 Thank you. Okay. Good morning, everyone. Today is Thursday, October 13th, and we are holding this gaming commission meeting virtually, so I'll take, do a little call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I am here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm present. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. I am here. All right. We'll get started. Today is public meeting number 397. And before we actually get going on the agenda, I have a few opening remarks, mainly reminders. And then we have from Karen and then really the opportunity to meet one of our newest members of the Gaming Commission. Karen, a reminder, I want to make sure that Jack is available. Yeah, I'm just checking that, because if you can give me one minute, let me just check with Mary Ann that he was able to jump on the meeting. Let's give you one second. No problem. We'll get started on just the notes that I wanted to go over. So I wanted to note that last week, we posted a scoping survey on our website. This is an important announcement because that scoping survey, which is a relatively straightforward document, is a required part of an application for a category one, two, and three sports wagering operator licenses. All three operators or prospective operators must file this scoping survey. It is a prerequisite of the application. The scoping survey is due ahead, though, of the full application. The due date for the scoping survey is Monday, October 17th. I believe that's 5pm. Mills, you can correct me on that. The scoping survey to be clear is not the notice of intent. The scoping survey, again, is part of an application for category one, two, and three operator licenses. Perspective operators must meet the October 17th deadline as to vendors. Vendors will eventually be required to fill this survey out as well, but they are not subject to the same deadline. You can find the survey on our website, either on the main page or through our sports wagering page, which can be found under the about tab. And when I also note, we have posted the applications for a sports wagering operator license on our website for public comment. While this application remains subject to change based on public comments, we recommend that interested applicants begin to review and pull materials together. And if prospective operators have any questions or they're experiencing technical difficulties, you can reach out to our communications team. That's Tom Mills and Dave Sousa at communications at mass gaming dot gov communications at mass gaming dot gov. So this is an important reminder. Those scoping surveys are a prerec and we did set a firm deadline of October 17. They are for all three category applicants. Okay. And maybe we'll do a reminder again during the meeting at one point when it makes good sense, perhaps as we approach the sports wagering discussion later in the agenda. So that's a good morning again, and we'll turn back to Karen. To you. The introduction, we're going to have to do that in a little while. So we could just stand by on that. I'll, I'll, I'll text you with the. Okay, great. Thank you. We'll turn then to item number two. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Do you have minutes for us? Yes, I do. Just having some issues with my computer, Madam chair, I would move that the commission approved the minutes from the April 14, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Okay. Thank you. Any suggested edits? All right. Michelle, Brian. Madam chair. Oh, sorry. Commissioner. Yes. I don't have any edits, but I have a question. There's a reference to a miss. Bo Bo you in the minutes. I'm assuming that's a typo, but I wanted to call it into it. And I, I, I don't have it in front of me. I just have the electronic copy. It's referenced a couple times. If I can, if you just give me a minute, I can get to it. Whatever section. It's mentioned in the same sentence as Crystal Balscheman. So I assumed it was a typo, but again, it's, it's referenced twice. Is it? I'm sorry. Commissioner Skinner, I actually didn't hear what the issue was. So if you could repeat it, please. What was the, my question was, who was miss Bo you? Isn't that. And I think I heard, okay. They do have both that, that French Canadian both in the front of their name, which of course I love. So, but yeah, that's Agnes and, and we, we are thinking of Agnes, but in, in actually we appreciate the work that she did back in April. So thank you. Absolutely. It didn't click. I know her simply Agnes. Yes. Yes. That makes sense. Any other edits or questions? All right. I'm sorry. I didn't get that. Commissioner Skinner, did you say? Is she frozen? She looks frozen. I'm back. Yes. I have an unstable connection at times. I am Commissioner Maynard. I abstain. Okay. And I vote yes or yes. One abstention. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We'll move on then to one of our favorite presentations. Good morning, Director Vanderland. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, commissioners. Yes, we're going to provide for you this morning and a quarterly update on the Game Sense program. And I won't steal the thunder of our presenters, but let me just say this was an especially busy quarter. And I think that it, and moving in a lot of different directions that our Game Sense team will cover. So let me just quickly introduce we have Winnie Lee, who is a Game Sense advisor at Encore Boston Harbor. We have Ken Gabriel, who is a Game Sense supervisor at Plain Ridge Park Casino. And of course, Marlene Warner, who is the executive director of the Massachusetts Council on Gaming and Health. So with that, I will just quickly turn it over to Marlene. Good morning, everyone. I appreciate the opportunity to be before you all. And thanks to Phil Sherwood, who is operating the presentation in the background. So yes, again, I'm going to turn it right over to Ken, who's going to jump right into the numbers. Phil, can you go to the next slide, please? And Ken, are you present? I am here. So good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to present in front of you. So, you know, as Mark said, we had a very busy quarter with lots of things going on. I think that, you know, we had very solid, intensive exchange numbers, the intensive exchange that are playing my way, the VSEs, the exchanges, and the demonstrations. So for the VSEs, August was the best month ever in Game Sense's history. And I was administered in the program at Encore alone. They had 28 VSEs just in August. Next slide, Phil. Ken, did you watch your video on Just So You Know We Don't See You? Oh, sorry. I apologize. I thought I turned it on. Can not start your video because host has stopped it. So, I'm being blocked on the administrative end. That's probably on my end. Let me see if I can help out there. Thank you, Dave. Ken, why don't you try again? I actually down my whole screen is blacked out. We can see you there. The message a lot, but my screen's blocked by a thing saying meeting alert. The host has blocked your video. We can see you now, though, Ken. Okay. Yeah, what I'm saying is I cannot see the presentation. I have an error box coming up in the middle of my screen that's taking up a good two seconds. So, if you need me to restart. Okay. It just went away now. I just removed it so you could probably relaunch it. And if that's an issue, let me know. Now I'm just seeing. Now it's flipping through everybody's names with a black screen, but there we go. I apologize, everyone. So, MGM, I think, you know, the exchanges, particularly up quarter, you know, up every month, year over year. And again, with the VSE is holding very strong play my way numbers, you know, very solid, you know, had been launched fairly recently, but still holding up through this quarter. Next slide, Phil. And PPC, same as, you know, really, really good VSE numbers, 11 in the month of August, you know, with July being at nine very solid numbers. And next slide. So, you know, during this, during September, it was Responsible Education Month and Recovery Month. So, we had a lot of stuff going on in all the centers. We took up a pretty good focus on sports wagering, you know, with that on the horizon to start educating both, you know, our staff and guests. We did numerous types of games. We did a sports betting word scramble. We did a recovery month quiz. We had a lot of help from our partners. EVH, we partnered with them, did a promo table out in the promo section for a day. PPC co-branded swag for us that we gave out both to guests and to there, we tabled them back at a house helping them, you know, we did some tabling with LLRG, LRGG, and all the other things we were doing out front. And MGM very nicely donated to our basket. Next slide. Actually, can I just go back, have you go back one second? Because I don't want to miss that last bullet because it's pretty important. And so, that is just to say that I don't know if the commissioner is all aware that there are, I think we're up to 18. There might be more recovery centers across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And the Department of Public Health has graciously allowed us to work with those recovery centers. And they have been really welcoming to the game sense team in terms of recognizing the folks that are in long-term recovery from other addiction, forms of addiction, are certainly at high risk for gambling addiction. And so, making sure that we do a fair amount of work with them as it is September is recovery month. So Jody Neely, who's our director of recovery services, was out doing one-on-one presentations, large group presentations, leaving swag to make sure that folks understand what an at-risk situation might look like and how we can be of help. The other really important piece is that we had over 60 people at a recovery retreat just last week, and I think it was last week, yes, last week. And we wanted to bring that to your attention because I think it's really important to recognize that one of the forms of prevention, people think about kids all the time, but one of the biggest forms of prevention for us is making sure that folks that are in recovery from other things, again, are celebrating their recovery and recognizing that gambling could put them at risk to both relapse with that other addiction, but also get into trouble with gambling. So we spent a lot of time on that. So just wanted to highlight those. Sorry, go ahead, Ken. Okay, so I'm going to pass it off to Winnie now, but I'll be back with you guys in a little bit. Good morning, everyone. My name is Winnie. I'm one of the new games as advisor. So thank you for opportunity for the presentations here today. And yeah, so we're very excited to have the Play My Way launch at Angkor, Boston, Harvard. Can you just go back to the previous slide? Yes, please. Thank you. Yeah, so we have the training video. So we have training of the key stuff in game sense and also available on the launch day, which was like September 12th. And we also have doing a one month incentive to dunking donors with $10 gift card, and this was extended to the end of this month. And now Play My Way is available at all free Massachusetts snow properties. And at EBA, we have over 1700s already enrolled, and across 3400s already enrolled at NGM, and across 30,000 enrolled at PBC. At the bottom is a course from Jenny Holliday, the president of Angkor, Boston, Harvard. She said Angkor, Boston, Harvard has covered rates with the Massachusetts gambling commission, the Massachusetts Council on Gambling and Help and Game Sense to develop responsible gaming strategies since day one. Yeah. And next slide, please. Yeah, now so just let's take a look. Our game sense actions are worse. So for the EBA, we have Alfred Smith. So he is executive director of the IT department. So Alfred was instrumental in helping to develop, organize, and collaborate training the EVX team and the game sense team to play My Way. So he is always available for questions regarding Play My Way. And next one, we have Tim Su, table game pit manager. He has been very helpful to game sense by bringing guests to the centers for information and always reach out to us for any updated info regarding our program. And we have Maximo Pepin from the Department of Learning and Development. Max helped facilitate the new high orientation for game sense and was instrumental in helping to get the message of the game sense program to the new employees prior to training. So for MGM, we have Dora Sovers from Table Games. He has been a game sense fan and advocate since we conducted first training before MGM even opened. He has continued to support and share responsible game brain information on these guests. And next, we have Ray Padela. Ray is conscientious, respectful, and friends with security guard. And he is always willing to help the game sense team no matter what it is. And we have LaRoy Campbell from the Environmental Service Department. So Ray is smart, is infectious, and his work efforts are matched. He keeps regular contact with the game sense to make sure we have any service we need. But the biggest service he gives is his outgoing personality and the love of life and people. So let's take a look at the PPC. We have Lacey Craigraff, HR journalist. So Lacey is integral to all game sense here at PPC. She coordinates all of our employee-facing activities with the game sense team. We were not able to reach as many employees with game sense messages, if not for Lacey. She is truly indispensable to our efforts at PPC. Yeah, so the next one is Gretchen Pacini from Security Departments. So Gretchen is always smiling. She is wonderful addition to the PPC staff. She frequently sends patients over to the game sense office for any gaming related questions and speaks very highly of our staff and our company. And the last one is Sarah Scheer. So Sarah has been both accommodating and affected in promoting game sense through their new high orientations and when she walks the new employees around the casino. She also asks general questions about our game sense to get more knowledge about what we're doing here and she can help better to inform the PPC employees. Yeah, so a big thanks to this awardees for making our game sense team better and better. And also thanks to the gaming commissions. Thanks to Marine, Chelsea and everybody who made this happen. So lastly, I would like to thank all of you here for your time. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Winnie. So July was the National Council on Problem Gambling Conference. It was this year it was held in beautiful Boston and interesting and I'm so much work went into this and it was such a great experience, but it was by far the most attended conference ever. We had eight staff lead presentations on various topics, everything from remote VSEs and live chat to Asian outreach, telephone recovery support and a sports betting 101 which I happen to have the pleasure of presenting. We also were besides having such a good turnout and being so well received, we received a couple of awards. So the council received the best affiliated newsletter award for our game sense quarterly newsletters and Marlene received the Monsignor Joseph Dunn Lifetime Award for advocacy. This is incredibly impressive just to be eligible for it. You have to have 20 years in advocacy and it truly is a great show of how respected she is by her peers and others in our industry. So really the conference was absolutely amazing. It gave us the opportunity we had, you know, on top of doing all the presentations, we did some of the volunteering. It gave a lot of the council and game sense team a great opportunity to interact, to learn how things go in other jurisdictions which can help us better learn ways to improve what we do and to help others improve what they do. And next slide. So another obviously another thing that's been dominating this quarter is preparing for sports betting. So we have, you know, started working on printed and digital material development, things that will be to have a game sense centers, brochures, that type of thing. We've been working with game commission on getting ready for it. RG elements for the MGC applications, you know, obviously we're advocating for there to be RG to help the way we already help. We're working on workshops and trainings on sports betting. As I mentioned earlier, I did a one-on-one training at the NCPG conference. I've also done that training for all of the game sense advisors and all the council staff. So it's true. It's very much And we launched it for a second. So if you could go back up on Yeah, and actually Ken, I'll take it from here if that's okay with you. The legislative. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, thank you everyone. Thanks, Ken. Thank you. And so the legislative and press education obviously over the last few months, as you all were also working on figuring out what was happening, we were working directly with the legislature and certainly doing a fair amount of press, continue to do a lot of press around sports betting, what we're into spinning around RG aspects as well as prom gambling aspects. We were pleased to be included in RG round table and, you know, having just come back from the ICRG conference in Las Vegas, a fair amount of people tuned in and learned quite a bit. So kudos to the Gaming Commission for holding that event. I think it made quite an impact. I think we will see future commissions holding round tables because I think a lot of people thought it was a really, a really smart idea. So again, thank you for including that. And as Ken started to talk about the printed and digital materials, I think one of the things that Mark and Long and Chelsea and I have been talking a lot about is what do we need in print versus what do we need digitally? How can we, you know, one of the things we struggle with is how do we stay current because it all moves so quickly and evolve so quickly. And so that's one of the elements we're thinking about. Phil Sherwood and his team will certainly be writing a lot of the content, but just trying to figure out what are the proper forms to be working on. So that's been something we've been talking quite a bit about. And then, you know, and spoke to this, but the application piece I think has been important, making sure that, you know, you have a lot of companies that you know well that are coming forward, but certainly new companies and just trying to find out a little bit about who they are, what they already know. I think, you know, I'm kind of excited to learn what people have done in other jurisdictions outside of the US and might be able to bring that forward. So I'm hoping that that's a real collaborative effort. And then again, lots of lots and lots of training both with Ken and others. So next slide please, Phil. So I think you all know that per the 2011 expanded Gaming Act, our organization is named to have one spot on the G-PAC subcommittee on addiction. I'm happy to serve as the representative on behalf of the Mass Council. And so one of the things that the subcommittee has done is decide to make a real effort to focus in on families. It's something that I've been passionate about for my 21 years of the Council. And so I'm thrilled that this committee is taking a stronger look at it. What that allowed is for us to have a more in-depth conversation about what do we currently have and where are the gaps in terms of family engagement. We had a good conversation across our team, both the game sense team and then the outreach and recovery folks on our team, about what do we offer families and what's kind of unique to families versus people directly struggling with gambling disorder. And then what are some of the things that we need? So one of the things we realized is that we really are having daily interactions in person and online and on the phone with family members. They're reaching out, they have questions, they have concerns, they need resources and they're calling the gameline, they're doing the chat and they definitely are showing up at the casinos to talk to game sense. So that was something that frankly, I wasn't sure of the breadth and depth. So one of the things we wanted to do was make sure that the game sense checklist rather reflects that. So we've evolved the checklist to make sure we can denote when there's a specific family engagement. The other thing is there are quite a bit of things that I would say evolved out of the helpline space in terms of digital footprint resources, making sure that a family member can have legal resources, have financial resources, as well as clinical resources. And so making sure that those community referrals are current and strong, both in the gambling space, but also in other spaces, a lot of folks need something beyond just gambling help, making sure we can get them connected to the right resources. You know, one of the things though that these conversations have allowed is for us to have a better sense as to what can we do in collaboration and cooperation with the operators? And there's no answer there yet, but we're starting to have those conversations. I think the operators are just as concerned as we are when a family member shows up at the casino and they can't get a family member, can't get their loved one off the floor, or they're struggling because someone has spent all the money, so on and so forth, starting struggling with cold. So we're just starting to have some of those conversations. And this all again came out of this third-party exclusion. And I think since the gaming commission was formed, it's been a conversation we've been having about how can this happen? And are there steps that could be taken beforehand? So right now we're in regular conversation. Todd Grossman and I have had this conversation many years, just trying to figure out how can this be realized and what are some of the steps that need to be put in place? I think that's a little further down the road, but I think some of these, making sure these resources are up to date, making sure they're plentiful, and making sure that our games and staff have the right conversations and have the right resources, other fingertips is pretty important at this step. So more on that when we know more and more on that as the subcommittee digs in a little deeper. Then interestingly enough, just kind of a side as well, is that the subcommittee also has other really great resources there. So when we think about Yo-Yo-Yo from BCNC, she brings that really cool, interesting perspective in terms of a community provider. Dr. Ortiz talked about the resources out in the DPH universe and what they're able to provide to family members. And Dr. Vega was talking about the landscape of the research. So I think that there's, and then obviously Mark Vanderland and talking about the gaming commission's perspective on this. So anyway, more on that as we know more. Next slide, please. So you were all given a special treat to have Winnie. I love that she's a brand new staff member and was willing to present today. So I really appreciate her for doing that. And we were also thrilled to have her join our team recently, fluent in three different Asian languages and using them on the floor and a strong background in customer service. And so Winnie's been a great addition to the team at EVH. Unfortunately, not present with us today, but certainly in the future on John Hickey, who's come to us from the EVH. He's former Air National Guard, and fluent in five different languages. And we think he is a superstar. He is actually working overnight at the Encore Boston Harbor Game Center. So in the future, we promise to bring John forward for all of you. Wanted to let you know that we are currently hiring. And so anyone listening and watching is interested. We have a position currently open at EVH and position currently at PVC. And we didn't want to miss showing off our new center at MGM. So you see this picture. It looks, I think, pretty sophisticated. You know, really beautiful. We have a really nice location. So we're only not always a great judge of distance, but let's call it, you know, 50 feet, 30 feet, I don't know, from the last center. But set up slightly differently, just kind of longer and narrower. But you see it all still looks very familiar. And people can access us a little bit more smoothly than they were able to before near Valais. So if you haven't got a chance, please come in and take a look. And you'll see how nice and prominent our sign is. That sign was in the center, was on the back wall, and now it's up on top. And we love that because anywhere in the casino, you can see game sense. So it's kind of a much more approachable, accessible center. So we're really excited about that. And I want to thank the team at MGM Springfield for building such a beautiful new center. And we welcome you at any point, any of you want to come, you know, we're there 16 hours a day at MGM and certainly at the other center. So let me pause there and see if you all have any questions or comments for us. We could take down the screen. That would be great. Commissioners questions. I see Commissioner Hill. Yes, I saw something that stuck out to me during the play my way presentation, that I saw 30,000 folks at PPC. Is that a real one? I can take that. Go ahead. Yep, that is accurate. Plain Ridge has been doing it far longer than any other properties. So, you know, we still very strong numbers were over 100 a month across the board. So over the length of time, that number is absolutely accurate. That's fantastic. Commissioner, we launched play my way at Enridge Park Casino back in 2015, I want to say. So, yes, we have, it was our experience at Plain Ridge Park Casino that certainly informed how we move forward with MGM and on Corbaston Harbor. And then the other comment I wanted to make, first of all, Marlene, congratulations on your recognition. Well deserved. Thank you. I appreciate that. We're all very proud of that, that you received that. And it looks as though with sports betting on the horizon that Game Sense will have an opportunity to work with others within the Mass Gaming Commission to get more up to date or, you know, up to the minute information. We have a great team here, and I know they would love working with you and Mark even more than they already do. So I think with the digital and the print resources that you talked about and how this changes literally daily, if not hourly, you're going to have a great opportunity to work with others here as we move forward. So congratulations again and great job, everybody at the Game Sense. And welcome aboard to our new employees. So Winnie, thank you, Commissioner. We appreciate all of that. Commissioner O'Brien? I did. Commissioner Hill beat me to the punch in terms of congratulating Marlene. Again, well deserved. Thank you. And then I also wanted to say welcome to the new employees. I'm blown away by the linguistic abilities that Game Sense keeps getting more and more. It's fantastic. And then I also wanted to put a special thank you out to you, Marlene, as well for the op-ed that you put out there in terms of keeping this responsible gaming and problem gaming dialogue sort of at the forefront as we go forward with sports betting, particularly online, as you pointed out. So I know you have great relationships with Mark and his team. And as Commissioner Hill said, it's probably going to get even more so. But obviously anything you need from us or any suggestions you have from us on this process, I would love to hear. I'm sure the rest of us would too. Excellent. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. I appreciate that. Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Skinner? Thank you, Madam Chair. Nothing needs to be repeated. I'll just simply refer to Commissioner Hill and O'Brien's comments. I have the benefit of hearing most of the information as I attend the strategy meetings and always pleased to hear the success of Game Sense and particularly the engagement of our licensees and their staff. So keep up the good work. I'm looking forward to visiting MGM, the new Game Sense space. And welcome, Winnie. Commissioner, thank you for that. I also want to just say thank you for coming to those strategy meetings. And I know some of Commissioner Hill often comes as well and others are able to pop in when they're able. But it's always really helpful to have you at those meetings. And certainly, I think we're trying to figure out even more about how we develop a good content for those meetings and also really work to help people most at risk in those casinos. So your involvement's really necessary. So thank you for that. My pleasure, Marlene. Commissioner Maynard? Well, having the opportunity to go last, it means everything's already been set. But I will say welcome, Winnie. Congratulations, Marlene. Thank you. I did have the opportunity to go through the new space at MGM with the chair and we had it was just a great, great space. And I have told Mark and Long multiple times, but the launch of EVH is also very exciting. So great job. Good work. And if you need anything, you know where to find us. Thank you, Commissioner. I do want to say I just came back from ICRG in Vegas and one of the other things that someone actually leaned over to me at the meeting and said, wouldn't it be great if there was a tool that was on a slot machine that could like count how much people have been spending? I said, yeah, in fact, it's so great that we've implemented now across all of Massachusetts casinos and it's all playing my way. So it's something people are just awakening to elsewhere in the country. So I agree with you that EVH's launch is a really big deal, being obviously the largest casino. And we feel really privileged to be a part of that. So thank you. Well, Marlene, as you're making your way with the press, can you just really mention playing my way more prominently for us, please? That's really interesting. Absolutely. Yeah. I do. I know that Mr. Maynard said that he was going to ask, but if you don't mind, I have a couple of impressions and also maybe a question. So first off, Marlene, congratulations. I think I noted it during when it was, when you first received it, I was at the conference. And then secondly, I'm really pleased to hear about the collaboration with DPH on those recovery centers. A year ago, if we were envisioning that kind of collaboration, it feels as though it's come to fruition. Marlene, do you feel good about that? I feel great about it. Yeah. And again, I don't know if folks realize, and at some point, if you'd like, we could go into some more detail, the recovery centers, you never have felt so good and felt so soulful as when you go and spend an hour in one of those centers. And they have grown. Again, I've been doing this long time. I've seen it go from, I think the original group was five or six of them to, I think we are into the 20s, I was thinking after I spoke earlier. And Massachusetts, it's not unlike in so many other areas, is really a model for how that gets done. And there are amazing places. And so the fact that we are invited in and able to spend some time in those spaces and talk directly with folks who are at risk by virtue of the other things that they have going on in their lives, we feel really lucky. So yes, I agree. It's a great collaboration and space for us to be in. And I think the commissioners would like to hear more details on that. So we'll follow up on that. And then really pleased, I know that the Diction Services subcommittee has really taken off again. I think about a year and a half ago, Mark, when I was working with Lindsay Tucker to sort of rethink the MOU that really supports the research agenda and the Public Health Trust fund, we really re-recognize that that statutory subcommittee would be very, very instrumental in addressing the exact issues that you raised today. Marlene and Mark, I know you're really pleased. Crystal supports that work. And she's been able to kind of give me an update after each meeting. And this depth in the family interactions and the third party analysis is exactly what we needed. So now this is statutory provision. So we'll stay tuned, Mark. You'll keep us abreast and to the extent that Todd can provide additional services, Marlene, to keep us going. I know he's available and his team's available. And then, finally, thank you for the nod to the roundtable. Excuse me. I did feel that it was there were a lot of takeaways from that discussion and some that we really need to make sure we visit in the near future as we roll out the regulations around responsible gaming and advertising. So it was a rich discussion and not surprisingly, you made a very important contribution. So thank you. So I'm very, very, very interested in the family intervention work. I think, Mark, you're nodding. I've got you're just really pleased, right? I really am. I mean, if you think about the numbers that we're talking about, research bears out that for every person who is struggling with a gambling problem, there are multiple family members, friends, family members that are also experiencing pain that is associated with that. And so our attention on this issue is really meaningful. It's not just offering third party exclusion. It's just taking a survey of what is out there and available and where do the gaps exist? Because we're talking about hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents that are impacted here. It's great work. Thank you. Thank you for today. And thank you to Winnie and Ken. Great. Great work. Thank you, Winnie. Nice to meet you. Thank you. Madam Chair, can I just, I have so much to say, but I just want to focus on one piece here because I know we're at a stretch. It's the Game Sense Awards. I love that we focus on the staff at the casinos to recognize the partnership that exists between our Game Sense teams at each of these locations and the staff there. And what really struck me this quarter was just the range of employees that this isn't just, you know, we're not just talking about dealers or slot techs. We're talking about HR, IT, you know, persons who, across the board, we're talking about people who are engaged and invested in Game Sense. And that speaks volumes about our operator's commitment to Game Sense and as well as our Game Sense advisors' willingness to really carry this message forward for the benefit of the patrons who visit casinos. Thank you. Okay, everyone's all set. Thank you, Winnie. Thank you to your team. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you for the support that you're giving through the press and legislative work. Okay, then we're going to move on to our next item. Director Lillios. Oh, there you are. Hi, Councillor Hall. Hello. Good afternoon. I should say good morning to Chair and Commissioners. I think Loretta was probably going to hand this off to me, so I thought I would just jump in. I also want to note that, again, I have come after Game Sense and that is a hard presentation to follow. I have a lot of respect for all the work that everyone is doing in that arena. So just want to give a shout out and also to the new employee, Winnie, for doing a great job. So that was great and I appreciate their presentation. We'll make a note of that, Heather, and then we'll bring the office that where the Game Sense folks will be saying how hard it is to follow your acts. I don't know if that will happen, but thank you, Chair. So today we have three matters that we're going to be speaking about with respect to the proposed Encore Boston Harbor Realty Income Re-Transaction. We're not going to be asking the Commission to vote on the proposed transaction itself today and that's going to come at a later date, but we are going to be discussing, like I said, three matters. So first we're going to have a description of the transaction and for those of you who don't have it up yet on the packet, that's at page 36. We'll have representatives from both EVH and Realty. They're going to present the description of the transaction and the deck and then they're going to be available for questions. And second we're going to have a deposition by the General Counsel Todd Grossman and representatives from the parties with respect to the trust. We will be asking for a vote on the trust from the Commission and that document also has been provided. The trust matter starts at page 45 of the packet just for everybody's reference. And third we're going to be discussing the Vanguard Institutional Investor matter. I'll be doing a quick brief briefing on that which is related to Vanguard Group Inc. status as an institutional investor. We're going to have representatives from both VGI and EVH will be available for questions. There's a memorandum in the packet for everybody that I submitted previously. We are not going to be asking for a vote on that matter but instead we just wish to notify the Commission about the issue and to let you know the plan for going forward. And that particular matter is at page 30 of the packet. So with that I will turn it over to the parties to start with the description of the transaction. Counselor Grossman are you leaving? Sorry Mr. Nozzle and Ms. Hall if I may. Good morning Madam Chair, Commissioners and all who are joining us. Before we jump in to the particulars, I just wanted to announce that in accordance with Section 9D of the Commission's Enhanced Code of Ethics and in the name of Transparency, there are three Commissioners who have filed Section 23B3 disclosures on this matter. And they are the Chair, Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Maynard. They filed those disclosures relative to certain holdings of Vanguard related funds. They filed those with their appointing authorities as required by law. And I would just clarify that that means this is just a notice of essentially an appearance of a potential conflict but where there is no action being taken today and the Commission is not being asked to engage in any votes or anything of that sort, it is just a 23B3 matter and not a Section 6 matter. But it is important that we announce the filing of those disclosures. So Madam Chair and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity. Counselor Grossman, I'm just going to allow Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner O'Brien if you want to add anything or are you all set? No, I think that covers it. I mean strictly where we're not voting on anything today, I think the right approach to take. So Todd was accurate. I agree. I think Todd summarized our disclosures. Great. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Counselor Grossman. And good morning, Attorney Mosul. How are you? I'm good, Chair. How are you? Can you hear me okay? We can. Thank you. Great. Great. Thank you. So I'm going to start with a brief introduction of this matter and then the team and then I'm going to turn it over and make an attempt to share my screen with the PowerPoint and go through the agenda as Attorney Hall outlines. So thanks. So as Attorney Hall indicated, the Petitioners here, which are MGM, excuse me, which are Wynn, MA, LLC, and Realty Income Corporation are appearing before the Commission in connection with a pending request for interim authorization to close a contractual transfer of all the rights and title and interest in an entity, EBH, MA, Property, LLC, including the real property and improvements that compromise the Encore Boston Harbor Gaming Establishment from Wynn to Realty Income, which is a publicly traded real estate investment trust. The transfer of the ownership and interest, including the real property related to Encore Boston Harbor, does not involve a change in control of the licensee Wynn, MA, LLC, which remains responsible for the operation of Encore Boston Harbor and all of its regulatory responsibilities. Should the transaction be approved by the Commission, Wynn will continue to operate the casino but then lease the gaming establishment back from Realty Income governed by a lease, which will highlight some of the key provisions of today. As Attorney Hall said, we seek to provide an introduction to Realty Income today as a potential new qualifier for Wynn, LLC, and provide an overview of the transaction. In addition, we seek to review the trust agreement that's necessary to have in place for interim authorization, and we request that in advance of ultimately that hearing that Attorney Hall alluded to, to make sure we have enough time to make any adjustments or changes prior to that hearing in order to be ready to close shortly after that matter is heard by the Commission to the extent it's then approved. So I'm going to now introduce who we have with us today, and that is first Sumit Roy, who is the CEO of Realty Income Corporation. We have Michelle Bushor, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel for Realty Income Corporation, Shannon Jensen, Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel for Realty Income, Jackie Crumb, Vice President and General Counsel of Encore, Boston Harbor. And then as Attorney Hall mentioned, we also have representatives from Vanguard, which include Brian Murphy, who's an Associate General Counsel for the company, as well as Allie Bartlett and Phyllis Asusko of the firm Bose, McKinney, and Evans LLP. So I don't think I missed anybody. And with that, I am going to attempt to share my screen and turn this over to Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy, you're on mute. We're not living if we don't say it once a day. It might be actually a problem because I don't see that he's on mute, but we're not hearing you. At least I'm not. If you select the little button next to mute that looks like an up arrow, just make sure that your microphone speaker is selected. At the top, they'll say select a microphone. Just make sure that's not payment. Can you hear me now? Yeah. All right. Thank you for the directions, Kristen. That was wonderful. I'm just going to wait for the presentation to show up before I begin. Is it? I do have it up. I'm not sure if anybody can see it. We can see it, but it's probably not in the best form that you'd want there. It's getting closer. We can see it, but it's not really filling up the page that matters to you. Okay. I'm going to have it. Yeah, I have it expanded for my full screen here. Yeah, it's kind of tight. Let me see if I can get that back. Is that any better, Chair? If you were to expand it, it would, if you could expand it a bit, it would be helpful. But just so you know what we're seeing, we're seeing about a third or a quarter of the screen is black, and then it looks like part of your presentation is in the dark below. Now it's getting closer. It's just small. It's fine. It's just small. How's that? Can you see this page now? Yeah, I can see it, and I know that we also probably have it available on our website. Yeah, it is. And Attorney Hall, can you indicate what page I think that was at? Yeah, absolutely. And I also want to apologize because I forgot to do my usual mention that we're in a judgment-free zone with respect to the tech. So yes, the deck starts at page 36, if my eyes are actually not lying to me. And then this particular slide that starts with Realty Income is at page, I believe, 37. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. And that's page two of the deck. Thanks. So I'll go ahead and get started. That's okay. So good morning, everyone. My name is Sumit Roy, as Ned suggested. I'm the president and chief executive officer at Realty Income. Thank you all for inviting us here today to discuss Realty Incomes on core Boston Harbor transaction with you. I thought it could be helpful to start out by explaining our company, our industry, and our portfolio. I'm calling you from San Diego, even though this is one of the only days where it's cloudy and it's actually raining, which is very unusual, but it's good for us, where we are actually headquartered. Realty Income was actually founded in 1969. We completed our New York Stock Exchange listing in 1994 and we were added to the S&P 500 in 2015. The foundational pillars of the company are centered around acquiring high quality real estate, leads to clients that are leaders in their respective industries. Realty Income is known as the monthly dividend company, as we have declared 628 consecutive common stock monthly dividends for our shareholders. Our top clients include Walgreens, Dollar General, 7-Eleven, and Home Depot. Realty Income is a member of the S&P 500 dividend aristocrat index, a select group of 64 S&P 500 companies that have increased their dividends each year for the last 25 consecutive years, a testament to the consistency of our business model. Realty Income is a REIT. The REIT structure was created by Congress in 1960 to broaden individual investors' opportunities to own income-producing real estate. REITs own properties and sectors like retail, residential, gaming, entertainment, infrastructure, healthcare, office, industrial, lodging, and more. Some REITs are solely focused on the gaming space such as VG properties and GLPI, which specialize in acquiring casino assets and entering long-term leases with the operators. Similar to owning a stock in a corporation, a REIT shareholder can earn a share of the income produced by real estate investments without buying or managing the properties. REITs can be publicly registered with the SEC and traded on a stock exchange. REITs are required to distribute at least 90% of taxable income annually to shareholders. Going to the next slide. Today, Realty Income is one of the five largest REITs by market cap in the MSCI-US REIT index and one of less than 10 US REITs with two long-term credit ratings of A3, A- or better, by Moody's and S&P. Realty Income generates over 3 billion of annualized rental income, which is diversified across 11,400 properties, over 1,100 clients, and 72 industries. Realty Income owns properties in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, with a growing international presence consisting of over $5 billion invested in the UK and Spain. 43% of rental income is derived from clients who have an investment grade credit rating, either from Moody's, S&P, or Fitch. The third slide, please. Realty Income is a high-quality credit portfolio as evident by our top 20 clients. Each of the top five and 12 of our top 20 clients are investment grade rated, which is indicated here in orange. Our portfolio is recession resilient by design. 37th of Realty Income's revenue is derived from grocery convenience and dollar stores, industries that have historically performed well in inflationary and recessionary environments. As we go to the next slide, I'll turn it over to Michelle Gushor, Chief Legal Officer, General Council, and Corporate Secretary at Realty Income. Michelle. Thank you, Sumit. Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. It's a pleasure to be with you today. Thank you for the opportunity. As Sumit mentioned, I'm Michelle Gushor, General Counsel of Realty Income. Prior to joining the company last year, I was the Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Legal and Risk Officer of Caesars Entertainment, gaming company based in Las Vegas. In connection with my role there, I was licensed during the process of obtaining a gaming license and a number of jurisdictions, including New Jersey, California, Illinois, Louisiana, and New York, and Ontario. I am pleased that my experience blends itself so well to assist with this transaction. Realty Income's Netflix business model allows us to pursue attractive opportunities with favorable and consistent long-term returns across property types. One of the key attributes that was appealing to us when sourcing this transaction was the opportunity to partner with Wynn Resorts, a leading operator in the space. During the underwriting and due diligence process, our team worked closely with Wynn Resorts, understanding the operating business model, market fundamentals, and long-term potential of this asset. The Encore Boston Harbor transaction was an attractive opportunity that met each of our investment criteria. If approved, Realty Income will enter into a long-term lease with Wynn Resorts, which will include an initial lease term of 30 years with an additional 30-year option to renew upon expiration. The lease would have an initial total rent of $100 million with annual rent growth of 1.75 percent for the first 10 years and a greater of 1.75 percent or CPI capped at 2.5 percent over the remaining lease term. The lease obligations are fully guaranteed by Wynn Resorts finance LLC. This transaction is expected to generate healthy contractual rent growth and favorable long-term returns. Realty Income has a consistent track record of owning real estate properties for the long term while maintaining relationships with our clients. Depending the commission's approval, we hope to close this transaction in the fourth quarter of 2022. Realty Income will work to ensure that the necessary preparations are completed for the interim authorization hearing targeted for November. I'll go ahead and turn the presentation over to Shannon Jensen, Realty Income's Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, and Assistant Secretary, who will provide additional details regarding the transaction. Shannon, can you hear me first? This transaction is structured as an entry-level transaction, and so if you go one more slide. I'm sorry to interrupt you, I think we might be getting a little bit of feedback. So I think if folks aren't talking, if they could, you're obviously not necessarily speaking with respect to the commissioners, but I think that might help just food for thought. Thanks. Actually, Shannon, you've muted yourself. Jensen, let's try again. Let me hear that again. Can you hear me now? This transaction is structured as an entry-level transaction. Realty Income will acquire 100% of the membership interest in EVA and a property LLC, which is the current owner of the onto-call Boston Harbor. After the completion of this transaction, EVA, MA property LLC will continue to own the property, and when will retain the union item and continue to control and operate Sino during the transfer lease. Next slide, guys. The lease is a triple-net lease, which means when it's responded for all taxes, insurance, maintenance, and obligations of the property. This transaction is appealing to the transaction because it will long-term the lease, which is 30 years with a 30-year option, which is congruent with our long-term ownership in Cali. A strong corporate guarantee by rent or finance, as well as a steady rental stream of $100,000 with annual rent growth over the remaining lease terms. As part of the maintenance obligations, when is required to operate the property in a first-class manner, comply with all the union license and regulations, and fully maintain the property, including performing all-structurally, personal, and actual expenditures. No provision of lease impacts or prevents when the meeting is ongoing with the real-time obligations, including all regulatory requirements and promotion of required capital expenditures. Thank you. We very much appreciate you taking the time to listen to today, and we're without reopening for questions. Are there any questions, commissioners? I thought this was the one slide that I didn't really hear about was the current structure in terms of whether questions are on that slide. The only thing I, it looked like attorney Nozo was trying to speak, and I couldn't hear him. I didn't know if. Oh, cut. Oh, sorry about that. I was just saying what you said, chair, to get their questions. We're happy to answer them now. Thanks, commissioner O'Brien. Okay. On the current structure, just thought it might have been glazed over a little bit. Were there any questions on that? You've had a chance to review the slide in advance, but I want to make sure. Okay. Commissioners, we have, some of us have a little bit more familiarity with these transactions. No, no question is too simple to ask. These are complex transactions. Hey, Nozo, if you have any suggestions or clarifications that you want to add to the commission, you know the condition well. No, not at all. Chair, I just, I will say you're looking at that current structure slide. That of course is the current structure subject to approval by the commission. And I think we noted that in the footnote. So we're just using that slide to depict how the property will be held vis a vis the overall structure of real-time corporation. Thank you. Director Lillios and Attorney Hall, do you have any further clarifications that might help? I don't think so. I think we're, I'm also at my end. So thank you. Okay. Excellent. Well, thank you then for the description of the transaction. I think the last page of the presentation that I have includes something about that as proposed trustee. Are we going to move to that next? I'm, if the commission doesn't have any additional questions on the transaction or lease or background on the company, I'm happy to move into the trust discussion. Okay. Great. Thank you. And thank you for the very clear, the very clear presentation. Mr. Roy, thank you. Okay. So we'll turn to you. Lillios, thank you. Yep. Thanks, Chair. So as Attorney Hall indicated, also as part of your packet is the Mystic nominee trust. And as she indicated and Todd, I think, referred to as well as part of the transaction that involves new qualifiers in this situation. A petition for commission approval of a contractual transfer has to be accompanied by an executed agreement under the commissioner's regulations in the form of that trust. The trust, of course, may be necessary under your regulations if in term authorization, if after in term authorization, a suitability issue arrives pertaining