equipment and I believe commissioners have been briefed in separate meetings on the live stream equipment. And so one thing that would be helpful for the staff as we're looking at this, there had been some discussion about how simple we wanted the equipment to be. And now that you've sort of seen some of the proposals that have come in and we're looking at some of the costs, I think it would be helpful to the team that's working on this to sort of check in on what the expectation is from the commission as far as the experience. And Katrina may want to jump in and help me here on this one. But when there was some discussion amongst the commissioners at a public meeting, they said, yeah, simple is good. But simple can also mean very, very simple where you just have one camera shoots at the sort of like a conference room type setup and no ability to hand back to a speaker, things like that. The proposals that you've seen are sort of more on the middle ground, as opposed to more moving towards similar experience for the viewer and the commissioners on how it's viewed when we do the live stream. So I just wanted a little bit of feedback on what you're thinking is on what simple means, because we had a little bit of a discussion, shall we say, and what does the commission mean by simple? And that could be different things. I don't know, Katrina, is there any other comments you can make to help clarify that that would help you in the selection of the equipment? Yeah, of course. Thank you, Karen. Good day, Madam Chair, sorry, and commissioners. The, so the proposals that we have that we reviewed all are pretty much a net replacement for what we have in the public meeting room today. And I think the qualifier that we're looking for, not the qualifier for the proposal, but criteria, basically, to differentiate is when the commissioners say simple, or are they referring to the experience that they had pre-COVID? Because that could be simple from the experience lens versus the technology. And I think that's where the internal group got very discussion focused on the interpretation of the word simple. And, you know, there is simple technology, which is what Karen just explained, that it could be one camera, it could be one system that just does virtual meeting and one fixed view in the public meeting room, or does simple mean having the experience that the commissioners had pre-COVID with the added benefit of the remote participation? I hope that's helpful. That's very helpful. Commissioner Hill, you've given us some good thought. What are your impressions? Nope, yeah. Well, my hope would be, when we talk about simple, I think of making it easy for the staff to be able to do the job while we're having our hearings. However, what I would think that we would want to see is certainly the commission being able to be seen when they're speaking, but also be able to have a speaker who has joined us be seen on screen as well. And I think the technology is there for us to be able to do that at a very, you know, not too expensive of a process to do that. When I say simple, I mean, we don't need a whole TV studio in there for sure, but we do want to make sure that people who are speaking are seen and are able to be seen clearly. And I do believe that the commissioners should also be able to be seen and heard in a way that, again, is easy for the staff, but again, for the public to be able to see us doing our job and being transparent with what they see on TV. You know, again, I'm always, I'm always want to be careful about what the public is seeing. And I want them to know that the hard work the staff is doing, I want to know the people to see, you know, what our licensees are doing in a very clear manner. And I think that takes more than one camera to be able to do that. But I certainly don't want to see a TV studio where we have seven cameras with every single angle being shown. But I do think some of the setup we have now is very good and could be replicated with what the proposals that we've seen already. And that's what I would hope we would see as a commission. Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Cameron. Commissioner O'Brien. No, I mean, I would agree. I guess when I thought simple, my base hope would be that the floor for what we would do is what we had been doing and that our media people would have that capacity. But obviously there's a judgment call if you're talking about a huge financing gap between losing one or two of those features and updating and not. I think of it more simplicity in terms of, you know, the user on our end, in terms of our staff being able to effectuate it. But I'd love to maintain as much of our, you know, pre COVID and what hybrid abilities in terms of being able to really focus in so people can see the commissioners and what's being discussed. Really helpful. Thank you, Commissioner Cameron. Yes, I actually, I was pleasantly surprised at the cost. I had anticipated much bigger numbers to replicate what we had pre COVID. And I think when we made the decision early on to live stream, it was really all about public, the public being able to participate to watch what we do and the transparency that that provided. So I agree with my fellow commissioners that the floor should be what we had before. Of course, it's not going to be exact because of technology changes, but I for one did not find those costs to be astronomical to replicate something similar to what we had pre COVID. So those are my thoughts. Thank you. Yeah, I don't have much to add. I guess, you know, I have to say looking from the position or the lens of the commissioners. This is our opportunity and our only opportunity to convene and deliberate. And so I'm hoping that the technology really is facile for that purpose. I understand we do want to make sure we have that approach that would allow if a commissioner were not on location that we could hear him or her clearly and have them be, you know, fulsomely involved and participate. We used to do that occasionally by phone. And I don't remember that being problematic to the extent that we have technology to enhance that and use video. That would be great. But I do think our deliberations, our ability to hear each other and work together, that's primary for me as chair. I want to make sure all the commissioners, you know, really engage because it's the single opportunity for us to get together. And to Commissioner Hill's point, we want to be able to deliberate based on the clear information that the team is providing to us. So that intersectionality is so critical and that's really important for the public to see and hear. So I wouldn't want to give on those that quality. What we have in front of us is actually enormously effective for that. And I think that's lost on us. And what's lost on us is that we're not together, you know, as humans, we crave that. But in terms of deliberation and hearing and getting information and being able to transmit it publicly, it's quite ideal. I just, you know, after two years, sometimes it really is tiring. And we don't want to remember what's so important about being, if public health trends allow to being together. So that's really my two cents that it really is about the quality and ease of our deliberation. I love that we can offer relief to our licensees who travel far, you know, particularly on snowstorm days, right? I used to feel so guilty about that. So this, you know, we have some real opportunity here and also opportunity for our experts who call in or would call in from Canada or Las Vegas. So there's, you know, leverage with respect to the technology. So simple, it might, if I'm guessing simple may have been directed like the not necessarily the state of the art in terms of expense, but also simple in terms of simplifying to get to those outcomes we've all described. That makes sense, Karen? Yeah, that's extremely helpful. So that allows us to move forward here. So we'll be prioritizing this because we realize we hopefully will be back in the office for too long and we want to get going on the purchase of the equipment. Okay, the next issue I just wanted to flag for the commission. This is this has come up in a couple of circumstances is travel for staff. There have been some requests for travel, both for conferences and then a director's meeting for responsible gaming issue. We had in during the COVID pandemic up until this point not been sending people on travel. Most of the people that potentially travel, particularly for the World Game Protection Conference are people that have actually been working on site during the pandemic, state police and gaming agents. And then there is another issue or travel for Dr. Vanderland. So I just wanted to, you know, my thinking was that we certainly wouldn't mandate, you know, anyone we required to travel for work at this point if anyone felt uncomfortable, but given that last year