 Thank you. Good morning. This is convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We're holding this meeting virtually, so I'll take a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner Ryan. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning up here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. And good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. So, we're all set. Today is January 24th, around 10 a.m., and it's public meeting number 427. We're going to first turn to Executive Director Karen Wells and Interim Gaming Agent Division Chief Berkane. Good morning, Berkane. Good morning, everybody. How are you? Good to see everybody. Before we start, I'd just like to take a moment to congratulate my longtime friend and colleague, Bruce Bannon's promotion to Director of Sports Wadering. As many of us know, Bruce and I go back a little bit of time, so I just wanted to wish him luck as we all kick off this new Sports Wadering venture together. I think there's a Sports Wadering update from Bruce right after me, so I'll just give us a quick casino update. PPC, opening day details. There'll be a ribbon-cutting ceremony tentatively scheduled for 1 p.m. The first wager will be placed by longtime former Patriot great Rob Nicobitch. Additionally, there'll be a check presentation to a local charity organization on that date. On the 29th of January, PPC will have their annual Aces of Penn Gala that celebrates the contributions of all of their best team members. Now, on the encore, details about their Sports Wadering opening day ceremonies presently being kept under wrap. So, IEB, going on the other business, has approved the first 2023 commemorative chip to prepare for the Chinese New Year celebration that designates the year of the rabbit. The encore also on January 28th will have a lion awakening ceremony to celebrate Chinese New Year. The ceremony's tradition of Chinese New Year is intended to bring prosperity and good luck in the upcoming year. Over at MGM, details of their opening day ceremony also is being kept under wrap as they're adjusting presently. And other details are MGM just wrapped up a successful Red Sox winter weekend event. Between 4,000 and 5,000 fans came out to meet, take photos, get autographs, and the players and alumni overall is a very fun New England baseball event. And aside from sports betting, that's what we have at the three casinos going on presently. Take any questions if you'd like. Any questions for Burke? And thank you for that excellent report. And congratulations to you on your interim position. Thank you. All right, questions for Burke. Karen. Okay, so the next piece, Bruce and I can kind of tag team this a little bit, we wanted to do a sports wagering implementation update. Just a couple of matters before I think we're going to turn it over to Christian as well. As you know, there has been a submission of a category two application, the random part group. And I have asked Jacqueline to send that over to the commissioner so you have that link. My expectation is that agenda setting, which is going to be on the first would be when we would first talk about some scheduling with respect to the application of that application, but you'll have it in advance if you want to take a look at it for that date. And then, as far as the launch, we are still working on the internal controls, we had enough date from GLI last yesterday, I think it was first. My expectation is probably would not be able to do the certificate of operations, both in front of the commission probably till Friday or even Monday so I've asked crystal to put a hold on commissioners calendars. It shouldn't take long when we have that agenda item but we want to make sure that we have enough time and GLI has enough time to appropriately review those. And then other than that, I think, Bruce, I don't know if there's any other updates but otherwise we're going to turn it over to Christian to talk about the, the evaluation at the properties. Yes, that's pretty much what we have this Christian on how the GI and it inspections went at the three properties Christian. Good morning commissioners. So last week we went to each of the properties and we did the field inspection and verification with the assistance of the GLI team and also the local IB team at each site. So, PPC had 20 kiosk and six PLS terminals that pass inspection MGM had 18 kiosk and eight PLS terminals that pass inspection and on court had 118 kiosk and eight PLS terminals that pass inspection as well. Great. Thank you. Thank you Christian. And that's kind of the update for right now you'll hear later on today on the House Rules of Review, and Burke I would like to thank you for the kind words. Thank you very much. Any questions? Questions commissioners for Christian or Bruce? My only question I'm assuming none of them failed right that all all the kiosks and the point of sales all. Yeah. Yeah. It was a long day, I will take everybody. I think that started at like 730 finished at eight at night, but it was it was a long day of inspections. I'm going to ask a follow up maybe it's a little bit different. Were there any unexpected challenges that got resolved or as opposed to ultimate failures. There were three or four units that had a couple issues but as we just moved forward and they were fixed before we finished by the end of the night and everything finished well. Excellent. And so I see Gabe is here from GLI. Anybody has a question? Gabe did a great job with all that week. He finished with his little Duncan whole things and that kept him going for the rest of the day. That's Munchkin. Good morning. Good morning commissioners and chair. I just wanted to say I follow what Bruce had said, we would, I think on core was a 12 hour day but we pushed through we wanted to make sure that every thing was good. And we managed just fine. Excellent. Thanks to the donuts. And Christian, thank you for your good work. Is there any questions for Gabe Christian or Bruce now? Okay, second director. Commissioner Maynard. Just to thank you. That's it. Just to thank you. Yeah, and also want to recognize Joe Carpenter had also been a big part of that evaluation and testing and recognizing there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll see him later. Yeah. So thank you. And to all on the floor over there. All the facilities. Thank you so much. Okay. Secretary. Are you all set? That we can turn it over now to the events catalog. So. Good morning, chair and commissioners. So we have. We would like to take this in the catalog. For voting. We would like to take this in three parts. The three parts that you will be voting to approve on is wagers, the guidelines tab. And the events wagering. Proposed by all three. Licensees. I would like to start with the wagers. The first. 