to the transferee or buyer. In such a case, the commission's regulations provide that the property subject to the transfer be placed in the trust pending the commission's determination of suitability. If the transferee is ultimately found suitable, the property is transferred out of the trust back to the buyer. If the transferee or buyer is ultimately found unsuitable, the property can continue to be held by the trust thereafter and transferred to a suitable party. So the purpose of the trust really is to allow for continuous ownership and operation of the gaming establishment by a suitable qualifier during such time the commission investigates suitability concerns after in term authorization. And I think it's important just to emphasize that trust really only gets triggered essentially when there is a problem. So the trust isn't utilized unless there's commission concern regarding suitability and that's when it would trigger its use in those circumstances. So overall, the Mystic Trusts meets the requirements of 205-CMR 116-106. These include a provision for the transfer and conveyance of the trustee of all the transferees. Proposed, present, future, right, title, and interest in the gaming license. If there are suitability concerns raised by the commission, see trust section 2-H. A provision for the distribution of trust ray upon final determination of suitability, that's in trust section 3. A provision identifying the trustee and requiring the trustee to timely submit an application for qualification as a key gaming employee executive and found to be suitable by the commission. That is both in the introduction and there is a section in section 10 pertains to that as well. I will note as we have indicated the trustee in this case is Attorney Crumb who's already been found to be obviously licensed and is licensed by the commission. So we really have that sort of base covered on that perspective. And finally, we need to have a provision identifying the compensation for services costs and expenses and that's in section 4. I do want to point out an additional feature that is included in this trust. They and that does allow an option for the interest subject to the transaction to be transferred back to win as opposed to be placed in the trust should an issue arise as to suitability. Under the agreement between win and realty income, the underlying equity purchase agreement and under the trust provisions, win may elect to have the property transferred back to win rather than be placed in trust. This may sound familiar as well, Chair and maybe to you, Commissioner O'Brien, that was something that was part of the MGM-MGP retransaction and that actually goes back to the original trust that was used for these, which was the PPC-GLPI retransaction involving plane rich. And it really is a function, I think, of having an additional option in these types of transactions where we're really only talking about the transfer of an interest in the property, not a transfer in the interest of the license and we think certainly that it makes sense and I would suggest may even be a stronger option to essentially place everything back in the status quo if there is any issues regarding suitability. The other piece I'll add and this is an enhancement in this particular document is that even if the property is transferred at win's option back to win, the trust provisions still governs, meaning that the, and we've noted that in my cover letter in the footnote towards the end of that lever, letter referring to a specific piece of the equity purchase agreement that does require win to place rent in escrow and then certainly upon a final decision pertaining to suitability, transfer that property either back to the buyer realty income in this case or in this, or certainly if there is a hurdle that can't be overcome on the suitability front that win would just continue to hold the property. So I did just want to point that piece out that is something that is an additional option under this trust that's been recognized by the Commission in the past and with that we'd ask that the trust be approved by the Commission. I do want to point out and some discussions with staff over the last coming up to the hearing. We do have two small, I'd say non-substantive corrections to make that were pointed out through our final review and that is in section four, page three. The last paragraph, the first line it reads, notwithstanding any provision contained herein, either EBH nor buyer and shall not amend the provision of this paragraph. I think that probably is more grammatically correct if we said neither EBH nor buyer shall amend as opposed to having that extra not there. So I apologize for that and then there is also in section nine, page four, there's a stray reference or not a stray reference but a misreference to the Hampton County Registry of Deeds or it should be Middlesex County. So we'd be asking for the trust to be approved with those two corrections and those are things that I've discussed with staff leading up to the hearing. And Heather, I don't know, Todd, do you have anything else to add on that piece? Thank you, Councilor. I'd say that I think that was a very fair and thorough description of the trust and the process. I'm certainly happy to address any questions relative to the regulations. I would just add that this entire process is set out in section 116.10 of the Commission's regulations. That's what Mr. Nozl just walked through. He was speaking of subsection six. That's where all of the elements that need to be contained in the trust are described. The specific issue relative to the transfer into the trust that he described is 6A and that's the provision that issue that requires that there be a conveyance to the trustee in the event of an issue as he described and that issue can take the form of a reasonable cause to believe that the transferee or any qualifier may be found unsuitable or certain other contexts that may not necessarily apply in this particular case. And the only other thing I would point out is that the provision he was describing, and I apologize, I can't remember if this was specifically referenced, but it's on page two of the trust instrument itself. It's paragraph H of section two and you'll see in there towards the end it says that the transferred interest would be transferred to win or to the trustee at wins option. And that's the specific language that is being described here. As he mentioned, this is language, a similar language to that that's been looked at by the commission in the past. The commission previously essentially found that it does afford the same or even potentially increased levels of protection in the event that the trust has to be made use of. But it is worthy of noting as he just did that as a technical matter that may be slightly different than what the regulation provides. And the only other point I just wanted to make is that the contents of the trust are purely regulatory. They are not set out by statute. The statute requires that there be a trust, but the commission itself has set out what the contents of the trust must include. So you do have discretion when it comes to what the trust looks like. So for all those reasons, Ms. Hall and I looked at the trust ourselves. I believe we, well, I can speak for myself, and I think Ms. Hall, that we agree that the trust does meet the regulatory requirements with that one proviso. So happy to certainly take any questions or clarify any points. Commissioner O'Brien? I'm glad you brought that up, Todd, because I remember there was a sticking point when we did MGM, and I was trying to recall what the area was. So that was the section, right? The sticky point, if I remember correctly, was that it would revert rather than at some point, it would go back to the IED rather than the commission. And I think that's what it was. That was more the sticking point, if you will, but it was a similar, there was also this issue, but yeah, it was who decides whether there's reason to cause. That's right. Great, thanks. Yeah, and this one does is in conformance with what was ultimately approved by the commission, retaining the commission's discretion there, not having the IED do it. Right, and that was statutorily driven, if I remember correctly, Mr. Nozo. So I think it would be just helpful for maybe Ms. Hall and Director Lillios to just remind us here that the closing of this transaction will occur near end. Our suitability work is going to continue. So at this point, if you could describe what has happened right now with the, I assume you've identified the qualifiers or are you still scoping the qualifiers? No, absolutely, Chair. We have already identified the qualifiers and the IEB's investigation for interim authorization is underway. We are looking to do the presentation on that particular piece, the interim authorization to the commission in mid-November. We will be submitting the IEB's report, probably about a week before that, as we've done in the past. And then as you noted, when, if and when the commission grants interim authorization, the IEB would then continue and present a report nine to 12 months later with respect to the full investigation on suitability, if that answers the question. So in November, we'll be hearing some kind of preliminary report on qualifications. Correct, Chair. In November, it will be the adjudicatory proceeding with respect to interim authorization for the transaction. And if the commission grants interim authorization, then the closing is permitted to occur. So I guess I'm just asking for the, what we'll learn about each qualifier at that, at that stage versus the full investigation. We understand the full suitability investigation will occur in, you know, next year, nine to 12 months later. So what will we hear in November with respect to? So essentially, there is a truncated review of the individual and entity qualifiers that are identified by the IEB. And those individuals are, the leadership at reality are part of that analysis, as well as, I believe it's actually, you know, I don't have it right in front of me, but there are, I think, one or two entity qualifiers that we're looking at as well. And you know, to give me one second, I may be able to pull that up. Attorney Hall, I can jump in if you'd like me to. Yeah. And actually, I think I'm good, Jed, but I appreciate it. So in terms of the entity qualifiers, Chair, we have MDC on core holdings, EVH mass property. And then for individual qualifiers, we have Mr. Simmons Roy, who you heard from earlier, and as well as Attorney Boucher, who you also heard from earlier. And then with respect to Attorney Crom, she actually is a qualifier, but she, as you know, already has a GKE level license. So we're not looking at her as part of the interim investigation in terms of her suitability because she already has that license. So consistent with the regulations, she meets that criteria. And that would be put before you in terms of the report on the interim authorization. Thank you. Very helpful. Jed, did I just want to say, yeah, actually, I think you missed the big one. Realty income is also a qualifier. Well, yes. Sorry, I thought that. My apologies. Yes, of course. And Attorney Hall, the only thing I, and Chair, I think this is relevant to your question. The only additional thing that I'll add to that is that as after that scoping process and under your regulations in order for this transaction to go forward, all the application paperwork had to be filed and deemed complete by the licensing division. And we've been going back and forth with the IEB. So that includes the MJPHD, that includes the BEDs, that includes the mass ups for everybody that's been deemed a qualifier. So we have all that, all that paperwork is completed. And, and obviously it's subject to further inquiry by the IEB throughout its investigation. Thank you. Very helpful. Okay. Other questions on worked hard in terms of the regulatory compliance here or for Dr. Millios or Ms. Hall? Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Maynard. Ms. Hall, does the, does the truncated use or truncated review process, does that include attestations? I've not been part of this process. Good morning. The review that is performed for the interim authorization for the retransaction aligns with the review that the IEB performs for temporary licensure of, of vendors and key employees. So it does not include a separate attestation form like we have talked about in the sports wagering context. However, the standard application forms are attested to and signed under the pains and penalties of perjury. Does that help Commissioner Maynard? That answered my question, Loretta. Director Lillios, can I add one additional thing I think under the regulations that I think might be responsible as well, responsive as well is that the in connection with interim authorization, the transferee must certify that they're unaware of any reason why the transferee would not be found qualified pursuant to 23K section 12 and 16. So it's, I think it's a little different than what you've been talking about in connection with sports betting, but that is something that during the adjudicatory hearing, we will present that evidence to you that and make that under oath. That's a transferee certified. Thanks. Thanks, Jen. I know that we have to approve the trust. The document looks to be in great shape. Thank you to all involved in that preparation. Is there, are there any questions as to the trust itself? Is there any other action that you're expecting? I, you know, Councilor Grossman, we spoke yesterday about this and Bernie Hall, we spoke about this yesterday. There's no other action that you're expecting of the commission today besides the trust. That's correct. Just the trust in anticipation of the further hearings. That's all we're doing today. Okay. So this seems to be the right time if we are going to move on the trust. If there are no other questions for our, our guests and experts. Okay. Commissioner Hill, you're leaning in. Madam Chair, I'm leaning in so I can make a motion for this issue. I move that the commission find that the mystic nominee trust is discussed today and appearing in the commissioners packet will upon execution comply with the requirement set out in 205 CMR 116.106. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Any questions or edits with respect to that motion? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. And Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Excellent. Good luck as you approach the closing. All right. Thank you, Chair. Thanks. Nice to see you, Jen. You too. Thank you, thank you. So just make one note. Sorry, everyone. So it is now 11.30. We have next on my apologies, just a little bit. There are quite a few papers I haven't pulled off for that. So I'm a little bit discombobulated. There was anything I'll have to remember my notes. Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. There is one more piece of the transaction that we were going to discuss. My apologies. That's exactly what I was looking for, but it is Heather's piece now. So if you would like to go forward, Ms. Hall, thank you. Thank you, Chair. And thank you. Thank you, Todd. So you all have a copy of the memo, which is at page 30 of your packet. So I'm not going to repeat it all here. So essentially in sum, we had a question about Vanguard Group Inc., which is VGI. We had a question about their status as a possible qualifier with respect to the transaction between EVH and Realty. So members of the IED and the legal unit had communications with representatives of both VGI and EVH to discuss this issue. And through those communications, we learned that VGI does not directly or indirectly own stock in Realty. Instead, there are individual Vanguard funds that own stock in Realty, and VGI, the entity, provides advisory and administrative services to those funds. So although the combined ownership of the Vanguard funds in Realty is just over 15%, each of the individual funds have ownership percentages below 5%. And as I noted in the memorandum, neither VGI nor the Vanguard funds exercise control or direction over Realty or actually EVH, which is the category one gaming licensee. So for those reasons, the IED and the legal unit determined that VGI is not a qualifier to the transaction. And as I noted in the memo, the IED will require VGI to provide status updates about the individual funds ownership status on a bi-annual basis. And if any funds ownership percentages exceed 5%, that individual fund will be required to file an institutional investor waiver with the IED. So that's essentially a summation of the memo. And I'm happy to answer any questions. We also have representatives from Vanguard here as well, if the commissioners have any questions. But we are not asking for a vote, as Todd had said, on this particular matter, but we did just want to let the commission know about the matter and our plan for going forward. And you're not asking for the vote because it is IED's responsibility? That's right, Chair. And that's consistent with how we've approached the re-transactions in the past. We have looked at the institutional investors. We evaluate the qualifiers. And as we discussed earlier with respect to the individual and entity qualifiers, VGI was not determined to actually be a qualifier because VGI does not directly or indirectly own stock in realty, if that helps. Any questions for Ms. Hall? Thank you for that. We appreciate that work done that are very helpful. Absolutely. Thank you, Chair. And I thank Todd as well and also the representatives of EVH and VGI. They were very helpful. It was an interesting issue and we appreciate their communications. Great. Thank you so much. All right. Then if we're all set with respect to this matter and the trust has been approved and the transaction will move forward. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for everybody's time. And we do want to express our thanks as well to the IED, Heather and her staff, as well as Todd. A lot of work goes into getting us here and to that hearing in November, so we appreciate it. Thank you. Good luck. Okay. Someone going to move on to our next matter. It is 1130. I just want to be mindful that people want to take a break or do you want to work toward a lunch break? Which doors? I'm willing to work through to the lunch break. I can keep moving. All set. Okay. Then we are going to now hear from our racing division. Good morning, Chad. And good morning, Dr. Leitha. Good morning. We have a number of promo and capital improvement items and then a quarterly aid reimbursement for our items today. We have our Senior Financial Analyst Chad Bork here and also Director of Racing, Steve O'Toole. So I'll turn it over to Chad to start it off with the request for the reimbursement for this summer series, handicapping. Thanks, Alex. So as Alex mentioned, I have a total of six items for you today. You will be happy to hear that they are all pretty straightforward. We've done these before. Because of the amount, I just give a quick recap of how I'll structure it. So first, I'll bring to you the promotional trust reimbursement request. Then we can go over the two consideration requests also for the promotional trust. Next, I'll bring the two considerations for the capital improvement and with local aid, if that works for you guys. Sounds perfect, Chad. Thank you. Okay. So Plain Ridge Park Casino has submitted three requests for the harness horse promotional trust. Each month funds are deposited into the harness horse promotional trust that our licensees can use to engage customers and increase attendance. Distributions are made upon the commissioner's approval of the licensees request for consideration followed by a request for reimbursement. So the first request is for reimbursement. And this is in the amount of 26,000. These funds will be used to reimburse Plain Ridge for payouts that were made to the winners of the series, which was approved by the commission on July 12. I have reviewed their request and supporting documents which included included all winner acknowledgement forms. Each prize was paid out in the manner that was stated in the consideration and the prizes did total 26,000. The fund currently has a balance of over 270,000 and therefore can recommend approval. I'll pause there and let Steve come on and tell you a little bit how the contest went. Steve? Yeah. Thanks, Chad. So the contest went very well. I think I reported earlier that the first contest we had a woman that was new to handicapping and beat all the professional handicappers that we have here on a daily basis. But it went very well. The participation was excellent. And the staff did a really good job with it. We had a leader board that kept the customers engaged throughout those Saturday afternoons. And everyone's anxious for us to do more events like that. And we're anxious to do them because it really did engage our customers. It increased our handle a bit on those days as well. And so we were very, very pleased with the outcome and how it all went. And I'm sure the winners were pleased with their prize money as well. It says, as you envisioned, Steve, I forgot who gave us the training, the mini training on handicapping. Somebody asked that question. Was it you? I'm not the world's best handicapper. So I don't, I'm not sure if it was me or not, but I think I did. Maybe it was Chad. I kind of lent some ideas. But yeah, the handicapping is quite a unique art form for the different breeds that race, quarter horses, thoroughbreds and harness. Some of the punters like to think they're experts in all those fields. Some concentrate on just one particular style of racing. But it's a lot of analysis. And a lot of guys always claim that they get paralysis by analysis when they're looking at the racing form. So it's unique. And it's like a library around here when they're preparing for their, for their picks for the day. It's very unique. Commissioner Hill. I think I was the one that had asked about it. And I got a lot of great information after the meeting from all types of sources. I even tried it myself when we went out there for one of the races. And I think I was 50-50 on my, on my handicapping. But not in real life. That is correct. 50-50 isn't bad sometimes, Commissioner. That's true. Paralysis by analysis. I think Commissioner Hill, if I remember correctly, we were all really impressed by names, names for the, the, the driving force. So other questions for Chad or, or a directorial tool on this promotional trust reimbursement matter. Okay. So I, I know that you need a vote from us. Do I have a motion? Michelle Bryan. Certainly, Madam Chair. I move that the commission approve the amount of $26,000 for reimbursement as described in the memorandum and the commissioners packet and discuss here today and further that the CFAO be authorized to deposit such funds from the harness horse promotional trust fund to the track licensee Plain Ridge Park in accordance with chapter 128A section 5G. Second. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I vote yes. So 5-0. Thank you, Chad. Next. So the second and third requests also for the promotional trust are considerations. Stephen mentioned to host two more handicapping contests. The first request is in the amount of $25,000 for a contest called the penultimate handicapping contest. And the second request is for the survivor contest in the amount of $2,500. I did review the request in all documents to ensure they met the statutory requirements. The request is in good order. So I also recommend approval for both the penultimate and survivor contest requests. Commissioners, questions? Okay. And so we've combined those, which I think is efficient. Madam Chair, I would like to just mention one thing about the survivor contest. I would just like to mention one thing about the survivor contest. This is different. The penultimate is very much like the one, the summer series that we did. But the survivor contest is a little bit different. We are actually cosponsoring that with the Breeders Association, the standard bread owners of Massachusetts, to bring some attention to Sire Steaks Day. So they're sharing the expense. So it's going to be a $5,000 prize. And a survivor contest is one where everyone picks the whole card. And as the races progress, the last one standing gets the prize. Or if there might be a couple standing, they would share the prize. But it's very difficult to pick a whole card. So we're looking forward to that one. And that's something that we've done in the past. And we're looking forward to that different style and to bring attention to the breeding program and the Sire Steak races on, I believe, but yes, it's Monday, October 24th. So thank you for that. Given that they aren't being distinguished, I think that we'll do two separate votes then. Makes sense. Commissioner Hill, do you have a motion? I would move that the commission approve, excuse me, the expenditure of $25,000 from the Harness Horse Promotional Trust Fund in accordance with Chapter 128A, Section 5G, for the purposes described in the materials in the commissioners' packet, and as discussed here today. Okay. And that is respect to an ultimate contest. So we should just have that clarification. Did you start with that, Commissioner Hill? Did I miss that? I did not name the contest in my motion. Just move to, you could just amend to say with respect to the ultimate contest. And that would be fine with me. Okay. Do I have a second with that amendment? Second. Okay. Sorry, I was out of order. Okay. Questions on that? Commissioner O'Brien? Hi. Commissioner Hill? Hi. Commissioner Skinner? Hi. Commissioner Maynard? Hi. Thank you. And thanks again, Director O'Brien for the distinction and again, the collaboration you're having with the, I want to make sure I've got it right. It's with the, which association? The Standard Red Orbs of Massachusetts. They're in charge of the breeding program and the, of course, of course, but I just want to again apply their, their collaboration with you on the survivor contest. Do we have a motion on that? Certainly Madam Chair. In connection with the survivor contest, I move that the commission approve the expenditure of $2,500 from the harness horse promotional trust fund in accordance with chapter 128A section 5G for the purposes described in the materials in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. Thank you. Any questions or edits? All right. Commissioner O'Brien? Hi. Commissioner Hill? Hi. Commissioner Skinner? Hi. Commissioner Maynard? Hi. And I vote yes. Thank you very much. Chad? Okay. Great. Thank you. The next two requests are considerations for the harness horse capital improvement trust. Also submitted by Plain Ridge, each positive into the capital improvement trust fund that our licensees can use to repair, maintain or improve the property where racing activities are conducted. Distributions are made upon the commission's approval of the licensees request for consideration followed by a request for reimbursement. So the first request for consideration is in the amount of $76,900 for the purchase of a new tractor. And the second request is for the purchase and installation of a new digital tow display in the amount of $99,350. I reviewed the requests and documentation, which did include the opinion letter from Dixon Saylo confirming the need for the two items. The fund currently has a balance of over $750,000. I also recommend approval for both the tractor and the tow board requests. And again, I'll pause again and let Steve provide some additional details or answer any questions. Thank you, Chad. So our tow display, which is old technologies that was installed here in 1999, it's been repaired multiple times from when there is any storm activity in the area and lightning is in the area. It seems to affect that mechanism out there for whatever reason. So not a direct hit, but just something goes haywire with it. And the tow company is continually repairing that in the summer months when we have to get the thunderstorms. The last one a couple of months ago did irreparable damage to it. And basically it's just time for an upgrade anyway, because it's very old technology. So we are still able to keep our customers informed with all the pool information, the payoffs, and all of that with the big video display that we have out there. So there was no interruption in customer service, but the tow board is a nice addition to that when the display is showing other things. So that's the reason for that request. And tractors are going here 24-7 almost. And we like to have them replaced and brought up to our as required. And some of the quotes that you'll see does have a trade-in on it for one of our existing tractors. We decided to keep that one for and repurpose it for other backside activities. So we're not trading in, we're just buying a new one to work the implements and groom the racetrack before races, after races, during races. So those are the reasons for the two requests. Questions for Director O'Toole. I don't have one for Director O'Toole, but Chad, could you just remind us how much is in this fund? There is a little over $750,000. Thank you. And both of these are equipment, so capital investments, capital improvements. Yes. Okay. Further questions? All right, so we'll separate them out. Let's start with the tractor. Do we have any questions on the tractor? And if we don't, do we have a motion? Madam Chair, I move the commission approved the expenditure of $76,900 from the harness horse capital improvement trust fund in accordance with chapter 128A section 5G for the purchase of a tractor described in the materials and discussed here today. Second. Thank you. Any questions at it? Commissioner O'Brien? I. Mr. Hill? I. Mr. Skinner? I. Mr. Maynard? I. Yes. Okay. Now with respect to the top board, any questions on that? I must say the lightning thing is a little bit mysterious, Director O'Toole. It is. I don't know if it's the wiring that goes out there underground. Our timing devices as well get interrupted when there's a lightning strike in the area. And we've gone to not a Wi-Fi signal, but a radio signal for our, for our timers out there, which has limited that on when we have that kind of occurrence. But it baffles me, it baffles the tow company. So hopefully, hopefully this new system, it's very much like video board. And it's, it's running fiber optic and not the old wiring that we used to use. So we're hoping that that will take care of it. We won't have the interruptions that we suffer. All right. If there are no further questions, do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the commission approved the expenditure of $99,347 from the harness horse capital improvement trust fund for the purchase of a tote board in accordance with chapter 121 128 a section 5g for the purchase described in the materials in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes, five zero. Excellent. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. Thank you, Director O'Toole. And I think we have one last matter and that's your local payment. That's correct. Thank you against Steve. So the last item I have is the Q1 FY23 local aid. Eight is payable to each city and town where racing activities are conducted. The amount of aid is determined at a rate of 0.35% of the handle from the quarter that ended six months prior to the payable date. Today's request is for the quarter ending on September 30th, where the city of Boston would receive $107,717.53, the town of Plainville $18,179.72, the town of Rainham $16,623.88, and the city of Revere would receive $53,874.92 for a total amount of $214,807.92 in local aid for the quarter. I did provide a detailed breakdown of these amounts, which is in the packet, and this also asks for a vote. Okay. Could you just say the total amount one more time, Chad, please? Sure. $214,807.92. That's not the figure that I have. I'm not sure if I'm looking at the wrong document. Let me double check here. My apologies. Just bear with me one moment. Did the numbers compare for each city? Do you happen to know of those? I followed them pretty closely, so I can tell you what the document that we have dated October 4th. Okay. Two cents. You're right. I think I did. I possibly might have used a prior one for and transpose that over for this quarter. So let me. The document, I haven't added it up that amount, but the document that we have is totaled $196,396.05. Okay. So I added it. That's what it comes out to. Okay, good. Thank you. Yeah. So my apologies. That is the amount. Again, I just transposed this over from, I have a template, as you guys know. This is always pretty much the same thing. So my apologies for that. No, that's no problem. It does show that we're watching and listening, Chad. So thank you. This is a very important local aid payment. So thank you so much. Yes. Keep me on my toes. Thank you. Well, all of us, exactly. But thank you. All right. So any questions for Chad now that we just, we just clarified the numbers, we do have the right numbers in our packet in front of us, Chad's presentation. I think we all have the same question, Madam Chair. And as usual, it was addressed. Okay. Excellent. All right. Do I have a motion? Yeah, Madam Chair, I move that the commission authorized the quarterly local aid payments for the final quarter of 2022 to the city of Boston, town of Plainville, town of Rainham, and city of Revere, and the specific amounts outlined in the memorandum in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today totaling $196,396.05. Second. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you, Chad. Thank you, Director O'Toole, and thank you, Dr. Leitham. Are we all set? We are. And I just wanted to say thanks to Chad quickly. He had a number of items on today. Getting them all ready in time was quite a feat. And also I know Steve O'Toole was very busy. Obviously, he put in his racing license application a little about 10 days ago and went right into getting all the items for this meeting ready to. So thank you to both of them. Thank you very much. And as always, very well prepared. Thank you. Okay, commissioners. Now let's see. We're moving on then to the legal division. And you have a series of regulations that I think stem from our review. Hey, good morning, Judy, Attorney Young. Are you on for this? Good morning, Madam Chair. That's correct. It's me. It's still morning too. Yes, for four more minutes. So this morning I have four regulations for you within 205 CMR Chapter 138 titled a uniform system, or excuse me, a uniform standards of accounting procedures and internal controls. So as you would recall, these regulations came forward to start the promulcation process for regulatory review and some amendments back in June. And since then they've been going through the promulcation process. So this is the final step now. We're back before you commissioners with an amended small business impact statement and to walk you through the regulatory changes again. Before we do that, just as a note, I will say that a public hearing on these amendments was held with Commissioner Maynard on September 29th. And we did have about, I'd say, five or six participants and attendants. However, we received no public comments about hearing. And since the regulations were posted in Circulated, we've also received no public comment. But I did want to flag them for you before we got started. Madam Chair, would you like me to screen share these changes or walk you through them orally and then kind of show everything in the red line changes at the end? What's your progress? Commissioners, what's your progress? I don't know if I think there's a question, do we need to be walked through all the right, just the red lines highlighted? For sure. I'm fine with just the highlights, but that's just me. Okay. So starting at the first one, we are in 205 CMR 138.02 titled A Licensee System of Internal Controls. So just as an overview, this regulation guides the submission and approval process of a gaming licensee system of internal controls within their gaming establishment. It also sets out and defines what internal controls must include the overall implementation process and any time a licensee wishes to amend their internal controls and submit them to Director Wells. So the proposed amendment suggested by the IEB and within subsection seven will establish a 30-day implementation requirement for the licensees anytime they submit for approval and receive approval from Director Wells of a new internal control. This is meant when this has been done to basically ensure that the protocols that have been approved by the Commission are implemented on a more timelier basis. They've noted that sometimes it does take a little while for licensees to implement these changes and so we're hopeful that this 30-day requirement will just kind of keep things moving a bit faster. Any questions on that one? Okay, fabulous. Thank you. Next we have 205 CMR 138.05, a system for ensuring employees are properly licensed or registered. So as you all are probably very well aware, this regulation establishes a system of internal controls for ensuring that gaming licensees are licensed in accordance with 205 CMR and specific provisions within 23K as well and the licensing of individuals under 205 CMR 134. So this change is kind of remedying a Scribner's error. There was a deletion of Section J within this regulation that was caught off in a prior publication of the register and the IEB caught this one during the regulatory review process and so we're just inserting the section back where it belongs. So it will read now the full sentence, the date on which the information submitted in the report was compiled and I'm happy to show you the red line at the end of the presentation. Any questions on that one? Fabulous. Okay, moving on. Next we have 205 CMR 138.07 floor plans. Again, this regulation details the submission and approval of floor plans by the commission and the inspection of floor plans by the IEB. It also sets out what they should include, the scale, their size, what must be depicted, their amendment procedure, so on and so forth. And again, similar to 138.02 and on the recommendation of the IEB, we are going to insert a time requirement for refiling and submitting approved floor plans or amendments to the IEB's office within each gaming establishment. There was no time requirement there before so you'll not see any red line or deletion instead simply inserting the phrase every three months or at the request of the IEB. Any questions on that one? I just have a Scrivener's question, which is that all of the others have a header that lays the subject down. It seems to be missing or on the page. Yes, I apologize. I pulled only, that reg is incredibly thorough. It's a couple of pages and so I pulled only the bottom portion of that reg. And I should have, I apologize, I was moving a bit too quickly when I submitted these. I probably should have put the title on the top of the page. Okay, just want to make sure whatever we send in is consistent. Yes, I'm coming in Friday to submit those so I'll make sure they're ready. All right, very good. Any questions on that one before moving on to our last one, commissioners? Okay, last but certainly not least, we have 205 CMR 138.62, the payment of table game, progressive payout wagers. So again, we have our licensees submit an internal control in accordance with 138.02, guiding the payout of progressive wager jackpots. Progressive wager jackpots are best explained by our IEB team, but I'll take a stab myself at giving it a whirl. So these are jackpots that cover an entire round of gameplay within a gaming establishment at more than one table. And so when a patron wins, they win a very large amount of money that's been kind of amassing during a specific round of gameplay or more than one round. And so what we've noticed is that the existing protocol covers payout of a wager to only one patron. But again, during the rugby process, both Sterl and Burke noted that there should also be an internal control submitted by licensees that governs when two or more licensees would win during the same round of gameplay to create a kind of more equitable process. Because what's going on now is that a patron can win a progressive wager. And if another patron won at the same time, one would receive a much larger share of the jackpot. And the other one would only receive a wager amount, excuse me, the reset amount of the progressive jackpot. So for example, one person could walk away winning $100,000. And another patron who won maybe the progressive jackpot only a few seconds after at a different table could come away winning only $10,000. So we've asked the licensees to generate a protocol that would guide and govern when two patrons would win at the same time and implementing a more equitable procedure. So I've been told that this has not happened yet. Implementing this protocol that would kind of govern and create a more equitable process would be kind of more preventative and palliative at this point. But they do recommend having this so that both licensees are using the same process when something like this does occur. And I see that Sterl is here. So I think he's going to jump in and give a little bit more context. Good afternoon, Sterl. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. Judy explained that extremely well there's just one little caveat. So she said at a gaming table. So this rule was changed due to it happening on the same table. So the licensees will go to their surveillance system and they will see who won a jackpot first if they are on separate tables. But when somebody is on the same table and they win the same jackpot hand, it is that where we determine that that should be split equally amongst all the winners. So whether it's one winner, two winners, five winners, it will be it will be the number of resets plus the original large jackpot divided by the amount of people that won. That's how we want it. It is already done in Encore and in M&GM. We just want it to be the same throughout the entire Commonwealth for everyone. You're the best, Sterl. Any questions commissioners about these four changes before I screen share the red line? Kind of clarification, Sterl. So if this is of course it's crazy, it's crazy to think it would happen, right? It's very, very slow chance. Well, that's why I gather because you're experienced, right? So if I understood correctly, you're you focused on the table. So that made sense to me. Judy had focused on me when there might be the same this at the sort of the same moment. But one table wins a progressive pot a second before the other one. So it empties. It doesn't apply. This table only applies to the same the same the players at the same table. Exactly. So the way it used to be written in the olden days and it was always done only because you had to get it paid by a computer on a Caribbean stud game and it was very old. It's not new. They couldn't do it this way is that they had to award. And what they did is they wrote in their rules that the person who received the hand first got paid the large amount. But it was actually it's they actually couldn't do that. They actually had to pay because they paid the first person on a on a gaming table is to the right of the dealer. That was actually the last person who received the hand. So they were kind of not doing what they said they were. But and so now what most casinos do is they say they're not going to determine who won first because everybody won on that table at the same time when the dealer turns over their cards so that in that regard everybody wins at the same time on that table so that they will all split the number of the total jackpot and then any number of a reset amount that's all due to the GLI math certification behind the progressives. I hope that answered your question. That already helps and then if there's some another table. Then we go to surveillance. So then they see who won first via the cameras and timestamped. Yes. That's tough. They're not all splitting it. Got it. Okay. That makes good sense though because we are able to determine really by the second on on hook that first. Okay. Really helpful. And Judy, you did a great job. You did a great job. Yeah, I had a great teacher. What can I say? Yeah, no kidding. No kidding. All right. So any other questions on that? Just a statement that Judy walked me through my first hearing and it was flawless. Thank you, Judy. My pleasure. All right. All right. Well, I think that concludes the presentation. Is it all right to screen share those four regs now for Redline? Sure. Give me just one second. I should be much better at this by now, but I have to say I was monitoring my own screen with it, but I don't know if others were doing the same thing. Do we need to see the red line? Just put it be helpful. I don't need to see the red line and I'm prepared to make the motion. Yes. I just want to check with others. I think we were all monitoring the red line. Our sounds. I was I was walking through it as Judy was presenting, so I don't need a red line. All right. Thank you. Fabulous. I will note that the amended small business impact statement was included in the commissioner's packet as well on page 91. However, given the fact that this regulation just relates solely to gaming licensees, we do not anticipate there being any impact on small businesses. Okay. Mr. Skinner, you're ready to make a motion. Is there no other questions for Judy? All right. I move that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement relative to 205 CMR 130802 130805 130807 and 130862 as included in the commissioner's packet. Further, I move that the commission approved the amendments to 205 CMR 130802 130805 130807 and 130862 as reflected in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today and that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth and finalize the regulation promulgation process. Okay. I don't know who did it, but somebody will record. I can have it. He's always so, I was just going to comment on how enthusiastic he sounds when he votes. So I will seize my second. Okay. There we go. Thank you. Great collaboration. Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you. Okay. So with that, any further questions on these rags in the small business impact statement? Okay. Thank you so much. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And iPhone. Yes. Thank you so much. We've got five. Five zero there. Great work. Thank you. Moving forward. Thank you so much. Okay. So it is now 12. I love that I'm just going to skip back to, I think we've got finance team up next one minute. Yep. Good morning, Derek. How are you? Good morning or early afternoon, Madam Chair. I'm good. How are you? It is good afternoon now. My apologies. That's okay. We're good. Thank you for asking. Good afternoon. I'm joined by Douglas O'Donnell and John Skelly, and we are here to present to you the fiscal year 22 gaming control fund closeout report. After three quarters of adjustments, the MGC's revised budget was $33.25 million, which required a $27.26 million assessment on our licensees. Actual spending for FY22 in the gaming control fund was $32.47 million in revenues with $33.9 million. Again, in FY22, there are expenses for the central monitor, which are a direct cost to Encore Boston Harbor, and due to the Commonwealth operating on a modified cash basis of accounting, 401,000 of those reimbursements were not received until FY23. The credit to licensees assessments in FY23 is the difference between FY22 spending and revenue, and then we add in the approximate 401,000 in independent monitor expenses that were reimbursed in FY23 resulting in a $1.83 million credit to the licensees FY23 assessment. The gaming control fund spending for FY22 was $32.47 million, which was approximately $776,000 less than the approved spending level. The regulatory costs underspent by $493,000, indirect underspent by $144,000, the office, the attorney general underspent by $139,000, and the ABCC spent almost all of its allocated budget. The table on page two of the memo shows final spending and variances to budget amounts by budget areas of the gaming control fund, as well as brief explanations for large variances. The biggest area the MDC underspent was on the costs of the gaming enforcement unit, which experienced large vacancies this year, and they really managed their overtime budget well, very prudent spending there. The commission's revenue is generated from a daily fee for slot machines, licensing fees, and assessment on licensees. The most recently reported projections for FY22 were $33.82 million. FY22 final revenue received was $33.91 million, and variances between estimates and final amounts are included on the table of page three of the memo. And as you'll see, the main variance was on the independent monitor revenue that was received in the last quarter of the year. So that's approximately $83,000 difference. Final spending in the gaming control fund was $1.437 million less than revenue. Oh, I have to add Noel is present too, so Noel is joining us. Final spending in the gaming control fund was $1.437 million less than revenue, and after adding back in the 401,000 for the independent monitor revenue received in FY23, the commission will credit $1.83 million back to the assessment. 205CMR 121 describes how the commission shall assess its operational costs on licensees, including repaying any overages back to them through a credit in the next fiscal year. The tables on page four of the memo show each licensee shares of gaming positions on July 1 in January 1 of FY22, which was how we determined their share of the assessment, which is how we will go about returning the credit to the assessment. So that's all laid out. We can walk through those tables, but for ease of purposes, we basically just add up the gaming positions throughout the year. What the total is, take that percentage and apply that back to the $1.83 million assessment in our credit. That concludes this presentation. We are here for any questions. Once again, a nice chunk back to the licensees from this year, and it shows that we are still being prudent with our spending. It shows that our managers are still managing their budget very well, and it goes to the overall process of, I think, the efficiencies of this trust fund, where in other state agencies, there's always the urge to spend at the end of the year, because you don't, you kind of get penalized if your spending is below your budget. In here, we don't have that process, so managers don't feel that stress to spend every cent that's in their budget. John or Doug or Noel, if I missed anything, please let me know. I know that the majority of this work to generate these reports comes from your divisions, from the work you guys do on a daily basis, so thank you. Questions for the team? Michelle Bryan? I don't have a question so much as a comment, reiterating what Derek said, looking at this, how I know GEU did have a lot of challenges, and that's pretty impressive that they managed to do it in the manner that they did, so hats off to that. Yeah, we can't stress that enough. They've had a lot of vacancies, they continue to, and they really are managing their overtime well. Yeah. Thank you, Krishna Bryan for that. Other questions, comments? Derek, you may not have this memorized, but last year, was it 1.3 that we sent back? It was 2.2 because we had overbilled. Last year was the overbilling issue. Okay, so 2.2. And we had less of a we had less of a timing discrepancy between central monitoring voices. This year, we had the 401,000 in central monitoring invoices that the timing discrepancy happened because we had to work with the independent monitor on whether they had exceeded their budget, the timing of it, so we actually didn't pay those invoices until after the public meeting and then bill our licensees for them on a later timeline this year. We did get a little better at spending closer and estimating compared to last year. However, you know, 1.4 million on that size budget is still under 3% reverge and which is good. Excellent work and well presented. Very clear. Thank you. Thank you. No further questions for this team. Just very, very well done. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we don't have to vote on this today. Correct, Eric, but you do have another matter for us, don't you? That is correct. You do not need to vote on this. But we do have another matter which we can jump into right now. If you know what it is, it isn't on our agenda right now. It is under the sports weight ring. So hold there. Yes, thank you. All right, commissioners, I'm mindful of time it's 12.20. We have the sports weight ring updates from Director Wells and then our own discussion around with the guidance of Todd around the licensing evaluation process on a very preliminary basis. Do you want to continue to move forward or do you want to break from it? I think unless if there's something discreet that we can do right now and then break for lunch, that would be great. Otherwise it might not be a bad time to step away and take a break for lunch. Maybe the contractual update is that discreet Director Wells. I'm wondering, Madam Chair, if we just take that slightly out of order and then break for lunch. I'm happy to do that. That is brief. If you'd like to do that. I'm hearing an interesting background noise. Yes. Well, my cat after is feeling much better. So she's parked right next to the table. So I keep meeting myself. I actually wondered if it was the cat or if it was for the space here. A pigeon, a cooing. I couldn't really tell. Yeah. That's quite wonderful. I kind of want to just listen to that Director Wells. I'm sorry. My apologies. Okay. Yes. Sure. We can come right ahead on that. And then that is awesome. It really is. It is very soothing. A couple flybys. I've been trying to push her down, but I'm sure you saw her at some point. Yeah. I think she's so gentle and lovely. So anyway, thank you. Director Wells, we'll go ahead and get one done and we'll break them. Yes. And I can actually probably do items 8A and B. 8A is a review of the public comments regarding the sportsway during application. We have not received any yet. We are aware that at least one entity is going to send something or is indicated they're going to send something. So we'll stand by until we receive those comments. So that's the update on the comments on the application. And then for the update on the contractual services, I have a couple of updates because the IEB team is now working fast and furious on their work, particularly with respect to sportsway during. I'm going to cover the update for the IEB. For contractual services, this week the IEB with the assistance of the NGC finance team selected RSM to provide consulting services to assist with the background review process for sportsway during applications. RSM is a leading provider of audit tax and consulting services with a presence across the US and internationally. RSM has assembled an impressive team to support the NGC's mission. Firm has expertise in financial due diligence and also has significant experience in the gaming environment having provide consulting services to tribal and state gaming regulatory agencies across the US. The IEB and RSM are coordinating on the case management system, the investigative protocols for financial suitability review and analysis, and the documentation of findings. Loretta and Monica are very pleased and confident with the selection and will continue to update you at upcoming meetings. In addition to the engagement with RSM and as the IEB previously reported to the commission, the IEB has also contracted with a team of investigators comprised of former sworn law enforcement members including former members of the state police gaming enforcement unit. These investigators are lined up to assist with the general suitability reviews of applicants at the operator, vendor, and employee levels. So very pleased that that work has been done appropriately and that they are ready to go on that. It's particularly relevant because that as the chair mentioned that scoping survey is due on Monday and that is the trigger point for the investigators who identify qualifiers and then they can get going and get the applications from the from the applicants and continue with the investigative protocols. So that's great news. The other good news is we have in fact signed a contract with Gaming Labs International, also known as GLI. That is going to be huge for our implementation timeline. They are a uniquely qualified company for assistance in sports wagering implementation. They have assisted other regulators in other jurisdictions. They can provide a multitude of services to us. They're going to be critical for Katrina's department. They'll be helping draft tech standards, help with internal controls. They can help with responsible gaming initiatives and other regulations, testing standards, and they will also be helping not only at the initial stage in us setting up our infrastructure, but once the licenses are granted, they can provide services to confirm the appropriate internal controls that are submitted by the licensee. So it's a great win for the MGC to get them on board and have that set to go. I know the team is really excited to have this kind of level of health and this level of professionalism. So that is the other piece. I will update you as we continue on. We are also looking at contracting for project management help on this to make sure we keep on track that we can give the commissioners regular reports and that we can manage the workload that's going to be ahead of us over the next few months. So I just wanted to give that update. It's critically important that those things have happened. As you know, we all have our day jobs. We still run an agency here, so bringing in that assistance is critical to us with the timeline. So I just wanted to let you know that. I'm available if you have any questions. Okay, so we'll have a few more matters. Is this a time to break now? Commissioners? Yes? Okay. Yes, please. Yes, please. All right. Then Director Wiles will return to item 8c when we come back from lunch and just looking. We're doing well on time. Commissioners, thank you. So it is 12.26. What time would you like to return? I'll say one o'clock. Okay. Does that work? Makes sense. All right. We'll return at one. Thank you, everybody. Thank you to all the team who's presented as Director Wiles pointed out. The work that we do regulating the casino gaming continues and much of that and the horse racing, much of that was addressed today as well as of course our very, very strong commitment to responsible gaming and it was a great kickoff for today's meeting. So thank you. Dave, I think we can take it down. Most of us are bad. All set. All right. Thank you. Okay. So are we back on? All set? Streaming? Dave? Yep, we are good to go. We have resumed. Okay, great. Thank you so much. So we are returning to our earlier convene meeting of Massachusetts Gaming Commission. They are using this virtual platform. So I'll take roll call, Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. Here. Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. All right. We're all set to return. Before we do, I had promised that I would do a reminder of some important deadlines that are before us right now and I think I'll do it now. Karen, you had also referenced it but I want to note that last week we did post a scoping survey on our website. I mentioned this at the beginning of our meeting today. This is a required part of our application for all three category sports wagering operator licenses category one, category two, and category three sports wagering operator licenses untethered and tethered. All prospective applicants for an operator license must submit this part of an application. It is a prerequisite. The scoping survey is due ahead of the full application. The due date for the scoping survey is Monday, October 17th by 5 p.m. The scoping survey is not the notice of intent that many perspective or interested parties filed earlier. The scoping survey is, as I mentioned, part of the application for category one, two, and three operator licenses. Perspective operators must meet this deadline. Vendors will eventually be required to fill this survey out as well but are not subject to the same deadline. You'll also find the survey, you can, I'm sorry, you'll find the survey on our website either on the main page or through our sports wagering page which can be found under the about tab. Additionally, we have posted, as I mentioned earlier, the application for a sports wagering operator license on our website for public comment. While the application is subject, the change is based on public comment. I recommend that, or actually we recommend, my apologies, that the interested applicants begin to review and pull materials together. And I think that you heard Executive Director Wells said at this point we have not received comments. If anyone is having trouble accessing either the survey or the application, please contact us at communicationsatmassgaming.gov. If you have any questions, our communications department is available at Tom Mills and David Sousa Act Communications at MassGaming.gov. Thanks everyone for your patience on repeating that, but we're hopeful that we've clarified any confusion. So with that, Karen will return back to because HC please. And just to be clear, we're reconvening public meeting number 397. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. In a public meeting on October 6, 2022, the commission voted to promulgate 205 CMR 240 as an emergency regulation. This regulation dealt with the taxation of sports wagering operators as well as fantasy sports wagering operators. As part of that regulation, the commission asked for fantasy contest entities or individuals to register with the commission as well as to fill out a form in a prescribed manner that the commission would approve attached to this memorandum on page two and three are one, the registration forms for entities or individuals offering fantasy contests. And then the second one is the proposed monthly tax form for the entities or operators offering or individual offering gross fantasy wagering contests. If you have any questions on those, we tried to keep them simple. For the registration form, we took a look at similar things that a business would have to register with the secretary of state's office. Almost the same exact information. And then for the adjusted gross fantasy wagering receipts monthly tax form, it follows right along with the regulation what's required to be submitted. Questions? Commissioner O'Brien? So the only, the question I have on the form, Derek, in terms of, I was thinking about that in the secretary of state's office. If they are not a mass corporation, is the person entity contact names designed to grab whoever would accept service a process? If for some reason we needed to serve them with something? I hadn't even considered that. So this would go back to kind of working with the attorney general's office. So if that would be helpful. Yeah, I would want to work with the attorney general's office on that. But that's a good point. I can make sure that that's reflected in a footnote, just like we have the footnote for the taxation form that that person should be responsible for. Right. Okay, great. Thank you. Any further questions? And Todd and Derek and other team members, you'll stay in close contact in coordination with the AG's office. Okay, excellent. That is our intent. Second, Derek, I'm sorry. That is our intent. Good, good. And I think that they are looking forward to that as well. So thank you. All right. Anything further? So we need to vote on this. Can you just explain, Derek, what happens if we if we confirm this now, then what are your next steps? So I would then work with Tom Mills to make sure that this gets out as wide as possible. And we will be expecting to receive some sort of registration from the operators that we know we could always reach out to those larger operators that showed up at the at the here at the roundtable. And then the second piece would be to start looking at tax revenue coming in and starting that partnership with those with those entities or individuals. As I pointed out at the at the meeting last week, the real problem will be what, how do we get our hands around who all the operators are? And I think hopefully there'll be some reporting by other individuals in the space saying, hey, I didn't notice this person didn't register or hasn't paid their taxes because like everything will put up the taxes on the website at the end of at the end of each month. So hopefully some of that competitive side will help to drive us to the people who haven't registered. And then we can work with with the Attorney General's office on verifying that information. Are we going to have a spot on our website that just lists through the the known or I self identified players? I mean that might be a place if somebody looks at it and says, well, I'm so and so they're not on your list. So I can work with Tom on that. Happy to do that, Commissioner. Great. Just going to add Madam Chair and commissioners, if I may, you'll recall from our discussion last week that it was our position that the obligation to pay taxes accrues on the operator as of August 10th. So if one did not register immediately, even if it's not for a couple of months, they would still in our opinion owe those funds and they would just be due at a later time once we wrap our arms around. So there's nobody gets off the hook by virtue of not registering immediately. That's a good point, Tom. Thanks for reminding us of that. And I just Madam Chair, if I could, I just want to take a minute to acknowledge Derek and his team and their quick turnaround time for this form. It was distributed, I think maybe on Monday or that weekend after the vote. So much appreciation to Derek and his crew. Thank you for that, Derek. Should we add something about the retro activity or no? We don't do that for the casinos, right? No, but we could put that in all of our notifications as I work with Tom on how to best distribute this. And then as we get the registrant, we'll let them know. If you have any questions about it, you can watch the public meeting on the state. It's all videoed out on the web and here is the determination from the commission, as well as guidance from both internal and outside council on the applicability of it. I think that's probably helpful. Yes, I do too. It'll cut off a lot of those discussions. Right. So thank you. And thank you, Commissioner Skinner for acknowledging the good works consistent with what we saw with the regulation. And thank you very much. Any further questions for the forms? Do you remember, correct? They were part of the regulation. And so that's why the quick turnaround is appreciated. Okay. No further questions. Do I have a motion? I move that the commission adopt the Daily Fantasy Sports Registration and Taxation Forms, as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. Thank you. Any questions or comments? All right, Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. I vote yes. 5-0. Excellent. Thank you. Thanks for taking care of that. Thanks, Sarah. Okay. Next up, Madam Chair and commissioners, is divisional updates. As I mentioned at the gender setting meeting, I thought it would be a good idea to have this as a recurring item as we are going through the implementation of sports wagering. I am going to cover two of these. Loretta and her team have logged out of the Commission meeting. They are meeting internally for planning purposes and for medical reasons. I am going to cover IT. If you could bear with me on that. If I could just give the updates on that, then I will turn it over to Todd to give a brief update on legal. This may be an opportunity generally as we go on. Any questions you have for any division, please feel free to ask those or any information. We can even, if we don't have the answer right then, we can circle back with the commissioners. But we are trying to keep the commissioners informed in as real time as possible. We recognize that we are working very rapidly right now. So this is just a little bit of a pause to remind staff to be updating commissioners on what is going on within each division, not just at the highest executive director level. So bear with me. I have given you the biggest update for the IUD is that contractual services update with respect to RSM and the financial investigations part. In addition, the MGC has welcomed a new chief of licensing. That is Kara O'Brien. I just got to introduce myself to her downstairs during the lunch break. So we are thrilled to have her on board. She is jumping in just like Commissioner Maynard at just the right time. So bringing her on board is really helpful. And then, as I also mentioned, the first critical first step here is the scoping survey. So we're glad to have someone on board with licensing and we'll be getting those from the sports wagering operators. The deadline again is Monday. So we expect to be getting those. I am encouraged though that we have already received a number of those because it shows it was a reasonable turnaround time. These are not complicated forms to fill out and these companies should be able to fill those out within that time period without an issue. So I'm encouraged by the fact that we're already receiving them and it shows the level of interest and cooperation by these prospective applicants. And then with respect to IT, as you have already been made aware on numerous occasions, technology is a crucial aspect of sports wagering and online sports and sports wagering and online sports wagering. Katrina is very insistent that the digital component is referred to as online sports wagering. So the ITS division has been diligently researching industry standards and other jurisdictions to best prepare for the technical regulations and implementation plan for Massachusetts. In my late person's opinion, we've sort of got the backbone that we're working on right now which would be developing the regulations and the structure and then on the back end there's a lot of there's the testing requirements. So given the nature of sports wagering, we'll you know obviously be requiring some assistance with that and on the technical aspect. So the ITS division will be working with GLI to draft the technical regulations for retail and online sports wagering. This includes but is not limited to technical specifications, player account management requirements, geolocation, mobile regulations and requirements, internal controls, compliance, audit checklists and also working on training internal staff to enhance and broaden our scope of knowledge. So there's a lot going on right now and then one other thing we expect to come back in front of the commission is that regulation with respect to the operators being required to contract to have their their platforms tested to Massachusetts specifications, sort of the quote unquote GLI letter. So that's coming before you but operators should be aware that they should be prepared to to engage to get that testing done and that will be coming up before the commission in short order. So those are sort of the updates from IEB and IT. I don't know if you have any questions on that, although if not I'll turn it over to Todd just to give a brief overview from legal. Yes, Brett, Commissioner Hill. Yep, just say, do you have in how many forms we would receive? I was just talking to Mills, I didn't ask for a specific number. He indicated they were coming in. So I can get a number for you and we'll work out later. Thank you. Karen, where can where can we find those forms? The commissioners? Well, so I think Mills right now had they had they had a system to collect those we're still working on the system. I do know I think a couple of maybe our senior licensing had submitted them actually to licensing instead of to the repository. So we're still trying to get the messaging out about collecting those. I don't know Mills, if you have more detail information for the commissioners. Yeah, absolutely. I haven't counted. I would say I think at last look it was about five operators and then a handful of vendors while vendors are not required to meet the deadline that both the chair and executive director Wells mentioned. I think a number of them were eager to submit their documents. So we're accepting them through that secure file depository link. And I am working with the licensing team to download and, you know, get all of the documents in one place. So we'll make sure that we have a process in place for the commissioners to access those as well. Yeah, pause on that. Todd, do we need to worry about us knowing who becomes in the applicant pool? These are the very first pieces. Okay, for us to know that. I don't know what the proper process is for evaluation. Because it is now that those will be, you know, the LSA withdrew. I don't think there's anything wrong with you knowing who is in the applicant pool. We get into different territory when it comes to knowing the contents, perhaps of certain submissions. And we should make sure that we share all of this information with the commissioners and kind of a uniform thoughtful process. And of course, we will do that. Interestingly, that may be a good segue into what I was just going to offer. That is a scoping survey used by IPV. That's all I was saying. Thank you. So it's not typically something that we would have. So commissioners, just as a little bit of caution, I'm thinking, I would be curious too, but I just wondered if it's an area where we might want to get a little bit more, you know, let Todd pause on it a little bit. Yeah, that's a good point of clarification and any guidance Todd, you could provide would be appreciated. I don't need to remind us all that we are operating under a very tight timeline. So the sooner I can access information to begin to digest it, the better in terms of mobile applications. I think that that's right. But again, that is the scoping survey. And I think when the applications are actually complete and come in, then we'll have a whole process set forth. So the scoping survey is something that IPV uses. All right. So just actually going forward my manager on that being, you know, I know there's sometimes different takes when you're even looking at physicians and resumes come in, whether you hold them all, and then give them all the same time or whether given the time constraints, you do it on a rolling basis as they come in, maybe something we need to figure out because I don't want anybody to feel like they're getting penalized for being late. But it would certainly help if we could without a problem, start looking at these on a rolling basis once the apps are actually completing them. So something maybe Todd, you can give us some advice. Right. And we will be able to see the timeline. It may be that it's it's not as horrific as everybody's thinking. I think there's, you know, we've got a good couple of months plus to evaluate to read. But I understand the desire to maybe do it on a rolling basis. So I think I'm a little bit hesitant to have us all looking at the scoping, unless somebody says we can't say affirmatively and we want to. Okay. Thanks, Todd. Any other questions for Tom or Karen? All right. Okay. Actually, I'm sorry, just going forward, can we, and maybe this is more a Dara question than anything else, but going forward, are we keeping, how are we keeping track of the cost of launching? Because I think there does appear to be a question we're going to have to discuss going forward in terms of, is this going to be levied against the applicants or licensees based on market share after the first year? Are we doing it based on project? Like, that's a question I've had in my mind as we go through with consultants and outside council and things like that. So I put that out there to food for thought in terms of, I know we're tracking it. I'm sure Derek is tracking it. It's just a question of how are we going to then levy it for recovery later? Yeah. So at this point, we have a regulation that we've reviewed with legal that will be coming forward. So it's the cost of the investigations into this and we'll be actually putting an overhead rate for anything that's not a direct cost into the background suitability or review of the application. So we will have an overhead rate. This is similar to what we did the first time around and the language allows for that because the statutory language allows for any direct or ancillary costs and to review of applications. So that's how we're going to handle that. We will have to post that recommended rate onto our website as well as how we got to it. So there'll be another thing we'll have to come forward to you with as approval and how we're getting to that consideration. That should get us out of that whole process of going backwards. And then hopefully a lot of that gets alleviated if we can stick to the category category one timeline because then we'll have some licensees that we can assess those more administrative and overhead costs to versus the direct investigation. Great. Okay, great. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. Now, thank you, Todd. Sorry. Possibly segway, except we interrupted the segway. That was another good segway actually. So I'll use that one instead. I think so the legal department of course has been primarily focused on the development of regulations that would establish the framework upon which a lot of commission decisions will be made, of course, and for which the prospective licensees will be required to comply upon licensure. It is, I anticipate that in the coming weeks and months there'll be a steady flow of draft regulations being presented to you that will help clarify a number of the issues that we were just talking about, including the fee structure and the process for review of application materials, items along those lines. And of course, many of these are already well underway, some of which we anticipate having before you at your next meeting to start reviewing in earnest for possible adoption, or at least sharing for public comment and really getting the ball rolling procedurally. The contract, as Karen already mentioned, with GLI was executed, so we anticipate that they will begin offering their guidance and assistance along the way with a number of these regulations as well. So I think we're in really good shape to start to stand the framework up. One of the components of that is the evaluation process. And let me, before I get into any of that, I just wanted to make sure that that was a clear explanation as to what the legal division is looking at at the moment. If there are other issues, of course, we should be addressing those as well. Questions for Todd? Maybe they'll have the end, Todd. Thanks. Okay. Well, Madam Chair and commissioners, this is a separate agenda item, but I'm happy to jump into the evaluation process if that would be helpful. So based on the commission's conversation at its meeting last week, that would be helpful to present a model as to what the sports wagering license evaluation process might look like in a regulation. It's certainly there are different ways to go about it, but the model that we have before you for a really preliminary review today is modeled after the RFA-2 process that was used in the casino licensing process. And that is set out in sections 118 of the commission's regulations and section 119.03. Of course, the model you have before you is infused with sports wagering related topics and not casino gaming related topics. And for certain, the draft that you ultimately approve will be specific to sports wagering. That all being said, some of the language that is in the draft you have before you today is very gaming, casino gaming centric, and I left it in there intentionally just so you could see what it looked like. And before we take it out, and I will certainly talk to those points and point them out to you. But I thought it was important just that you see the whole picture before we started making edits to what was the existing process in that regard. So that said, there are certainly some areas that clearly don't apply directly to sports wagering, but that may have some application in some manner that we may be able to modify and make use. And then there are others that you might want to use the exact language. And other times there are places where Chapter 23K required certain steps be taken that just really don't have much application on the sports wagering side. So I'd like to point all those out to you. But again, they were left in there solely for the purpose of developing a complete picture as to where the model came from. And with that, Madam Chair and commissioners, I'd be happy to jump right in to the draft. It actually begins on page 103 of the packet. I'd be happy to share it, but if you all have the packet in front of you, I can just walk through the draft if that works. If you don't have it, it's fine to share. If you don't have it in front of you, because I think you're going to want it in front of you if you don't have it. Oh, you're on mute. I know you don't have it. It is in the... No, I have it. I have it in front of me. I don't know about everybody else, but I'm fine if you don't share. If you open up the invite, the packet will include it. If everybody got it? Okay. All right. Okay, very good. So let's, of course, start at the beginning. The first section you see is 218.01. This was a pre-application consultation that was performed in the context of the casino gaming license process. We scheduled individual meetings with each of the applicants just to make sure prospective applicants, I should say, basically anyone who wanted the one, there were certain members of the staff who met with representatives from their prospective applicants just to talk about what the application process looked like in the regulations and what was anticipated. We had a series of talking points to make sure that everyone had access to the same information. And ultimately, the goal was just to afford equal opportunity access to commissioned staff to answer any questions along those lines. Now, in this case, as we've talked about, there may be far more applicants making this a more difficult undertaking and certainly timely. But one of the things that I think we should consider is, again, ensuring that there is some mechanism in place such that any prospective applicant that has questions has uniform access to the staff. And everybody gets the same answers to the same questions. So that's really the focus of that particular provision. And I think that though this particular language may not necessarily be workable in this context, that we should consider including something along these lines. I'll just keep going. So Madam Chair, what are and members of the commission, one thought we had had internally because we recognize the schedule. Another thought would be if anyone had a question, they would submit it in writing, and then we would post the question and the answer on the website, so that everyone could see the questions that were asked and the answers that were given. That's another option that we could implement in the interest of fairness. Aside from, you know, there are multiple ways. It's just an idea if you want to consider that as Todd's running through this. Commissioner Maynard. Karen said exactly what I was getting ready to say. We can discuss that through this process. Okay. Well, we can certainly build that into this instead. I don't think we necessarily need to deliberate over all of these, but these comments are helpful as I just to be clear. And I think I said this, but in case I didn't, the plan would be to take whatever input the commission offers here today, build it into the draft, and then come back next week with a draft for the commission to actually deliberate. So certainly any thoughts along those lines, Commissioner Maynard would be very helpful, and we will ensure that we capture them all. Is that in addition to the meetings with each of the prospective applicants or instead of? It would probably have to be instead of. And that's in the interest of time. Yeah. I mean, we could still, you know, someone had a question. It's also in the interest of consistency, because you never know, you know, someone's having one conversation. Another applicant may not have the benefit of that conversation. So we were thinking if we really want to be super careful with this many potential applicants, that everybody gets the same answers. Everybody sees the questions that were asked. This would be the most transparent way to do it. The written comment practice is of course consistent with procurement practices. That's what I'm going to say again. And there's usually a period where it stops. But I don't know if that's what you need to be constantly. Commissioner Maynard, I didn't mean to. I didn't see you in the end. I'm sorry. Yeah, usually you try to. I know every once in a while there might be something critical that comes up after that. But yeah, usually put a time frame on it. So you're not constantly getting someone saying, well, what about this as you go through the process? So when the meetings were held during the RFA-2 process, was it for the benefit of the applicants? Or was there a benefit to the commission? Did the commission get the opportunity to ask questions? Like what else occurred during those meetings other than applicants getting the opportunity to ask commission questions? Well, they were just to be clear, Commissioner Skinner, those were private meetings. The commission was not present for those meetings. Oh, okay. Okay. Members of the staff primarily for the benefit of the applicants. You know, if they said, well, how exactly do you want the file named that we submit to you? And if they had a question about confidentiality of something, we could try to answer that. You know, what type of information is this question getting at? I mean, those kinds of questions and answers or what we're focused on. And again, it was for the benefit of the applicants, not for the commission. Okay, Todd, as you go through the regulations, just as one commissioner who has not been involved in the RFA-2 processes, if you could just provide, oh, I'm speaking. Most of us haven't been involved. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so then great. If you could, Todd, then just give us a little bit more context as you work through sort of the purpose of the processes under the RFA-2 process and whether or not they relate to this sports wagering processes. Absolutely. That makes a really good sense. So I will do that. I will certainly undertake to do that. Okay. The next section, I think this makes good sense in this context as well. It talks about the application submission timing. The first part, one just says that there'll be a deadline that the commission will set for the filing of the application. That is likely something you want to keep in there. We don't need to put the actual date in the regulation, but just indicate that there will be a date the commission will set. Paragraph two is one I did want to draw your attention to. And as you'll see here, there is some flexibility. It just says that the commission shall have no obligation to accept or review an incomplete application submitted by the deadline or an application submitted after the deadline. It left some flexibility for the commission to make certain decisions. It was not a situation where, as you can see, the rule says if you miss the deadline, we will not review your application. There are certainly a variety of reasons by something may come up. And this just offers the commission some flexibility to accept a late submission or incomplete submission under certain circumstances. So this is something that is worth considering. And it's a completely discretionary decision as to how flexible you'd like to be relative to the submission of the materials. Can I ask if we did a regulation that we passed last week? Would it be consistent to already give that? Well, I think that the scoping piece, I think, and I don't have it right in front of me, says that if you don't do it, you can't move forward with the application. I think that last section in that regs said something about giving some kind of flexibility, but I don't have it in front of me. It did give flexibility for extraordinary circumstances, but we didn't discuss what those might be. I think just to add some texture as far as the RFA2 process was concerned, my recollection is all of the applicants submitted an application on time, so that was not an issue. But there were certain circumstances where, well, let me strike that. There were two situations, I do recall, where someone actually didn't get their application in on time and the check and they appeared before the commission and offered an explanation. I believe the commission denied the request, but it was entertained at that point based upon this regulation. Todd, are you saying there was a deadline during the RFA2 process? Okay. There was a deadline. And was licensing not responsible for reviewing those applications for administrative completeness because the lack of payment is something that typically licensing flags just when reviewing vendor applications, employee applications and qualify applications and the like. Yeah, that gets into the administrative completeness issue. I don't recall precisely who was responsible for that back then. I recall clearly Brian Connors being involved, and that's the reason I'm just pausing. I don't even recall that we had a licensing division at the time, so I think that might be the reason why licensing wasn't involved with that. But now that we do and now that we are certainly familiar with the process, it seems like that would be the first line of attack. Yeah, that's kind of where I was going to go next. The commissioners shouldn't be receiving incomplete applications if, in fact, the division of licensing will be reviewing these for administrative completeness. That's right. So that kind of dovetails into the next part of the conversation, which is administrative completeness. And the question is, do you want to include an administrative completeness review? Now, there's a couple of things I think to bear in mind. With applications of the size we're looking at, there's a difference between someone who just does not submit a response to a question at all and someone who submits something that's deficient in some ways. So it's not always a bright line. And I think that's just important to remember because if we draw the line in the sand and we say that if something's not substantially complete, then we'll consider it incomplete. That may be a little bit more difficult to navigate because now somebody has to make that initial decision. And that's why the process that was set up before includes a procedure by which one can cure a deficiency. I think it was in many respects handled by the staff in the first instance where they would reach out perhaps to an applicant and say, hey, you seem to be missing whatever. Can you please supplement it? And that would allow them time to cure the deficiency and then meet the administrative completeness standard. Of course, there is a timing element to administrative completeness review, particularly if there are dozens of applications that come in that takes time. And that would need to be factored into the equation if we are to go down that road. The other way to do it would be to just review an application on its merits. And if it's missing pieces of information, then that gets marked down in whatever the scoring mechanism is. So there are different approaches here. I will say that an administrative completeness review did work well, but it does take time. So those are the factors to balance when it comes to this element. So if we were to require it, let's say there are 20 applications and 15, get it all right. Do we wait? Do we keep on working with the others to get their application complete, even though it's well past the deadline? How does that work? I define complete. I mean, if somebody says, I don't have an offer, you know, MGC on question seven about, you know, community engagement or something, they may make a tactical decision that they're just not an offering thing. Does that mean it's incomplete? Or is there just applications saying, I don't have anything to offer on number seven? Do we have certain minimums? We want to say, if you don't answer these, we as a commission are going to deem it incomplete. Is that a separate conversation? Or disqualified. I guess that's what I'm thinking, meaning, I guess I'm struggling with what incomplete and complete means, Karen. Right. So generally, you know, Commissioner Skinner is familiar with this. When we go through the process for getting the multi-juris... for example, multi-jurisdictional personal history disclosure boards for a new qualifier, we'll go through the licensing team, we'll go through that. If there are things that are missing, we don't send it over to the IEB for investigation until that's complete. So the burden's on the applicant for it to be complete because the clock starts ticking when we give it to the IEB and then their timeframe for completing the investigation. So we don't want to put the IEB at a disadvantage. And it also puts the pressure on the applicant to get their information in so we can get this moving. That's a little different here, particularly where there's a competitive process. And then there's other entities buying for certain licenses. So it puts it in sort of a different context. So the commission has several options on what they would want to do. I'm reading the reg right now. This basically... Karen, go ahead. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I just want to add that the administrative completeness review process for licensing really is a dotting of i's and crossing of t's check on the actual application. The application was not reviewed for any substantive content. It was simply ensuring that all of the questions in the application was answered. If there was an attachment that needed to be referred to, it was ensuring that the question or the answer to the question actually stated, please see attachment A or B or what have you, making sure that all the signatures were included and all of the application fees were received. And I think Karen's point, that's in the licensing construct. And then I think what we're trying to figure out is, I don't have your background at Commissioner Skinner. I'm thinking procurement and selection process and competitive selection process. And I think Commissioner O'Brien was getting to that point. And now I want to hear from Director Wells, but do we give the applicants that kind of license, if you will, to keep on correcting their application in a competitive construct? In many ways, if you don't fill your application out correctly in a competitive structure, you just won't advance in the whole process. So I guess I'm trying to think about, I know you had a competitive construct in the RFA2 process too, Karen. So maybe you can help me. Yes, that's correct. What I don't recall, there may be others in the agency who may have a memory of this because I was involved in the RFA2 because I was at the helm of the IEB at the time. The RFA2 application, I don't know, and maybe Todd, you know what they did for administrative completeness for that piece that's a competitive piece. The commission does have options, both on the competitive piece, and I'll call it the suitability piece, the VEDs and the multi-jurisdictional. This reg seems to suggest some kind of threshold administrative completeness review, which gives the executive director the discretion to say, you know, companies one, two, four, and seven, you're out. You didn't make it. I'm not sure this commission would like to do that, given that, you know, all we've been talking about was sports wagering. So there are a couple of options. We could identify, the staff could identify deficiencies for the commission and then summarize them and present them to the commission as part of their review, particularly with respect to the general application. And then the commission could use its own discretion and deliberate on that. The tricky issue comes with the initial suitability review that the IEB is doing. If there is information that's missing, for example, if they didn't attest to something or they did not submit, you know, an accompany their litigation history, we're relying on that to give you that information to do that threshold suitability review as part of the competitive process. So if there are substantial things missing, if we give the applicant an opportunity to make up for that, if it's a competitive process, you have to move the timeline to wait for that applicant to fill in that information. So that's a judgment call by the commission on whether they want to allow for that. Is it a case by case basis? Is it a never happened? So there's a lot of discretion that commission can do. And Derek, did you have a comment on that? I know if you remember from before. Yes. So I did come in right when we were starting to do the RFA twos. And I do recall that licensing did actually do the initial completeness review, but then we had consultants on board that would then dive in with each commissioner. And what they would check in for was clarifications on point, but not chances to actually change the application. Because the second let people add information. Now you just call in the question, well, how come the other person didn't have two weeks to do that? Right. The other piece is now you're extending that timeline and eating into that 30 days of your review before you get into a public meeting where you're going to do that review, right? So each one of these steps you can do. But as Karen said, if you're going to extend it for one, you should probably extend it for all and let them adjust anything that they had submitted, which would push off Kathy, as you were talking about or Madam Chair, as you were talking about the ability to start reviewing those applications that are in and deemed complete at that point. So, you know, I would caution against substantive changes and it would just be clarification points versus actually adding information into a into an application at that point. I can just supplement that I think that spot on just for context and some texture. You'll see within this draft regulation. So this is we're in 118.03. It's part B, little one and little two. The regular the draft draws a distinction between an administrative completeness decision of a negative one being made before the application deadline and being made after the application deadline. And to the extent one has submitted an application well in advance and it's been reviewed and it's prior to the deadline, then they can be given an opportunity to cure whatever the deficiency is. If it's after the application deadline, the way the draft reads at present is that they would have to come before the Commission to request an extension so that you can govern who does or does not get extensions and for what purposes. As Derek just mentioned, you do have to be very careful about allowing people to supplement an application that which is different by the way than I think administrative completeness. The way it went in the RFA2 process with the casinos was that once the applications were administratively complete and the Commission and consultants began digging in and reviewing it, there were often questions about certain information that was provided and it was determined that supplemental information would be helpful to understand the applicant's plan in any particular regard, whether it had to do with design or mitigation or employment or what have you. And so there is a provision here when we'll get to that momentarily that allows for that, but it is important that it be done in a really methodical fashion where we keep track of every question that is asked and every piece of information that is submitted supplemental to that. And I can just tell you that the court have looked at that in the context of the RFA2 because there was an allegation that we were unfair and the court basically appealed the process that the Commission used to allow that. The underlying theory and I think a number of commissioners, if not all so far have said this, I think, is that ideally you want to have the best possible applications before you so you can decide who the best operators will be for the Commonwealth. And to the extent that you do need some supplemental information about particular points, you don't necessarily want to paint yourself in a corner and say we will not allow that, that whatever you sent to us is all we're going to look at. And so I think it is helpful to include some language that allows you to allow an applicant to supplement an application upon request at least. Not that they're allowed to totally change an application or anything along those lines, but to clarify certain points proved in the RFA2 context to be very helpful. And again, that's not the administrative completeness section, that's the review section that we'll get to momentarily, but I thought I would just mention that principle. Here. Okay. So, if I may, we can move into 218.04, which is now on page 104 of the commissioners packet. This discusses the actual commission review of the application once it is deemed administratively complete. As you can see, right in paragraph five, say that the commission will review the merits of the request, meaning the application. And then it goes into a number of steps the commission may take to an aid in that kind of review. And this may or may not be something that will be helpful in this context. But it's again, just a tool that the commission may use. So it certainly would be something that makes sense to include in this process. And as you can see, it includes allowing the commission to refer certain parts of the application for advice and recommendation to a variety of different individuals, including internal staff here at the commission, or any consultants retained by the commission to help understand and digest what some of perhaps the data are or what some of the proposed plans mean in practical reality and things along those lines. So that was certainly a helpful part of the process when it came to the past process. As you can likely anticipate, these may be fairly complex applications that get into a variety of information, including technology and finance and other things along those lines. So it will likely be helpful to have the ability to ask others, including consultants, for advice along those lines. And that's the same type principle that is discussed in paragraph B, which discusses the executive director being authorized directly to retain professional consultants. The next section. When I asked about that process, that would all happen in public, correct? I think just about everything would be would happen in public at some point. This particular provision, I believe, would authorize the executive director directly to retain such consultants. But it's in all likelihood, I would anticipate that those would be discussed in a public meeting. So everyone would be aware of who those individuals are and what they are being asked to do. So this is a little bit different here, commissioners. Last week, I just want to think it's different. Last week, I mentioned that I thought it would be helpful for a consultant to go through the process of scoring and going through our insure that we are really abiding by our regulations and making sure that we're scoring in a way that's equitable and fair, so that we can withstand any kind of a challenge to our scoring process. It will be complex. And there was a recommendation in Derrick City that they could find a consultant from the state contract. I know that I think everybody from speaking to Derrick, each commissioner acknowledged their interest in that. Really, it would be some kind of procurement. And my recommendation to Derrick was, perhaps, and I can't remember which procurement we did publicly, and maybe, Commissioner Brown, you'll remember that where a team was stood up to do the procurement in the way that we do these really, really well, internal team and void of commissioners, but that they come back before they actually do the procurement, they come to us with criteria for our review, so that all five commissioners would have some input on that. All of this, if it allows us to make sure that that's a neutral consultant for the scoring. So I guess I'm wondering, is that the consultant here that you're thinking of? And I'm being careful because I know that I spoke with Karen. I do feel that this is a commission's process, so we want to make sure it's driven by commissioners. We, of course, rely on the entire team for help and the executive director, so I just wanted to pause there again for your help and also to help Karen. Yeah, I think that's exactly the type of consultant that this contemplates. I think I take your principal point here to be that this kind of authorizes the executive director to make those types of hires, if you will. And perhaps we adjust it to make it so that the commission is the body that will direct that. And to be clear, my thinking isn't just about the hire, but more to make sure that the process is what the commission is comfortable with, because what the team may have in mind might be really different than what the commission as a team has in mind. So I don't know if that's complicating, but this definitely does envision a little bit different in terms of the actual retention and the competitive process, whatever it is, using this, I think you said the state contract. I mean, we rely on that process all the time, but I do think maybe the criteria might matter to us. Commissioner O'Brien, you had weighed in last week. I don't know what you're thinking. I'm trying to remember the situation that you're talking about where we're not, none of us is involved, but they come back with criteria and I'm having trouble. We didn't. In last week, I had on the record, I said, you know, one of the issues around our process is to get some help in terms of our scoring and I really focused on the scoring. This is, you know, perhaps more wholesome, right? But I was thinking of the scoring process. This is also the review process and, you know, I think A is really saying that we'll be able to have the team help us understand, let's say the financial components. And I know Derek has already explained that we have a consultant who will be able to be consulted. I think a rather retained would be able to help us understand that through which I know is superb and I don't want to put words in your mouth Derek, but some kind of graphics that we would understand really what each application response was. I mentioned getting a consultant to be actually, if you imagine us as the procurement management team, the PMT, I know it's not a procurement, but the selection team, that the five of us are the selection team, who's going to be really running the show for us to make sure that, you know, to make sure we're, everything is memorialized properly, everything