people were not allowed to travel in these conferences and these professional opportunities, I think people really do want to go. So I just wanted to get a little feedback from the commissioners that there's any sense of whether or not there's strong feelings on allowing people to travel for work purposes for professional development conferences and even potentially for investigation. So just, you don't necessarily have to decide today. But it would be helpful because there are some, there's a World Game Protection Conference is coming up in February. So we would really need to sign people up and the staff that are potentially going to go and really want to attend. So just wanted to flag that for the commissioners. See if, you know, missing anything. I realize it's tough during a pandemic to be, you know, the optics of traveling. So I just wanted to see if there's any feedback that I should be aware of. So Karen, can I just ask just to clarify here? Is this request to lift this restriction? Would it align once we actually go back to our own hybrid work, or would it actually lift while we're still not going to the hybrid? Well, it depends. So here's the issue. Right now we're working remotely. The conference, we may be back in the office by the time the conference gets, for example. So given that we don't know the date of return to the office, I can't necessarily answer whether or not it would be at the same time. So that's not going to come up today? That's what I'm wondering. Well, I think that later in the presentation, maybe we want to talk about this after we talk about the COVID issue. We could talk about COVID and what the plans are for the office and then bump the discussion on the travel issue. That's more helpful because I think one of the things we have to talk about is what are we going to do as far as timing and returning to the office? You could theoretically reopen it tomorrow, or you could put it off for a number of weeks. And that may be relevant to the travel discussion. Commissioner Cameron, were you going to weigh in? I'm sorry. I was. What I think is important for us to recognize is, I haven't heard about, well, let me just say this. We hosted a kind of, we're the host agency for a conference in September. And I think all the measures were taken to keep people safe. And there was no feedback at all that there were problems with keeping people safe. And I know how important this one particular conference is for us to have a staff that continues to be well trained. If people feel comfortable and we've looked at the conference closely and we think they're taking all measures to keep people safe. And I know it does involve those. We're talking about our state police contingent and our gaming agents. Those are the folks that are working now anyway. So I have no problem. If they feel comfortable, we've taken a close look. We think they're taking every measure to keep people safe. I have no problem with folks traveling to that particular conference. And I think this might be kind of a case by case thing until we know where we are, what's really necessary. But that particular conference is one that's, you know, world-renowned and really beneficial. So those are my thoughts on that particular conference that Executive Director Wells brought up. I guess the only thing I would add, if that's the direction we're going in, I'm not familiar with the conference. So I obviously take your word for it in terms of the import of it. Would be what protocols we're going to have when they come back. I mean, because you're talking about some of the people going, are the people that have to be in the office, is like they could come home and, you know, quarantine or just not be around everybody. And so for the people that don't feel comfortable around people traveling, we'd probably need to have a conversation about what, if anything, people are going to be doing before they come back into the office once they've traveled. And again, that may change given the current state of- Well, right, because- The correction rate and what is the CDC recommendations and, you know, all of that. Right. I'll add in. I guess I'm thinking it would be a little bit ironic that we don't have people traveling into our offices at one-on-one Federal Street, exercising all the precautions that are recommended that you'd certainly do at a conference, you know. And yet we are going to authorize people to go across the country using, you know, I guess I'm just looking for a little consistency. I get it that we've given up a lot. The gaming agents in the state police do, I know Commissioner Cameron said they're still working. Everybody is- Everyone's still working. Just some are working remotely. But I got- You're sorry about that. It's one of those things. You know, I always harken back to parents who decide to stay home full-time and care. And I always say, they didn't stop working. They're working harder than all of us who went off to work. But so- But they have been obligated to work in the public interfacing or going into the office, notwithstanding our pause. So I do see that differently. Commissioner Cameron, I do recognize that. You know, Commissioner O'Brien's point, I think whatever the- You know, folks continue to travel. I'm traveling this week. So we would want to adhere to whatever the recommendations are for keeping everyone safe and whatever the science dictates. Right. But I just think there's a little irony and a little inconsistency in allowing folks to travel here and there, but not into Boston. So- Yeah, we do- It might be helpful. We do- Right now, we don't have any restrictions. So if someone goes on vacation and then comes back, there are no restrictions on that and they would come back to work. So that, you know, that would align itself with allowing for travel as far as our past practices for that. So I don't know if that's helpful at all. Okay. It's tricky. I mean, I can work with, you know, the IEV in particular for that travel. You know, if they are going back to the office, you know, we could talk internally about, you know, do we have the test with them to come back? You know, but if it's inconsistent with travel for personal purposes, you may want to just evaluate whether that's really necessary. So, I don't know, is there any other information that would be helpful to the commission? I don't know, Bruce, any thoughts on, you know, the protocols if gaming agents came back? What are your thoughts on? I don't see why it would be different than if somebody's going on vacation, which we have all the time. But if it really puts people's mind at ease, have them take a COVID test when they come back. But I would treat it more like, you know, a vacation trip or something like that. I don't know why we would have a different policy for people traveling. Madam Chair, like you say, you're going to California this weekend or something like that. I don't see why we treat that differently than a trip to Las Vegas. No, I agree, I agree. You know, I do understand there's a distinction. Folks, you know, we're going to Las Vegas as a group. You know, they're not in the office and mingling with each other in our conference rooms. I understand that distinction. Do you know what the, I think I asked that question, if we have counterparts in state government, do they have a band on? On travel now? We're the only ones that have that right now. Loretta, I, you know, Loretta, did you recall that? I don't know if you're right. I don't think there's been anything in an official policy one way or the other, Kathy. So there is, there's no official ban. So, you know, I can. Karen, I think I'm going to, my vote is to leave it to you. Okay. All right. I just, if it's helpful, you know, I think- Because I think you have to authorize it, right? It's under you to authorize. Yeah, I can authorize it. It's just one of these things. If I missed something, I'd rather talk to you about it and, you know- But we do have a policy where it said banned. So do we have to revamp something? Well, when the pandemic first hit, we stopped all travel. Did we, did we do something like a vote or anything? Or do you just, or you did that? I, you know, I'm trying to remember, because I know I sent out something. So I implemented it because I do authorize it in the course of my duties. So- Because, you know, as Gail suggested, maybe it's a case-by-case analysis, and you have to approve that process, is that that's an approval process through the executive director for her team, right? What do you think, Gail? You're nodding your head. Do you think that's a way to go? I do, and I totally agree with you, and I hear everyone's comments on this. It is, I do, it's so important that we're well-trained, but yet we have to, you know, we have to make sure we're doing everything we can to keep everyone safe. So I think, you know, again, evaluating how the conference is going about doing that, what do they have in place is important. And I think, you know, routine travel, probably not a good idea, but this is a conference only offered, I do think it's once a year, but we do have so many new people when it, it's the greatest turnover, right, or state police and our gaming agents. So I just think to keep them well-trained is important. I'm trying to balance that, and I hear everybody's comments about that. But I would think, for the most part, routine travel, probably not a good idea at this point. Again, I agree with you, Madam Chair, that the executive director is very capable of making good decisions when it comes to this, but she did want our input. So it's tough, and I don't think we're back to normal by any stretch when it comes to travel, but there may be occasions where we can authorize some things that, or the executive director can, that makes sense in balancing everything we're trying to do. Commissioner Hill, any thoughts? The only thought that I'd agree we should be allowing the conference travel, I agree with Commissioner Cameron that you're going to have a balance between the training and the safety of this, but to be able to have the best employees we possibly can, you got to have that training, and I think it's very important. So I would be for allowing the conference travel, but I think there's enough protocols put into place right now that the safety piece that we're concerned about will be covered, and I don't think it's as big a concern. It isn't for me, to be very honest. I think our staff and our folks here are doing the best they can to ensure safety for themselves as well as their fellow employees. So I'm not as concerned as some might be on this, but I certainly want to ensure that we're giving our workers the ability to be trained to the best of their ability, even through COVID. I'm assuming there's no virtual option, but it's interesting. A lot of, as in September, the conference was live, right? There was some streaming, I guess, available, but I also understand that there's such benefit in being in person and meeting in person. That's kind of where we are in our own operations, the value of being together. Unless we have to take an official action to reverse so that you can exercise your discretion. No, I don't think that's necessary. This is just helpful for me, being able to discuss with the commission as a body. This is authority issues, and we want to make sure we're all on the same page, but I get the sense where there's a general consensus about doing the right thing here. Yeah, there is, as I mentioned, just such a funny irony, you know? Yeah, I know, I know. We can't come together as a team. It's just tough right now. All right. Okay. So the next item on this agenda item is, I just wanted to discuss, at the end of December, the commission did vote to temporarily make the utilizing the Boston office voluntary due to the Omicron Surge, and also voted to give the gaming agents team discretion on onsite staffing decisions. So we decided to revisit this approach at today's meeting. The reopening group has met, reviewed options and latest guidance. I do have Natasha on standby here to just give the commission a little bit of a briefing on some of the latest COVID guidance, and then we have some bullet points and some suggestions and recommendations on how to move forward, and the commission ultimately will need to decide about the office opening and what to do about the Boston office. So if Natasha's available, maybe she can just give you a little bit of a briefing. There she is. There. There she is. Good morning, Natasha. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. So I believe we've all sort of spoken prior to this to go through what we're doing now in terms of when we learn that someone has been exposed or tested positive for COVID, but I guess just to give kind of a brief summary of that, currently the HR department is hearing from staff when they have tested positive or when they learn that they've been exposed to COVID-19, and our process currently is if someone has been exposed but does not have symptoms, we've been asking them to wear a mask while they're in the office and be tested five to seven days after the last date of exposure. If someone tests positive and has no symptoms, we ask them to stay home for 10 days and then continue wearing a mask while they're in the office for the next four days. If someone is exposed and is experiencing some symptoms, we ask them to stay home pending their test results, and then we kind of work through the process with them from there. If someone has symptoms and tests positive, we ask them to stay home for 10 days following the onset of those symptoms. They can then return to work as long as they have an improvement in symptoms and they've been fever-free without the use of fever-reducing medication for 24 hours, alternatively, if they receive a note from their doctor that will accept them as well. So that is what we're doing now. It's what we've been doing since at least some time in early December. We tripped and sent out a notification to all staff on December 14th that included those guidelines as well as just kind of some general information about the cold and flu season. And if you're feeling sick, please stay home. On December 27th, 2021, the CDC released some updated guidance on COVID-19, specifically around surges in Omicron. And that updated guidance asks everyone, regardless of vaccination status, to stay home for five days if they have tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of whether or not they have symptoms. If they don't have symptoms or their symptoms are resolving after five days, they're permitted to leave their home and ask them to be wearing a mask around others for five more days. So for a total of 10 days between staying home and isolating and wearing a mask when they leave their home. For someone who has been exposed to COVID-19, it gets a little bit more confusing because there is a timing of vaccine and booster component that comes into play. So if someone is exposed to COVID-19 and they have been boosted or have completed the primary series of their Pfizer or Moderna vaccines within the last five months, they are just asked to wear a mask when they're around others for 10 days and be tested on day five. If that person is not boosted or unvaccinated and their or their primary series of Pfizer or Moderna is more than five months old or their J&J is more than two months old, they're asked to stay home for five days and then continue wearing a mask for an additional five days. So that is the updated CDC guidance. When that guidance was released, Troupi and I discussed that guidance and decided that until we could convene kind of a larger group of management and bring this to the commission, we would continue operating under our current guidelines. We just didn't really feel comfortable changing that procedure until we had a chance to kind of discuss it with, you know, a broader forum. So given that, we came up with a few potential options and brought that to the working group last week. And the working group, those options, I guess, are to continue operating under our existing protocols. With an updated quarantine requirement for COVID-19 exposure. As I mentioned, we currently have not asked people who've been exposed to quarantine. We've asked them to wear a mask. That is new under the recent CDC guidelines. So we're the working group proposed that we add that to our current protocol. The other options would be to align our policy with the updated CDC guidelines, which would shorten the amount of time that we ask someone to stay home if they have tested positive or had symptoms to five days. And then the last option would be to align with the CDC guidelines with the exception of someone who's experiencing symptoms. Because as I mentioned, we have asked everyone to just stay home if they aren't feeling well in hopes of limiting the spread of not only COVID, but also cold and flu. We are in the height of cold and flu season. So this last option would be to follow the CDC's guidelines for the five-day quarantine for exposure, but if someone is having symptoms, just to ask them to stay home until those symptoms resolve. Thanks so much, Natasha. So, you know, Gail and Eileen were in the working group. I don't think there's a wrong answer here. We were just looking at the current options. I think the working group was thinking probably, in the short term, the simplest, easiest thing for the agency to do is just to continue operating under our existing protocols with that updated quarantine requirement. We could, however, align with the CDC guidelines and do the five days. That, you know, the tricky part is that, is that we're not soliciting information about a booster for the vaccine at this point. So that sort of adds that extra layer. But