is scored properly, that we're staying organized with the individuals who are experts of that. And I imagine it being a consultant who would be an expert at that, as well as having Derek and Todd and members with NK on board too to help us through that process. So that was the consultant I was speaking about and Derek, you explained it, and then I think for one point or another, each commissioner said, oh, I'd like to be involved in that process. Derek, do you want to help me out? I might not be being- Just before we jump to Derek, so I guess I didn't envision it being that involved in our decision making. So Derek, you can answer. I wasn't picturing this person being that involved in the five of us making decisions like that, but maybe I'm standing where you're coming from. Derek, maybe you can help me out. I think that the consultant has to be neutral and doesn't, you know, but they just would be making sure that they're keeping track of our scoring processes that are compliant, but they can't have any voting rights or anything right there. Correct. They have zero voting rights. They're impartial. They're- I'm sorry, go ahead. I said no. I mean, obviously they're not voting, but I guess I'm thinking of Agnes sitting in that inner procurement making sure that everything's recorded. So I'm trying to get that. That kind of seems to me what you're describing and do we really need a consultant for that? Like, what is so complex about it that we need a consultant for that function? If you're going to have, if we're going to have five applications, you're right. There's not that much, but if you're looking at 30 or so, having someone who can keep track of this. Given the staff. Yeah, I have the discussions. That's what we talked about at the meeting. It'd be great to have this consultant identified and be able to pull together and really synthesize where the differences are, what the discussion was. And I said, you know, you'll have the public meeting too. Everything will be done in public, so you'll have that benefit too, but this will really pull it together. So when you're ready to make your final decisions, if you say, well, I don't want that person to go back and say, this is what the conversation was on this area. This is what this we talked about with this application. This is why we liked it better or why you liked it better or what this, and just to keep that conversation going. The thing else I'm wondering about too is, I know Todd, that the case that you brought up with Mohegan Sun challenging the issuance of Region A and there were, and yes, there were decisions drafted and penned a paper in terms of the rationale. Are we envisioning that for CAT3 or is this not something we're going to be undertaking for CAT3? Well, that is discussed in this draft. I would envision that, but that's something we should talk about. So is the consultant part of that drafting or purely this ministerial function that then someone illegal or something takes over the primary drafting? Well, the consultant helped last time with the drafting legal review that the commissioner has reviewed it. So it's really that extra set of hands. Yeah. Okay. At the end of the day, I think the principle behind this particular regulation is to offer the commission maximum flexibility to make the decisions it wants to make when the time is right. And just Madam Chair, to your point in just going back and rereading this, this does allow the commission or the executive director to retain those types of consultants. And I don't even think it's part of the regulation drafting process. You need to be specific as to who exactly you're talking about or what they'll do. We're just basically saying that you might do that. And when the time is right, the conversation along these lines would certainly be appropriate to make sure all the commissioners are comfortable with what the person, who the person is and what they're being asked to do. So thank you because I did interrupt your whole process because it is a separate issue if we are going to move on that retention of a consultant. I know Derek would start to get that internal team together to make that. So I guess as an aside, they'll put it in the parking lot. If kind of as a commissioner update, we think do we want to authorize Derek to go ahead with that internal team and then have him come back with the criteria that they are imagining that will actually help us understand better what the role was in the past and how it was helpful and so that we can move on that to the extent that that takes some degree of it takes effort and time and human resources. So I did, my question was a little bit, it was helpful for me to understand that piece. So I'm sorry, I derailed the raggedy deal. But Derek, do you mind hanging out for us through the rest of the meeting? I do not mind hanging out. I get paid every two weeks for this. This is my job. I think that says the CFO with great deal of confidence. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you, Todd. So that does, it gives us the flexibility and I see where you see it at the top. So that if we want to rely on the executive director or others, we could. Thank you so much. Absolutely. Let's move on to kind of paragraph C right underneath that paragraph, because we were just talking about this. This is the area where it says that the commission may require or permit the applicant to provide additional information and documents. So this would codify that process that we just spoke of. And of course we would want to make sure that we do it in a meticulous way to make these matters more transparent. But I think it's important if you are inclined to allow applicants to amend applications or submit additional documents that we say that right up front. So everyone knows coming in that this is an option on the table for the commission. We're only preserving it. It's a man. So we could more legal advice on that risk with because it's a little bit of a different group than under the casino gaming, right? It's a different, it is absolutely not only is it a different group, but it's a different process we're going through. I mean, though it's modeled after the casino gaming side, it's a totally different set of principles and I shouldn't say totally different. It's a different set of principles. And so we need not mirror that process, but this was one area, particularly where we're dealing with really comprehensive applications that I do think you will find to be beneficial at some point. I actually have a question that's based on Commissioner Skinner's observation last week, which was, you know, what are other jurisdictions doing? I know that we're looking back at the RFA-2 process, but I also want to think about what's been done with sportsway during another state. So did this take that into account, Todd, or is that another review we're going to do? I'm interested in seeing that and hearing it. Well, we have certainly reviewed processes in other states and I think there are certain principles, although I can't point them out at the moment, that are embedded here. But as far as that specific piece, I'm not certain. I mean, for example, what I'm saying is, is I hear what you're saying, what was done in the gaming piece with requiring or permitting the applicant to provide additional information. Did Illinois allow the applicant to provide additional information? Did Virginia allow the applicant to provide information? I think that would be helpful in forming our opinions a little bit. Okay. We can certainly try to gather that information. Would you, would it make sense to limit that to those three states we identified that had some kind of competitive process? Because, you know, we're in the minority here. Most of the states really, you know, had sort of predetermined who was either going to get the license for the casino out. The casino licensees chose their tethered vendors. So we're in a really different position than most jurisdictions in the United States, but we could check those three and see where they are. That might be the most helpful. Yeah. I think that's why I mentioned those two. Yeah, right. That's what I'm talking about. Okay. Okay. Well, if there's, I think maybe to add, I'm thinking, because I understand we were, we were challenged on that. That was a piece that, there was a vulnerability when we did do this. Oh, sorry. That was a little bit different. That I believe the primary focus of that challenge was, were amendments made literally during the evaluation process at the public hearing. So that was a slightly different issue than the one that we're talking about here. But nonetheless, it's a similar principle, but it was a slightly different situation. Well, that's helpful for me to recall. So I guess I'm saying to the extent we're maybe even next week, if we're going to be looking at, well, it's still in May. I guess it's when we come down to our evaluation process, if because of the way that this is, this process is structured ultimately, is it, is it, is the risk around supplementing whatever that means? And no matter how well documented does it grow because it's a different structure. I, I'd like to understand that it's from, you know, you and, and Kate, that'd be great. Thanks. Okay. Okay, to 1805. Okay, to 1805. This is one of the areas I was referring to when I mentioned that the outset that there are parts of the initial RFA to process that don't neatly fit into the sports wager in context. You'll, you may recall when it came to the casino gaming process, the host and surrounding community piece of it was a critical element. The theory there, which may have some intersection with what we're doing now, was that where those were such big developments that no casino would go into any community where it wasn't desired. So public sentiment was a huge part of the evaluation. And that's where the host and surrounding community hearings were born. And they were statutorily required under Chapter 23 K, in that case. Here, things might be a little bit different, but it seems to me that there is still certainly a place for public hearings, though they may take a slightly different form than they did on the casino gaming side. And I know Commissioner O'Brien, you might have some thoughts he'd like to share on that. So let me stop it. Yeah, sure. So Todd and I were talking about this, and I envision this more akin to getting comment on the various applicants, customer experience, vendor experience, other people's experiences with responsible gaming, technology, consistency, compliance that we might have. So more general public feedback on applicants, as opposed to sort of geographic specific tie to where a casino is going to come into a community. So I still think they would be incredibly helpful to have and whether they're done, where certain licensee applicants are put on for certain times, or we told one, two, three different ones at different times, and that anyone can come in and sort of lodge comments about applicants that we have that are still in the queue. I think it would be very helpful, but I envision it more as seeking general input about these from the public, about their experiences, particularly where there are other jurisdictions that have been dealing with these applicants. I don't think we're going to be getting an applicant who isn't already live in another jurisdiction. So if people have the good, the bad, and the ugly to share with us, I think it's a great forum for us to keep in our process. It's certainly consistent with what we do now. We do see public input on all of our matters, right? Commissioner Hill, you're shaking your head. I know how much that means to you. The differences back with gaming, with casino gaming had to do with regions, right? The online squads operators are confined to the entire state, but not a particular region. So I think we could come up with a series of public hearings to get that kind of input. What do you think, commissioners? Yes? And obviously, I think it's a good idea. I absolutely think it's, I think it's a really required for us to get all the intel we need to make our decisions. So it would have to be at a certain time, go ahead, Commissioner Hill. You didn't pop over to the left. You normally do. Oh, that was just a thumbs up. That's why it wasn't. I'm giving a thumbs up. Yeah. So in terms of scheduling, Todd, when would those hearings need to come before the application deadline? We want to do it after because you need to know what the proposal is for people to come. Because the applications will be public. I mean, there might be, right? I mean, other than certain information, but that would be very helpful. Because if you have people say, Oh, look, I had experience with them in Ohio, you know, and it was great or it was horrible. So I know they said on their app that they're going to do X, Y and Z. They said that here. And it didn't work or it worked really well. I mean, that I think would be really helpful to know. That's helpful. Okay. Well, any questions about public hearings? Because the commissioner scanner, I know that you favor, of course, getting public input. All right, we'll move on. Thanks. Okay. So the next section, we're on 218.06. So it's the bottom of page 105, the packet top of page 106 gets into the types of licenses and the decisions that will need to be made. So as you can see, this draft breaks down the process between category one, two and tethered category three licenses and then the category three untethered license. There are certainly distinctions to be drawn there. The main one being that the untethered category three license may likely be done as part of a competitive process. So we thought it helpful to split those out. I wanted to just note that there are some dates embedded in this language. That is one of the areas that was just carried over from chapter 23K. It was not inserted here specifically as a recommendation as to what you should do. Chapter 23K set these specific dates or timelines, I should say, and I'm referring to the 30 days, nor later than 90 days language that's included in there. You may choose to insert certain timelines by which you will make decisions. In the case of the gaming, the casino gaming ones, the law specifically said that decisions have to be made after, I think it was hearings in the host community, after within a certain date there. The design there was to ensure that the process was efficient and moved ahead promptly and that's why it was important to include these dates or timelines but it's not a requirement by statute in chapter 23N. So I'm not recommending that you include that in here but I think it is important just to note that after the evaluation process that the commission will take some kind of action. You will either grant the application and you'll see a key to that one and now I'm in little eye on both sections here that it's grant the application with appropriate conditions. It seems to me that there will necessarily be certain conditions attached to any grant of a license and that this it's important to clarify that point and that's where we do that. Or secondly that an application may be denied and certainly depending upon the number of applications that come in on the competitive process one may be denied. While it's been said that category one and two applicants are entitled, I tend not to use the word entitled. I mean the law certainly directs that they are likely to receive an application a license but they do have to meet certain requirements and so this gives the commission the flexibility to require that whatever information you need to be submitted is submitted and is up to par. So I think it's important to include language in here that recognizes that you may deny an application in certain circumstances. And third that you may extend the period of time for issuing a decision. That is something that was directly related to chapter 23k. We if we're not going to insert those 30 or 90 day time frames we don't necessarily need little three. That was required under chapter 23k if you were to exceed the 90 day time frame that doesn't apply here but that's it was included just so you would see it. So in all likelihood we may take that. That being said one of the key distinctions between the category one two and tethered category three section and the untethered category three is in little three on the untethered side where we say that you might need more time to complete the selection process for category three applicants. So this just recognizes that there may be a competitive process that may take longer than certainly the award of the category one or two. Section 11 and so now we're at the bottom of page 106 of the packet. Just sets out a couple of general principles attached to the process. And this A gets into Commissioner O'Brien's point and question that says that the commission shall prepare and file its decision and issue a statement of findings relative to the grant and Part B talks about the denial. So this says that there will be a written decision outlining the commission's rationale. Of course in all likelihood it'll be made in public anyway. So people will know what the rationale is but it's always helpful to commemorate certain decisions and writing. That's what this the commission will do. paragraph C is also. Can I ask a quick favor if you would. I know we've been talking about other jurisdictions. Is there other jurisdictions who do a competitive process where I could go on on their website and see what they have written in giving these licenses out. I'm just curious. I'm not a legal person. So I'd like to read over a couple of the decisions that may have been made for or against quite frankly. I don't need that today obviously but if you could get that to me. Yeah absolutely we will try to attract those down. Thank you. If they have that available and if they have any please distribute it to all the commissioners as available. I think that would be helpful to a lot of us. Okay thank you. Their application may be very different. Remember we set our priority so may not be apples to apples but I get what you're asking for. Okay so paragraph C gets into the timing of the effectiveness of the license and when it happens and the reason this was included in the first instance and since Derek is still working he may be able to weigh in on this one too. It was important at the time and it may be true here too that we set a standard because that's when the licensing fee would be due is when the license becomes effective and so that's why that was included there. We could probably go about it in different ways but this was just one way to do it in the way that it was done back in the old days. Correct that took into consideration the pending vote whether people want to pay the fee up ahead of time and take the license or wait for the referendum to pass. Given that we have sort of the licensing decisions of the pick of these individuals in the competitive process the way we outline the timeline after they're picked they're selected to presentably get a license. We still have the individual qualifier suitability process so I want to just be mindful of that and then after that's done and we have this we have the certificate of operations process before they can start their business and then even after that we have the full suitability process so just make sure all those miles still are incorporated here. Yeah great points so we do get into the suitability piece at the end of this draft and we'll talk about that and make sure that that's what everyone had in mind but absolutely there's still a operation certificate issue just because you have your vote doesn't mean you can start operating right this was just a trigger for certain other things. Okay so 218.07 was a provision that was included in 118 that was designed to clarify that this was not a 30A adjudicatory proceeding that was being conducted by the commission to determine the award of the license in fact it was of a different character and it's important just to note that where this is the initial award of the license no adjudicatory hearing is required as no particular right has attached which by contrast is different from the scenario in which a license has already been issued and we're looking at a renewal or a disciplinary measure where a license may be suspended in those instances by law the the entity is entitled to a 38 adjudicatory hearing this is a different character different in character so the commission can determine what the right process will be in that instance though it was decided that the licensing decisions would just be made at essentially public meetings of the commission and not at adjudicatory procedures and so that's what this section set out to address certainly and perhaps it goes without saying the commission will want to identify what type of proceeding will be utilized in making these decisions. Okay so the next section is 218.08 this gets into the actual evaluation of the application itself and paragraph a talks about that once the application is administratively complete as we discussed previously that the commission shall commence the substantive evaluation of the contents of the application that it may use any technical assistance it seems necessary and then we say that the commission shall analyze the factors and considerations i.e. the criteria set out below and this this is an important piece here and this is just based on some of the comments that were made the other day but this is one that the commission is really going to want to focus on next week when there's a draft before you it says that you'll analyze the factors this says in no particular order giving in giving any particular weight or no weight to any factor so if you are inclined to assign particular weights to different criteria we would want to do that in this regulation if you're not inclined to do that we could leave it general like this but that is something that is useful for applicants going in. Do we just the best and final proposal that concept apply here could that could not apply here. Yes so that's actually in paragraph c that we're going to talk about no that's quite all right that's your your instincts are spot on that's that's right in this arena here and then we just it goes on to add that the commission can also utilize any of the following methods so we talked about public hearings and presentations in the case of the rfa2 process you may recall that at the very outset of the process i think within a short period of time after the applications came in before the commission even really had a chance to review them in earnest each applicant was given whatever it was like an hour or 90 minutes to just present their application and explain what their vision is and direct the commission to any particular parts of the application that it thought were particularly important or unique or notable and so this is not saying here that you have to do that but this would leave the door open to you to do that if you are so inclined and of course it may depend on how many applications come in again if you have 30 applications you may collect not to do it or you may elect to do it on a more limited basis where each applicant has 10 minutes instead of 19 minutes or what have you but this would allow you some flexibility to do that type of thing to get to the chair's point little two again says that you may request additional information modified proposals or applications and you may request best than final proposals again doesn't say that you will do that it just leaves the door open to allow you to do that if that is appropriate in the circumstances and that if you were to go with language along these lines would be something you could decide as the process commences Councillor Povec you are you weighing in right now or just if I may briefly I just wanted to double down on Todd's point about flexibility the commission has great discretion in this area and both in the reg and when we later you get to the parts about the process to be used you know our advice has been consistent as is demonstrated in the draft this before the commission to remain lots of flexibility to avoid firm metrics to avoid you know we can get to talk to scoring more we discourage numerical processes because it really is a holistic evaluation and the statute and the jurisprudence support the commission are using its expertise to make that holistic determination so at this point when we're talking about regs as Todd said broadness and flexibility is best even when we get to the tools that are talked about on the next page but again our general advice is to not sacrifice that and to preserve that and to avoid numerical things that give a sense of certainty when really it's there's a lot that goes into the process and math is helpful in some instances but also can be difficult thank you Todd thanks Lon that's helpful so just continuing on with the theme we would move into section 15 which is although these will ultimately have to be renumbered but it's reflected as number 15 so at the bottom of page 107 top of page 108 this is the area that gets into the what you will be evaluating essentially what are you looking for and these are the criteria that the commission has previously looked at and approved and this is what it would look like in the process in the reg so we literally just pasted the criteria that you agreed upon previously right in here the only note I wanted to make on these is that this does mirror essentially the framework that was used in section 119.03 of the regs where the criteria are identified in that case the commission added some specifics under each of the broad criteria added a little bit more granularity as to what types of things they were specifically interested in for example when the when the economic development criteria the commission noted that specifically it was going to look at job creation supporting exist external business and job growth and regional tourism and attractions so it broke down the broad criteria into some sub criteria and I think it it may have made the evaluation a little bit easier in some ways because it was a little bit more precise but these criteria are broad and give you great flexibility so you need not do that that was just a one observation based upon the previous process you will note of course that letter f contains the suitability of the applicant and the qualifier so it's important just to note here and I think this is consistent with some of the remarks the commission has made over the past few weeks but it's important to make sure this is what you envision that the suitability process here would be incorporated into the application review process so unlike the casino gaming review where there was an rfa1 process where suitability was reviewed and an rfa2 process where the substance of the application was reviewed here we're