really, it's, you know, they're, at this point, probably the simplest thing to do is to continue what we're doing with that added requirement. It's been working so far, but certainly up to the commission if they'd like to do something different. So, you know, certainly the team here is available to answer any questions or see what we'd like to do. But that's where we landed, at least at this point. And we realized this is a shifting landscape, so it can be difficult and may have additional information next week. And so we're just trying to do the best we can to keep people informed in the office about what the protocol's done. Any questions on that at this point? I have one clarification. So on one item, we're going to change our policy to meet CDC. And then in another way, we're going to do something that's not consistent with CDC. Yes. So that would be the updated quarantine requirement for exposure would be to sort of add on. Because we haven't been doing that. Okay. So if somebody was exposed, they could come to work and just mask up. Is that what it would be? Right. So I would say that this first option is the most protective. Even a little more protective than the CDC guidance because there's an extra five days for the time being. Certainly something we can revisit in two weeks and at the commission's convenience, we're just thinking for right now, that might be the simplest way to go. So again, I guess I'm wondering about this decision because again, it would only apply to the gaming agents. Right. Well, for the time period that the Boston office is not open. Correct. Oh, that's what I'm wondering. Are we making this decision for we're paused right now in our hybrid work? So I assume, I guess I keep on jumping to that issue because I didn't, because it's a little bit affects my thinking. The risks right now that we're thinking about are very much informed by where we are right now without Omicron. Right? Exactly. Kathy, to kind of distinguish here. Oh, thanks, Derek. Thank you. Yeah, to distinguish here, the working group did a lot of discussion around this. So the real variant we have that we're bringing in, even from the CDC is whether you boosted or not, you would have to isolate for the first five days. Under the CDC guidance, you wouldn't have to isolate. You could just wear a mask if you boosted. But that would require a positive proof that you've been boosted. The other thing, the reason the CDC guidance, if you go into it, has decreased the timelines for isolation and quarantine is for workforce issues so that we don't have supply chain issues, so that we don't have employers that don't have work as available. So we asked the gaming agents, is that an issue with you right now, the workforce? And the answer was they're hiring right now. Yes, they've had some people that have been infected. However, they've also reduced the number of people that are in the office to one, during non-peak shifts and two, during peak shifts. So there are extra staff available if someone does have to quarantine. So the reasons that we're not going with the CDC guidance is because we're not experiencing the issues that change the CDC guidance. We don't have supply chain issues. We aren't experiencing workforce shortages right now. Now, if that happens, we'll come back to the commission to discuss that. But what we're trying to do is keep people as humanly safe as possible without changing or having a 50-step if this, then that, if this, then that. It's basically just, if you've been exposed, we don't care whether you've been boosted. We know you've gotten it too. Quarantine for five days, check with HR. They'll work with you on what the next steps are. I thought it, though, it isn't the five days there. This is, I thought it was to extend it to 10 days. Is it 10? Okay, so yeah, that's the difference. That's the difference. It's that we're not doing the 10, right? It may be the 10, but I know what we were talking about is if we're not experiencing the workforce and not all that, keep people away as much as possible. If I could clarify, the quarantine period for exposure would be five days. The quarantine period if someone has tested positive and or is experiencing symptoms is 10 days. And that's the difference in the CDC. And I do, I have to first thank both Troup and Natasha because they gave us an excellent briefing yesterday. And I did say, oh, I don't think that that CDC's position. And I did my own research. I wasn't doubting it. It just seemed odd to me that we might say that they reduced it because of workforce. That really was a consideration. And I know that they're taking into consideration the impact of this on society and the economy. But I would hope too that they're, I mean, I guess I'm very confident that they wouldn't be putting people at further risk, you know, that they're weighing the health because the hospital, the hospitalization rate is bursting. So that reduction I think really took into consideration help as well as the workforce. And I, but I appreciate that and really appreciated yesterday's briefing. It helped me tremendously. So I don't have a problem with us doing it. I just am trying to figure out what are we doing? You know, are we doing this right now? Just it's kind of for the future, I guess, because we're still pausing our hybrid, except for our gaming agents. And we haven't had Bruce's report, but I think that there's been a reduction. I think to that. So I guess I wondered if there was any discussion around the applicability of this for the future. Right. I mean, I think, Kathy, what we would do is this is just for the short term. And in conjunction, I mean, I'll defer to the commission about any kind of office opening decision, but hypothetically say, you know, we were visited in four weeks or something like that. We would also revisit this because we really want to talk about the full office in general, not just the gaming agent team. So I think this is more of a short term issue and we're on the more conservative approach. And then we would revisit it in conjunction with the opening office. That makes sense. Okay. So is there, I don't know if a vote is really necessary, but is there general consensus that the option of continuing operating on our protocols was an updated quarantine requirement for the COVID exposure that option one is the way to go? Is there a consensus there for the short term that we would do that? I would be okay with that. Okay. Yeah, I'm okay with that with just noting that and this is what I noted in our two by two is that, and I've said this publicly, we have abided by the science. We've insisted on our licensees complying with the science and we view CDC and state guidance. So if the proposal had been for the five day reduction, I would be all in for that because I believe in the science. And so I understand that there's some concern that somehow we should be more conservative on that point, but we are requiring our licensees to comply with CDC and the state. So I just want to be on the record that I absolutely support the science that CDC and the state are dictating. And in no way is it, the more conservative I suppose for our employees is just fine. Okay, okay. Could we reassess this on a couple of weeks? Yes, yeah. We can just put on the agenda for the next meeting. I think that's a good idea. You're looking for a consensus. I agree. And of course, I've had the benefit of all the, all the conversations in the working group. So thank you. Okay. Same here for the record. Okay. So I never wanted to question the science. You know, a lot of it is the Omicron variant isn't as contagious for as long a period, but that's not the only variant that's out there right now too. So, you know, that's what was driving a lot of the CDCs. So I did review all of the, all of the reports and all of the science I had a time to. So I, you know, I think, I think we're in a position where we can be more conservative. So that's what we're doing. We're not saying it's irresponsible at all. We're just in a position where we could be more. Yes, I absolutely understand that Derek really helpful. And Natasha and troop, do you really help troop? Do you want it to act? Oh, I just want to also add, in addition to our gaming agents, we do have some employees, just I know for our fact in finance or in licensing, who are actually going into the office on a periodic basis, even though we are allowing full remote just because of the nature of the work. And so those folks would also follow these guidelines. Great. Thank you. Really helpful. Yeah. So there's another group too that would be affected by this. Right. Okay. So I think probably the next segues into the decision on the office closing. So currently the vote by the commission with the office is the closing through today. So the commission at this point would need to make a decision on what to do about the Boston office. The working group thought that for now we would continue the recommendation that we encourage staff to work remotely unless required from the Boston office. We can reevaluate that. I think the schedule is we have a meeting on the 27th and then a meeting on the 10th. So I think the thinking was we may not, we may want to revisit this on the 10th, just based on what we're seeing for the data. I was encouraged this morning. There was some information about the wastewater testing that that may be a sign. Things that things are getting better. But still, there are plenty of Omicron cases across the country. So it seemed as if potentially reopening the offices in a couple of weeks would be premature. So we're thinking maybe revisit that issue on the 10th. But defer to the commission on how much longer they would like to keep the offices just open to people that need to be there. So, you know, open that to discussion. And I think that does require a vote now. Commissioners, do you want to discuss? If I can add to this, one of the things that was impressive to me in the working group was our staff's ability to plan and giving them a month to do so when it comes to all of their other issues made a lot of sense as opposed to every two weeks revisiting this issue, which is a little more difficult for those who have to plan around everything else. So that was that was brought up at our working group meeting. And that and that made sense to me that if we did go a month that gives people a month's worth of certainty. And then February 10th, I mean, it's my hope that this is short lived. And, you know, and we're able to get back and work in a hybrid fashion. But we thought that was that that impressed me in the working group that thought of giving our people a little bit of consistency. Commissioner Hill. I'm okay moving forward as we've been as we've been doing for a time, Sergeant. Yeah, Commissioner Ryan, you were part of the working group. Do you want to add anything for the sake of our discussion, the public's understanding? No, I think Commissioner Cameron, you know, explained the rationale behind the date certain going out into February just for people's ability to plan. We seem like the most appropriate timing. Okay, so do I have a motion on that? Commissioner Bryan, perhaps you might be able to be helpful here. Certainly, Madam Chair, I would move that the Commission approve extending the previously imposed rules concerning our suspension of hybrid work at the offices through February 10th, 2022. And the, oh, pardon me. Sorry. Go ahead, Karen. No, no, no. Is there a suggestion? I invite your, I know I was just about it. I just remember that we also had a vote on this gift discretion to the gaming agents on their staffing. I don't know if you want to include that at this point. I would just say it's subject to the previously approved parameters. Yeah, correct. So with that amendment, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion as amended? Okay, so Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. And I vote yes, for zero. Excellent. Yeah, that's super helpful. The other thing I just wanted to notify the Commission, we had talked in the working group about also going back to having staff that are coming into the Boston office, notifying Mary Ann Dooley. She has a office visits calendar that she had implemented during the original shutdown. I think I can send a notice to the staff that they should go back to doing that. So if there are, for whatever reason, a particular large group of people that's supposedly need to be in on that day, we just have some awareness of that and be able to track that. So we're going to go back to doing that. And I'd recommend that that extend to the commissioners. Could you do the favor of sending us an email with that link again so we can put it at the top of our... Yeah, well, there's two things. There's the survey and then there's the notification of the office visits. This is the office visit. So that you would just need to send an email to Mary Ann that you're coming in, but I'll send something out to the whole office including the commissioners or send something separate to the commissioners. Perfect. Thank you so much. The other things we talked about just at times when the employee may need to send test results to HR, we just have them do that some kind of email. So there'd be some written documentation. And then there was also the request to notify HR if someone's positive, so we can give them the proper guidance as appropriate. So I think staff members have been doing that just so we can help out and just be aware in giving them the guidance because there have been, they're shifting rules. So just making sure people are aware exactly what's going on. So that concludes the piece on the office reopening. We also have just Loretta and Bruce to update the commission on the gaming agent schedule as the commission voted to give them some discretion on how to manage that operation during the on the concert. So I'll just turn it over to Bruce and Loretta at this point. Before you start, Loretta, I just want to make sure I know for the questions for Karen, correct, Commissioner Hill, because you're all set. Okay. Thanks. Okay, Loretta. Thank you and Bruce. Sure. So largely the agents have been on site. They're continuing to be on site through this period. The exercise of the discretion has been applied on the weekend shift when there are the highest number of staff on site and it's been reduced by one staff member at each property to work remotely. I think that's working, Bruce. You can speak to that. I think the discretion is appreciated now and that generally folks are feeling pretty safe. There's quite a bit of distance in the offices for the on-site people to to have their own working area and to continue to distance. But Bruce, if you want to give a little more flavor to that, that may be helpful. Everybody in the office has been wearing masks unless they're in an office where they can close the door and be by themselves. It seems to be working fine. Any COVID cases that we seem to add have not been caught at the casino. It seems to be bought at home. So I think it's working fine and we should probably continue with the guidance that we have where if we make changes it should be guided by senior staff here with Loretta and I making decisions. But so far it's been going very well for us out there. Any questions or anything on that? No. Thank you, Bruce. We had at least received notice of that. I thought that was really helpful for us to get notice of that change. So thank you. Okay. So 2022 has started with a full COVID report. Yeah. Who would have thought? Who would have thought? Exactly, right? Right. I think we should all just reflect a lot on our policies. And one, we have to great gratitude for our gaming agents, the game sense folks who are on the floor, the folks who do go into the office. Luckily our racing group is sort of tucked away right now. So of course our G.E.U. who are out and about and all of their colleagues, the state police who are but we're sort of at the same place right now and need to give gratitude for all of the health workers, the healthcare workers who are on the front line, the hospitals are just bulging. So it really is a Groundhog Day moment. It's not lost on me, particularly at this juncture of us nearing two years of working remotely for most of us. I just, you know, signal all those folks who we know who have not had that advantage and in our society, at home, we're a really small proportion of people who are not, who have stopped working at their offices or in their workplace. And, you know, I think it's something less than 20% of the American workforce. They don't even know what it means, the idea of working remotely. So I take that into consideration every day. It's an extreme privilege that we are cocooned safely in working this way. And so I appreciate the working groups, careful analysis. And I just want to extend my thanks for that and then just remind us of our good fortune that we can do this and do our work well from these pretty safe environments. So our risk has been so reduced over these last two years. So I just wanted to note that and note also that it really is a, we haven't gotten a lot of relief from the continuing conversations. Loretta, thank you for keeping track of our licensees. They have done remarkable work to be able to continue these, with their ongoing concerns and keep patrons safe and their employees safe. So with that, thank you. And we really welcome your continuing vigilance as the IAB to support them in that effort. Thank you. Okay. All right. Okay. Then moving on to item number six, Carrie. Yes. So for that, the hiring policy, this was going to be a quick item. It did come to my attention. There may be actually a few tweaks that we could do on that, given that that's basically all set, but we may want