talking about doing those things simultaneously and that suitability is one of the criteria that you will consider and this is that's how it's reflected here there will just to put a footnote to that comment there will be a separate section that talks about the suitability review and that process and the standards of review and that is in the works as well and we hope to get that to you soon to supplement paragraph f but that would go into a separate section and would just be part of the overall evaluation of the application I have a question for Todd but I'll go after anyone else has they have a question down so Todd I understand what you were saying in terms of the you know the cut and paste of the topics and it sounds as though if I were to go back and compare there's those sub those sub parts for we have those sub parts I believe in the application in a way right so we we really could mirror that there if that's helpful in the rag for everyone and I think that I might also inform f because f suitability with respect to the application is it might be a little bit different than the overall suitability right potentially well because I think Karen describes it as relative suitability or when I hear her speak about what is expected as part of the application process and so that's the so I'll give an example if you know a threshold suitability like can you even hold the license you can you met the threshold but then you might have three applicants and you're looking at them sort of comparing them and one of the three might have no lawsuits against them no compliance violations they've been operating for a really long time you say hey that you know is an issue of a good operating that we want in Massachusetts as opposed to another company which may have more issues in that area so that's where you can weigh it in the competitive process and that's outlined too in the application in a right in my right my memory is that there's some bullet points there commissioner Maynard you remember that I believe that we captured that I'm looking around for Jacqueline but I believe we captured that Jacqueline's here but she may be doing every day all the other work that's needed to be done nevermind unsupported so Karen I think that there's some guidance on that if that's helpful talk for at least next week's discussion yeah okay now that is helpful um just continuing on I wanted to talk a little bit about paragraph H as well so a paragraph H are considerations as you can see specific to untethered category three licenses so this is kind of the competitive process if you will and what we set out to do here is to capture a number of the sentiments that were expressed by the commissioners over the past couple of weeks and so what would you have here and again these are things I just wanted to identify today and then perhaps we can talk about them next week in earnest unless there are any strong opinions one way or the other but the little eye here talks about that the commission taken to consideration variations between the applicants and what some of the differences are such that you can maximize benefits to the commonwealth so that's one thing that was talked about I think last week and this is what it might look like in the framework of an application of a regulation little two talks about that the commission may implement the competitive process for the category three licensees and that as Mr Povich was just referencing a little bit that you may use a scored or unscored selection system so this gives you the ability to make that decision depending upon the universe of applications that come in certainly that's a decision that if you do leave this language as is it's a decision of course you'd want to make prior to engaging in the actual process but by virtue of having this reg you leave that door open to yourselves and put all prospective applicants on notice that that might be the process that is used and then part b so little two b here we talked about a little bit last week as well and what this would allow you to do is essentially if there are a large number of applicants applications that come in or really any number over seven I suppose this would allow you to limit the universe of applicants in one fashion and then take a different action in the second round if you will so that is the application review process if you will kind of incorporating all of the principles we've talked so I like on each little eye but it does beg the question that I know many of us have on our mind that we imagine maximizing benefits and coming up that can mean a whole lot of different things for each of us but one thing that is always top of mind is that mitigating me the potential harms and I think it might be helpful to to maybe elevate that um I guess maximizing benefits would all is also you know how we protect customers and consumers but do we need to when when that was written that language was written was that in context of of revenue and and offerings or was it in respect to responsible gaming too I don't think oh sorry is it number of jobs created as you say it could be any number of things as far as responsible gaming goes I mean that is of course paragraph C and that's where kind of the sub uh criteria may come in if if you're looking if you're going to look specifically at how certain harms are mitigated specifically or what plans look like maybe we add some language in under C saying those are the types of things you're talking about when you're asking or when you're evaluating proposed measures related to responsible gaming I could just say the language of would maximize benefits and minimize harms in their little eye right we don't have necessarily transportation issues right a lot of traffic issues that's right but I know Commissioner O'Brien you mentioned that language last week too um if you're hearing or meeting I'm sorry yeah was this language in original or is this new I believe this is new that's what I thought yeah okay although the the kind of phraseology maximizing benefits to the commonwealth I believe was embedded in chapter 23k guys and in the preamble I think yeah and and minimizing harms is the same place right that's why we could put both in there it might be all-encompassing and I think that that makes a good sense I mean unlike chapter 23k 23n doesn't really set out these types of criteria so I think the commission has full discretion to implement them yourselves and to the extent that we're talking about maximizing benefits to the commonwealth and the like I mean that seems wholly consistent with the design of the sports wagering act in the first place and so is minimizing and minimizing harms absolutely and and I'm thinking of course again of the treasurer's request which I know we have in the application so I think that would I think the two together can I ask too I I have this hanging in my memory that we have to have a conversation about the suitability standard we want in this contact because 23n is silent so do we want to stick with 23k is there going to be some other I don't know where we need to have that conversation but I have this list sort of in the back of my head of stuff we need to resolve yeah no that's a great point that is in the draft of the suitability regs you'll have come before you and I believe the default language that was included was just the 23k standard just so you can start there and we can work with that or away from it or however the conversation goes okay okay other questions for just in so many this discretion the chair madam chair I'm not sure but I think mr. Muldrew took off his um his mute button I don't know if he wanted to say something or not no he put it back on never mind I think we're all set but you is mine can you I'm sorry Todd but you're saying that h little two that gets us into let's imagine it's 30 but we've also talked about last week and during our two day sessions the idea of the the two rounds we we get there through that that's the idea that's the idea we can certainly flush this out even further and be more specific as if the commission has a specific vision as to how that may play out we can be more specific um if if we're not quite sure now that was that was why it was left like this but that's a great uh topic for discussion is how would you imagine it working and if everyone's prepared to settle on a process we should be as precise as we can commissioners we you understand remember the point right we get we get you know 30 abundance of riches do we want to be able to go through a first round to to determine sort of that top tier so that we can do um the more not more full some a different process of evaluations for the final selection I I know it's hard to say until you see them I mean I'm I'm from a really practical standpoint it would make sense to have something that calls out the people that are really a viable attractive applicant um but I but what's that criterion going to be well I don't know though if we want I think we have to be careful and correct me and um Todd we have to be careful that we don't react it would be good if we set up our process in terms of our options in advance and I think I was just thinking numbers right the numbers could we do a two-tier process um so as opposed to actually seeing what the quality of the applications are you're saying if they're all high high quality they're all the same quality but I guess I need to hear what your thoughts are how would we what do you mean by two-tier like I wonder if we're saying the same thing in different ways well I guess at a certain point I was thinking that we would we would be able to use some kind of a process to get down to a more selective process but I'm struggling with what it was an option right yeah and specifically I think the the one idea was that if you were to get 30 applications that you could you could implement a scoring process that reviews each of the criteria on a numerical basis and um the scores settle who's in the top 15 or so and um then once you have the top 15 then a new process by which you make the decision based not on scoring criteria but more of a holistic review of the benefits to the commonwealth and what have you um takes effect so that that's what we described previously as a multi-tiered process if you will and if you're interested in something like that you would definitely want to reserve that here in the regs um and that's what little two here is really getting at but are we getting advice and I kind of tilt this way um to stay away from scoring necessarily so when you say scoring is it all like we each rank and then you sort of reconcile our respective rankings and that's the scoring are you actually talking about numerical scoring well I mean there's not a great idea to have numerical scoring you mean like points for each piece right yeah like a no like procurement a lot how we'll do it right this is 20 percent that you know like that we're kind of getting legal advice that the best way to do it and keep flexible to not do that so in terms of scoring do you mean the five of us rank our 30 we sit together and have this conversation and agree on yeah you know collectively these are the top 10 or are you talking about actual one through 10 on different categories I think it could be either and I agree by the way with what uh Attorney Povic said I'm not I'm not suggesting you score every application and the top seven get the license I don't think that's a great idea no but even the tier one tier two right well that's what I'm I I thought I heard you say that could be a mechanism to I did say that and what I it's just an option if you have 30 applications it's not ideal to score applications on a one through 10 in each category but it might be an overwhelming task to try to whittle 30 applications to seven and that's just one technique that you might use even though it's very rigid in nature and it doesn't have the general flexibility you like about it yeah that's why I was thinking if we each had our own and then we come in because I think I said this before what I may value may not be the same as someone else and so do you then do it that way I throw that out for just food for thought as we're working on this Mr. Mayer I think a couple points one is I do like the idea of having a tiered system but I do not think that we have to I don't think we have to necessarily square the circle which I think is what Commissioner O'Brien is getting to is that we don't have to do numerical scores to then get to that second tier I think there's a way to tier one and tier two and and I would be interested in finding out from legal and outside council too you know what the safest most effective way to accomplish that goal because I do understand that you know doing a full deep diamond suitability across the board on applicants who may never honestly ever rise to it to those top seven is kind of a waste of resources for the commonwealth so you know I do think there's a way to do both I agree we will put some more thought into that I think kind of underlying this whole conversation is that we never want to create a situation where a decision could be viewed as arbitrary and capricious where you know for example you're just going through 30 applications and plucking out the ones you like or you don't like you know there there should be some metric that gets applied to the process if you're whittling down the pool um other than well this one is not really um so that's that's what we're trying to get to so it sounds like it's a May oh there's again high turning povich popping in again oh you're on you thank you sorry I just want to emphasize again this is the regulation that under that outlines the process and the flexibility here is important and I think the discussion you are starting to have has all the right points in it but I think it's a separate and long and longer discussion um but I would even if we could have the discussion now and even if we could answer the questions now which it would be challenging um I wouldn't put it in a regulation so I don't think we're losing anything by deferring on the specifics would it be a little bit more transparent to say one that there's the idea of two tiers because I I guess I didn't well I sort of think I sort of think that's in I know it may have been headed in a different direction but I think a multiple tier process is uh in two little IB yeah I think that's there I mean I I don't know if that if two little IB was designed to you know not give them all away on the not give away all seven on the first day and say well maybe we'll get somebody great next year but while they could be read to do that I also think it could be read to do um multiple rounds but again it's not there's nothing wrong with saying there may be multiple rounds right as long as it's a maze so it's been saying the whole time gives us the flexibility but again well I will reiterate that anytime you're trying to decide whether it's worth six points or seven points someone's going to say I got a seven I should have got a I got a six I should have got a seven if I would have got a seven I would have made the final round there you go so um but I you know just discussing there might be more rounds is in a maze situation in the under the context of May as Todd said is perfectly reasonable yeah and I did be to be the way that you described it in the first instance that would be not necessarily awarding on seven right but I see I think that's something that can be discussed at some point I think given what we've heard about uh a client acquisition and first mover advantage you'd have to that's interesting aspect of this business but that's all for another day yeah that's okay all right thanks anybody else have any further comments on that very helpful thank you okay yeah so we'll we'll work on that and get back hopefully next week with some language for you to take a look at and the last provision here so we're now on page 108 of the packet at the bottom top of page 109 and this is what Karen brought up earlier this gets into the supplemental suitability decisions the understanding being that there'll be some kind of non uh or truncated process upfront this allows the commission to come back at a future date to complete the process and make any decisions based upon the findings that are necessary and to condition any award in the proper fashion to recognize that the complete suitability process has not been performed so with that that brings us through the entire draft of course happy to entertain any questions but the plan would be to take all these comments and observations from today to include them in a draft and appear before you next week with an updated version if everyone is comfortable in doing so for possible movement through the process now and I should also add we talked last week about posting drafts for comments so if this would fall into that category we could post we can make a few edits to this and then post the draft early next week for public comment that makes sense to me Todd and actually to be completely candid I'm going to need some more time with these regulations and and and I expect to offer my impressions tomorrow perhaps just having gotten them yesterday with no cover memo no opportunity to really hammer out questions and concerns prior to today just need a little bit more time and by my meant my by my sorry chair by my mentioning that there was no cover memo that that's with genuine understanding of everything you guys have going on and so I take no issue with the fact that there's no cover memo I was just making the point that I just need a little bit more time with the memo comes with the regulations and just to be there today was really just to walk us through this there was no preparation that we required to do expected Council Grossman did check in with me on the approach and it really was just so that we could give some feedback as he was walking through and then we'll have the full some discussion next week so so Todd thank you for that it was really because his starting point was to start with 23K which I thought that's he was very transparent about that today all right so you know what I got to find by accident from my document here so then are there any further questions for Todd Derek or Attorney Povich on this so that they can continue to work on this particular regulation okay Derek anything you want to add I think to add okay this here in case of a questions so now if you just briefly return so thank you Todd for that and thank you Karen for it for Derek if we could go now to I think the next item on the agenda is a commission update which I think I'm using as a little bit of a parking lot for the earlier issue that I mentioned on the consultant briefly commissioners I'd love for us to give permission to Derek to get started on that but I need to know if the other commissioners are interested in that is this the sort of ministerial aid to our process that you're talking about I think that we've learned that it's more than administrative I think Derek did say so I don't want to give it the idea that it would be somebody who's not providing some expertise that I feel that personally I would love to have someone who really has expertise on complex selection competitive selection processes who can be there to guide us along with Derek along with Todd along with you know A and K folks that's my personal preference I'm that's just what I'm thinking based on some conversations I've had and and actually learning a little bit more about this because at first I thought you wouldn't need a consultant I think when when Karen first mentioned it and then I started to hear the risks more and more of the risks that could be involved I thought we better make sure we have somebody who can keep us aligned with awareness of our processes our regulations and as Todd points out to make sure we're not inadvertently arbitrary and capricious so I mean I recharacterize it as consultant and Derek I don't know if you have a description of who that's been in the past or who you've imagined that to be so maybe a second point again for that discussion. So the first time around it was a group of consultants right so we went out and we procured people that had economic impact analysis financial influence impact analysis building design impact analysis and the building design impact analysis was actually the group that then coordinated all the school scores for everything they were more of a project manager for the whole thing I think we have consultants pulled together for some of the other areas you may want some advice while you're while you're reviewing through these but this one would be more of the scoring and project management side of this pulling together documents that you may want to use for your overall discussion when you come down to your scoring if you're going to do down selecting if you're going to do a tiered system any of them that will do that I mean John Skelly's on here he took a look at the latest statewide contract you've got some really qualified vendors out there that do this whole process of pulling together competitive and and you know program evaluation and program processes so you can go the larger route which is what the commission did last time getting all that assistance or you can bring on a consultant from this that will just do the scoring and the keeping track of whatever process you lay out but if you want help laying out a process the firms on here can do that as well there's it's a very broad category and there are some very big named contractors on there as well as some smaller contractors that may be able to do the exact same thing I just know that it covers a gamut of the things you are you're looking at right now. Commissioner Maynard? I'm looking at Commissioner O'Brien actually I saw she was I'm not sure if she was going to add in now or if you wanted to add in first. I'm happy to chime in later. Okay so there's just a couple of thoughts first of all I think I would want to keep whatever this consultant team was I would want to keep it lean I think you know no one here in my time short time here that I've met on the commission would aggregate their decision-making authority ultimately and and they're really having someone that would stay in that lane of you know being keeping the train running but not actually you know getting on the tracks that would be important to me so you know we talked a lot last week about you know the word compromise I think my compromise here would be you know making sure that we don't lose any authority in getting information and getting help organizing so that's my thought. Commissioner O'Brien what's your cat's say about the whole I know it's so I bought a zoo I have another one um yeah I mean it's I want to make sure it's our process so I want to you know it sounds very helpful as long as we you know make sure we're the ones that are in control of the discussion and the decision-making I just don't want to see somebody come in from the outside taking over with the five of us you know want to put our heads together and do. I'm hesitating to say I don't think that's likely you know that's the good news I think Commissioner Maynard said the same thing no we do want to maintain it as our process no I think I'm I think I'm hearing that that's important do you think we even need one at all. I mean I I think logistically with the timeline we put in front of us unless the five or so we've gotten so far as all we get I think we're absolutely going to need some sort of outside help I don't think staff's going to be able to do that for us I just don't know how expansive a role we want to bring in I like the idea maybe we can talk about this when I don't know Derek maybe you have a couple examples off the state contract list you can kind of give all of us information on in terms of scope of services they offer do we have a better understanding of what they're going to do. Absolutely and we kind of after the last meeting we may have jumped the gun gun a little bit by pulling a team together to start thinking about and looking at this contract I think we're set to meet and we put something on the calendar everyone's calendar is crazy next week but the week after that to really put together just bullet points of things for you to consider as a commission and then you can go down and check off the ones you want and process out the other ones that you don't like and we can pull the categories that we think would work because there are nine categories on that management consultant contract and I think we've limited it down to two or three that really makes sense like helping with qualitative analysis or just helping with program management right just here's your timeline here's everything you need to get done we're going to keep you on track and we're going to we're going to make sure that it's all documented well. That could come I'm sorry Commissioner O'Brien that could come before the commission not for the 20th but the 27th. Correct I think we're set to meet on the 24th John is that correct so we will have that bulleted list as well as the categories for you to look at for the 27th that's correct. That would be very helpful. Yeah do you like that approach Commissioner Hill? Yes. Commissioner Skinner what are you thinking? I was just when Commissioner O'Brien mentioned scope of services and what's available my thought was the scope of work if we could you know get to drafting that as you know an alternative but I like Derek's idea better but my point was going to I was making the point that the scope of work would be would be helpful in terms of understanding what services are available and and what we'd like to take advantage of. Okay any further comments or guidance on and if we think of something we can also bring it up next week right at our at our meeting if we get some more we have some more guidance to provide Derek and team. Lot are you meeting in? No I'm sorry I was typing I apologize. Excellent all right I think Derek does that help is that helpful guidance? It absolutely does so we're taking into consideration all the conversations here and trying to make sure that we get someone that can help but it's not going to overstep their bounds. Great thank you really I appreciate it and I do think commissioners you would I think I think we are really united in in that approach. Am I right? There's no one feels differently okay excellent all right so with that is there any other commission update? Anyone wants to provide? Okay is there anything else from the team? Executive Director Wells? We are all set we're all ready to go here. That's great thank you so much. All right then I'm looking for a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Okay I'm just going to sit on it for a bit. Oh no. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. I vote yes thanks everyone have a great day. Appreciate it.