to do a few revisions. My request is just, if we can bump this to the next meeting, there's no urgency right now that we have to do that today. So it might be helpful just to do those and then visit that next week, if that's agreeable round chair. I'm fine. I'm fine with that. Then we'll move on to item number seven, the procurement process. I'm super interested in this. Thank you. This is just one of the items. I just wanted to give the commission a brief update. No, as Kathy had mentioned, despite all the remote working, there is working going on and I wanted to give a little update on what we've been doing as far as process review. We have been working internally on a review of our procurement practices, and there's been two areas of focus. One, just best practices and doing things correctly, as it's appropriate to review anything that we're doing. And also our intentionality with respect to our diversity. Spend. I'll give you an example of how that has come to fruition. The last few months, there are Glennon's idea that the pay fairness review that we do a procurement through a diverse intentional spend in a diverse vendor and that process is underway and that's going very well. So we have been implementing that over the course of the year, but I just wanted to make sure the commission was aware that this was going on. Also, the finance team worked on a proposed training for senior staff and commissioners. We'd like to invite the commissioners to participate in that. I think a lot of divisions deal with procurement, but may not have that level of knowledge that some of our experts do. You know, we've got Agnes, so we have certain experts and Derek on procurement. So it's a good opportunity for members of the team to understand what goes into a procurement. And they have done a worksheet of step-by-step analysis that will help us understand the procurement process better. And then it's a good opportunity to ask questions and the commissioners to give input on the procurement process. In addition, so we will be setting up that training in the next several weeks and hopefully that'll be just a good opportunity for the team and the commissioners to work together, have an opportunity to do a training, but also just see how this really works and have a deeper understanding of the procurement process. The legal team is also working a review of both short and long form, you know, OSD has a short and long term. They're working on that template language, looking at that, particularly in the area of intentionality. Some ideas that we have had for the procurement process and potential modifications. One is when you award a vendor a procurement opportunity, potentially we could award more than one vendor. Historically, sometimes we just do one vendor. So for example, legal services or some IT services or something with our research agenda, we may be able to say, you know what, we can award more than one vendor and there may be opportunities to pick and choose. That can have a couple of benefits. One on the diverse spend area, but also we may have different areas where different groups may have areas of expertise and then we have a choice on procurement. So that was one thing we were talking about. The other thing is having a certified minority vendor or we could also have a women owned business or veteran owned business that would change part of the scoring criteria. We're looking at that. And just also assembling the review team on the front end to assess and do work on developing the scoring criteria is the best practice. So there's more to come on all of this. I just wanted to at least give the commission some feedback on what's been going on and just to hear any questions you may have or if you have any input you'd like to give us on the process or anything like us to be doing with respect to procurement. It's just an opportunity to discuss it here or just to let me know. And then I will also be letting you know about the training and that may prompt some other questions or discussions you would need to dive into procurement. Commissioners, questions on Karen's plan? No. Well, I appreciate your really ramping up this in a coordinated effort, Karen. I love the idea of qualifying procurement. It's kind of in that many state compact arrangement because I do think not only will you gain some cost savings, but there will be opportunity to gain on the diversity side. And I think it will, choice allows for just best practices. So looking forward to your next steps and I bet you'll get all the commissioners involved in the training. Lots to learn there. Thanks. Yep, that's the update on that. I don't know if either Todd or Derek want to comment, but they have been really helpful on this. And the document that Derek's team had together was really excellent. So really impressed. The only comment I want to make is we also have another sourcing certificate member who's passed all of OSD's guidelines and that's Noelle. So she has passed it as well, which is key since Agnes. We only have two days a week. Well, that's a really great certification for Noelle. That's gold. So we have two experts in house right now. That's excellent. Good for, good for Noelle. Derek, that's a testament to your management. Thank you. All right, okay, then we're going to move on. You're all set. All right, Carrie. Good morning. Good morning. Got quite a project for us ahead. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Yes, so in your packet, you have an update to the table game rules for Pagout poker. I just want to remind you at the outset that this is a rule rather than a regulation. So it doesn't go through the formal promulgation process. It does require a vote from the commission, but following your vote, we would update the rules on the website and they would go into effect immediately. I see you brought Burke and Sterl along. Oh, I sure did. Yeah, so I won't be surprised if you have any questions on really the details of the game. And if you do, I will likely defer to them on those, but we'll sort of run through and we can address any questions throughout or at the end or however this works for you. But just to sort of give you the summary, these are largely organizational changes. In the game of Pagout poker, there's a specific wager that's called the Fortune Pagout wager. There are two sections in the current rules for Pagout poker that specifically relate to this Fortune Pagout wager. There's a section called Fortune Pagout Progressive wager and another called Commission Free Fortune Pagout poker. I'm not going to really get into the specifics of those. If you end up having questions, but just sort of for the purposes of today, the Fortune Pagout Progressive wager section just generally relates to progressives as they relate to this specific Fortune Pagout wager. And the Commission Free Fortune Pagout section relates to a specific type of Fortune Pagout poker in which no commission is taken by the casino on winnings. This is different from other types of wagers within Pagout poker where a five percent commission is taken by the casino on winnings. So these two sections that specifically relate to the Fortune Pagout wager are currently in the rules as sections 14a and 14b. It's a bit confusing because section 14 is related to progressive wagers generally within Pagout poker. So it makes it sort of appear that these 14a and 14b are a subset of progressive, but that's not the case. There's also some detailed information related to this specific Fortune Pagout wager in an earlier section that relates to the different types of fans that are used in the game of Pagout poker. So what we've done is we've taken those sections that deal specifically with the Fortune Pagout wager and we've just moved them to a brand new section 20. I think these rules require some more cleanup and changes, but just for our purposes today we thought it made sense to just pull them all and just create a new section that specifically relates to the Fortune Pagout wager. So that's now at the end of the rules. We have a new section 20 that's called Fortune Pagout bonus wager, a section 20a, which is the old 14a, and that's the Fortune Pagout poker progressive wager, and then a section 20b, which is the old 14b that relates to the commission-free Fortune Pagout poker version. And then within the new section 20 we've made sure that the pay tables are in the right place. It looks like when they were in 14 they were all under one section where they probably should have been under different sections, but they do also appear in section 16. So it wasn't that there was anything incorrect in the rules. They just it was a bit disorganized. So we've just cleaned that up as well. So that's sort of the overview. I don't know if you have questions on more specifics or on the organization or anything like that, but as you mentioned Bruce and Sterling Burke are all here as well. So we're happy to take any questions that you might have. Do you don't think we should walk through the red lines or? We can, if you'd like. Commissioners, I feel like we should do that. Commissioner O'Brien is shaking her head too. I'm sure it will be clear as mud in many ways, but I think we have an obligation to work to understand this today because, you know, it's so important that our patrons know that the rules are clear to the patrons. So, Commissioner Hill, I'm suspecting you're going to be a very helpful resource for us on this. Believe it or not, not on this game. That's what I wondered. I wondered if you were familiar with this game. Okay. Well, then I think we should, Karen, if that makes sense. Todd and Karen. Yeah, sure. Thank you. Let me pull it up right now. Honestly, I'm having a little trouble pulling it up on my screen. So, thank you. All right. Can everyone see that? Yep. All right. Can you make it a little bit bigger? Yeah. Thank you. Have that. That's better. Oh, that's good. That's good. Karen, I'm so glad that that was your request. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Why don't we make a blanket request starting today that anything that is shared needs to be at least a 150 font for us commissioners? I agree. And Burke is also agreeing. There we go. All right. So, I'll scroll down to where we have the first changes. This, sorry. Let me just make sure I'm in the right section here. Yes. So, this section three relates to different types of hands that can be used in this game. And again, Bruce and Sterl might be able to give you a little more detail on some of this. But essentially, there was a section in here. There is a section in here in the current rules that really goes into detail about the fortune pie guy wager. And we didn't remove this. We just relocated it to section 20 so that all of those sections will be in the same place. We did leave just this sentence here to indicate that the licensee may choose to offer this wager because earlier parts of this section have similar language related to other types of wagers. So, for consistency, we left this one sentence here but relocated to specific details that relate to it to section 20, including the table. Any questions on that part? Commissioners, we can't see you. So, you'll have to just chime in. Okay. Thanks. Okay. All right. So, scrolling down. We just corrected any sites that the references changed because of our changes. So, you might see a few of these throughout. That's just the 3S I was just discussing and it became 20. There's another one. Pardon my slow scrolling. Don't want to miss anything. Okay. So, here's section 14. You can see the main section 14 is called Progressive Payout Wager. And then the sections that we've moved 14A, Fortune, Pygo, Poker, Progressive Wager. I'll scroll back up if you need to, but just want to show you. And 14B, Commission, Free Fortune, Pygo, Poker, Version. So, you can see it might appear that A and B are subsets of the main 14, which is rather too progressive. And that's not really not as it was intended to be. So, these entire sections, we've just moved to the new section 20. I will scroll down there unless there are any questions right there. The tables we've moved as well. It just for some reason didn't allow me to sort of redline them out. And then I'll just point out as well. Section 16 relates to payout odds. And this is the section where I mentioned that the tables appear in this section as well. So, you can see the licensee shall payout winning Fortune Bonus Wagers. So, these payout table information is the same as the information in the tables that are now in section 20. We haven't relocated this section. It's the same. It's they don't conflict with each other, but we've left this here because this section specifically deals with payouts for all of the wagers. And then I think we just get to 20. All right. So, our new section 20 is just called Fortune Payout Poker Bonus Wager. This is the information that came from that section three related to different kinds of hands. I do a little cleanup just in moving it, but no significant changes. Just sort of cleaning up a little bit of the language. And there were some capitalization issues that we removed, but otherwise it's the same. We've made sure that the tables are placed correctly. So, this table one and table two, these relate specifically to Fortune Payout Poker Bonus Wager sort of generally. So, those tables are placed under the main section 20. And then 20A is the Fortune Payout Poker Progressive Wager. This came from 14A. Just moved it over and same thing cleaned up a little bit of the language. But otherwise it's exactly the same. No significant changes. And then the one of the, excuse me, two of the pay tables are specifically under this section. And then 20B, pardon me, the commission free Fortune Payout Poker version. This was the former 14B that we've made the new 20B. Does that make sense to everyone? So, carry back to all Bruce, I'll let you elaborate and then I'll ask my question. Bruce and Burke and Stroh. It's a pretty simple change. It's just reorganizing how it spells it out for it makes it clear. And that was really my question. This is, as Carrie started, she said, it's really organizational. And so now I'm hearing that it really is organizational in terms of how the rules were written and not in any way organizational in terms of the game or in using that word in a different fashion. Can you just remind me? Because I may have not heard it correctly. What precipitated this? Is this a regular rule review that I know you're engaging in or was there something else? Yeah, it was actually, when we were looking at some things, there was some confusion. It actually, I think stemmed initially from a layout curl, am I correct? Yeah, some confusion is to exactly the pay table and things. It everybody is doing everything correctly, but reading the reg was very confusing. And we thought there was a need to clarify it before this became confusing down the road. So just to clarify, the problem is is PyGaO has had many versions come in and they keep on getting added. And unfortunately, it was just every time they added a section, they would add to different sections rather than separate the wager. As you heard Carrie speaking, one thing that gets confusing is this is Fortune PyGaO poker. And then there is a Fortune PyGaO poker progressive. And also, if you go back to the original game, there is a PyGaO progressive. There is a Fortune wager. So that's why pulling this down into just a one section, it makes it quite clear to the reader that when you go looking for this wager, here's the tables that you have to deal with. And Carrie did a very nice job explaining this, I might add. Yeah. Thank you. Kathy, what I was going to say is that I did want to recognize Sterl for, you know, in the course of his regular reviews, you know, noting that this could be clearer and for being proactive about that and getting, you know, attention to this. And then I wanted to recognize Carrie as Bruce did because she made herself available immediately. And, you know, it took some time for her and for me to, you know, go through this and identify where the matter could be clarified. And then, you know, she put the work in to do this restructuring. So it all happened very quickly. And, you know, did one recognize Sterl and Carrie. And Loretta's becoming a games expert too, I might add. Incrementally. Well, this was clearer than I, when I looked at it, you know, in my, you know, prep, I thought, I don't know if I'm going to get this. But now I understand that truly was organizational and very, very helpful. Is there any work that has to be done, Bruce and Loretta, at the gaming facilities themselves, or is this simply rules that are posted? I think it's kind of clear with most of the gaming facilities, but we just didn't want to end up with any problems down the road that it would be unclear to patrons or something like this. And that we're kind of skimming over all the regs to take care of these issues. It's really important. Yes. Commissioners, I'm sorry. Oh, this work, go ahead. Yeah, the best way to maybe understand this also is all these games are introduced. PyGal poker was originally PyGal poker. And then comes along someone who creates these bets, like a fortune bet in Blackjack, you have a lucky ladies. So all these bets get instituted and the casinos want them. So they get uptailed into the regulation. And this is an example where maybe it wasn't written into the reg in the best spot. And with a further review, we were able to clean this language up a little bit and make it clear so everyone can understand it. Excellent. Can't ask for much more than that, right? Commissioners, that's exactly what I liked that it was proactive, Charles. So congratulations on that. I think this has been answered, but I just want to be clear. The payouts for the progressive bet, that's on the tables or not on the tables. Charles, our game expert on this, you can answer that, Charles. So if Kerry can just scroll up, actually right here. So this has to do with progressive. See this pay table too? So you can see that if you get the award for a straight flush or lower, it is 104-1. But you're not going to see the totals because the payout is depending on how much has been contributed at the time. So they have to start the seeds. So that little red asterisk, if they use the royal flush as the minor in this pay table, then they have to start the seed at $500 for a dollar or $2,500 for a $5 progressive. And that's what Encore uses right now. So the minimum you can win on a royal flush is $2,500. But every time it plays, it keeps going. You'll see it on, and it has to be posted on the table, and then you just see the amount increase as you go. Do you answer my question? It's on the table. On the table. Yeah. I know there's like a computer above that keeps going around and around until somebody wins. That I understood. Yeah, absolutely. But that was my question. If there was any need for additional signage or change on the tables or anything to clear that. That was my question. And I said the game. Yes. Yes. So they have to put all of their tables. So that fortune bet, the fortune payout wager has its own table on the on the actual layout, and it's posted. They have to choose from one of those six tables. And then the fortune payout progressive has its own separate metered table, which is displayed on the table, but it's electronic because it's always changing. Always changing. Correct. I think I need to go back and visit. Anytime. Yeah. This is an interesting game because you're playing two different games with one hand. Am I correct about that? The high and the low. You're absolutely correct. It's a two card hand and a five card hand. Both have to win to be paid. When you go to put the progressive bet, is that done at the beginning of the when you get your the cards right at the start? Before before the cards will be dealt out of the shuffle machine. You have to decide whether you want to be included or not. Yes. So you're making two bets, actually. So you have your main progressive payout wager to win that. You have to have a two card low hand and a five card high hand beat the dealers. Two card low hand and the two in the five card high hand. But to win the award for the progressive wager, you have to use all seven of your cards. And then the fortune wager also uses all seven of your cards. So those two are separate in and of itself from the original wager. I hope I hope that was clear. I think they understood that. It is it is a difficult concept. It's easier when you see it on the layout. Yeah, I actually was saying when I said I think that we need to visit, I think it would be an interesting game to watch played. Burke, that might be another field trip. Commissioners O'Brien and Commissioner Cameron, we haven't heard from you yet. I can't see you. I don't know if we need to keep the presentation up before. I guess just to reiterate my question and forgive me, but am I hearing that there doesn't need to be any change on the belts on the tables at all to to help clarify this issue? Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you so much, Stu. I'm seeing a no from him. Commissioners Cameron, Commissioners O'Brien. I have no questions. I understood it was an organizational change. And I do thank the team for being proactive and you know, making this as clear as it possibly can be. Commissioner O'Brien? I mean, I followed it enough to know what the changes are for. I mean, I think to your point, I probably have to go see the table to say that I truly understand it, but I understand the rework of the regs. Right. And I'm understanding that it's not changing the game at all. It's just for clarification. And we invite that. We invite that clarification. So good work. All right. I know. Just that. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Carrie. At this stage, you do need a vote from us. Correct, Carrie? That's right. Darrell, anything else you want to add? I just, I would offer that I could show you the layout like Carrie was showing if that would help you visually see the game and understand. I, you, you all feel like you or sound like you understand it as best PyGaul can be understood. But if it would help Eileen with visualization of the layout, I could also provide that if you want. Do you have that handy? Yes. Right now? Oh, why not? Okay. So, all right. Thank you. Yep. Apologize. My computer goes very slow when you start to go backwards. The outcome comes out. You'll see that it used to have original spot for just a high hand and low hand. And then these creation of a red disc button and then a separate fortune bet. And that's how the game is grown in progression. Can you see my screen? I think I'm locked up. Well, um, yes, we can see. You have it? Okay. So here is the layout. I'll try to increase it in size. So this is the first, this is the dealer's position here. It actually is the one of the only games. PyGaul has dealt backwards compared to all the others. It's dealt from right to left as opposed to left to right. See the low hand. So as Commissioner Hill was saying, the two card hand goes here and then the customer places the five card hand under the H. Do you see how the tables are right in front of the players on a ton of the spot? The fortune bet, as we were saying, and it tells them all of what they're going to be paid. This, um, I apologize. Sometimes when you move the screen, the PDF doesn't want to move. It's great. This is where they would place their fortune wager. The number three is where the player will place their actual PyGaul wager. And this red circle at the casino is lit up when they place their $5 chip on it. Before the dealer deals out any cards, he locks that wager in. Whomever bets on that, the red light stays lit and they pull all of the $5 wagers off of that circle and place it in the tray. So once you go through that, this is at all the different spots. See how they, under the fortune bet, they show all of the pay table that they're going to use and pay them. And this right here is for the progressive. See where it says progressive hand? That is for the sign, the digital sign that's posted right into the table. Okay. And does anybody have any other questions on this layout? I hope that was showed a little clarity on where all the different wagers are and how they're placed. That was very helpful, Cheryl. Thank you. I mean, thanks. Thank you. Very helpful. Madam Chair, when we were touring Encore, we saw a couple of tables that had the red lights on them. Remember we were questioning that. It's similar to what we just saw. Yeah. Just to see a lot of the tables have those red circles. So not only PyGa, but Blackjack has a progressive, all of the other novelty games. They all have progressives on them. Yeah. But what I am hearing though, in this case, we don't have any lack of clarity or inconsistency on the top itself. The simply the written rules are now organized in a way to make for the clarity. So in many ways straightforward, but not to minimize the amount of work it took. So thank you. Any further questions for Carrie or Sterl, Bruce Burke, Todd, Loretta on this? It takes a village. All right. Do we have a motion then for Carrie? I would move that the commission approve the amendments to the rules of PyGa poker, as reflected in the commissioners packet and discussed here today, and that the updated version be posted on the commission's website. Second. Thank you. Any amendment recommendation, discussion, edits? Okay. Commissioner Cameron? Aye. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. And I vote yes, 4-0. Excellent work. Thank you very, very much. And again, Sterl, I know that you have been working hard to review the rules, and we appreciate this is exactly the kind of clarification we look forward to doing. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. My screen's gone dark one moment. I think we're nearing the final item. I think it's the next, if I remember correctly, other business commissioners. Do I hear nothing? I'm just I'm just confirming that I was right. No commission updates. Okay. Any other business team that we need to address? Karen, are you feeling okay? I'm feeling good. Good. Good. To Bruce, your team did an excellent job today. We thank you. And Berk and Sterl and of course, Savannah, thank you for that. And Todd and Carrie and Judy, great work. So thank you. All right. All of you, thank you so much for having an excellent rest of the week, and I'll need a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Okay. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. I vote yes. Four zero. Thank you, everyone. Have a great day. Thanks. Bye. Bye.