12 wagers. I'm sorry. The first 10 wagers. That were written. By statute. And the following 11 to 21. Are the wagers that were presented. By the. Licensees for approval. If it helps, I will share the screen so we can see all the list of wagers that you are going to be approving or, or have questions on. Let's see if everybody has their, their packet up. Okay. It's a, it's a lengthy packet today. So is everyone comfortable looking at their package so we can. Have a conversation still. Excellent. Great. So for approval is single game bets. In-game wagering or in-play bets. Also known as next, next occurrence. Proposition bets. Straight bets. Point spreads. Pleasers. Around Robin. Cash out. Three way. Spread. In-game wagering or in-play bets. Three way. Spread handicap. Totals. Player game team props. Futures. Yes. No. Wouldn't place each way. So going forward, would anyone have a question on what these wagers are or further explanation needed? So just to clarify the only one that's being omitted is the virtual matchups from the original request of the three operators. I apologize. Yes. The, so all these were placed in for the, by the operators. The only one that has been excluded is virtual matchup due to its RNG nature. And we did discuss that in our last, our last meeting. So. It was a late meeting. I just wanted to refresh everybody's memories. So. Any questions or strong on that. Want to, want to continue to throw them. Um, would it be just a question on process? Would it be okay to have voting for each section? So we don't have to go back and forth and there might be further questions as we go along. Or do you want me to give every single section? I think, um, I think the next section is events and perhaps rather than going through all of the events, does it make sense for you to explain. What's been. Added omitted and the reasoning behind it, but the, the, um, all the events listed in our memorandum and in your spreadsheet reflect the original work of the commission's by the three category one. Still, right? Oh, yep. Okay. All right. So going forward. Down to events. The licensees have, um, submitted, um, events for approval. Um, further events are sometimes subdivided into, um, uh, leagues and then further into that they go by, um, uh, regular season, um, preseason, postseason, um, the prohibited events, um, by the Commonwealth is any non tournament collegiate sport or athletic event that takes place within the jurisdiction or sporting event in which a college team from the jurisdiction participates regardless of where the event takes place. So we are not allowed to offer wagers, um, in the Commonwealth on any, uh, Commonwealth team, unless it is taking place in a tournament format. Um, continuing a, um, events which are pre recorded or which are known outcome and may otherwise be determined or publicly known. Events in primary secondary school students, whether conducted or sponsored by a primary second school or another person or event. And finally an event which is 50% or more participating athletes are under the age of 18. Current approved governing bodies events otherwise stipulated all events sanctioned by the regulatory body will be approved by commission. So when we go through the list of events, we will, we will go through them all and then you can either take them individually or can wait till the final and then either bring up some exceptions that you might think of or, um, vote just individually. So going forth, we have a very extensive list. So in alphabetical order as requested by the licensees, they are asking for Australian rules football, badminton, baseball, basketball, biathlon, bowling, bowls, boxing, chess, cornhole, cricket, cycling, darts, disc, e-sports, floorball, football, American, Fusel, golf, handball, field hockey, ice hockey, lacrosse, mixed martial arts, motorsports, netball, the Olympics. If I pronounce this incorrectly, please forgive me, but Pesapalo, pool, rodeo, rowing, rugby, sailing, snooker, soccer. Soccer is broken down also into soccer, involved in beach soccer. They also are requesting special events of the Academy Awards, the Emmy Awards, major league eating events, softball, summer athletics, swimming, table tennis, tennis, volleyball, beach volleyball, water polo, winter athletics. Just to be sure I want to try and bring up the guideline to make sure I hit everything that you are going to be asked of. I am scrolling quickly and that is all that has been requested. So just to be clear, we took the highlight that was requested off of the tab due to it's having an exclusivity in North America for, I believe, Bette Rivers. And finally, we ask that you strongly consider eSports to be not approved at this time and further detailed descriptions of how their governing bodies and their oversight for each requested league be resubmitted to the commission for approval. I know that you are excluding from that request of eSports. Do you want to go over the other ones that you are recommending to be excluded? The only excluded one missing is highlight due to it's exclusivity by the operator. And then we ask that you exclude eSports at this time. It is in the tab. It is all outlined in all of the information that we received from the licensee is on the tab. But we feel it is not sufficient enough for it's governing bodies and oversight at this time and request further information. Of course, that's totally up to the commissioners. My memory of the last few times we saw this was Cornhole and chess were also not being recommended. We have included everything for you to determine whether you feel it is applicable or not. I would ask for a more fulsome discussion about what that interpretation specifically how that impacted it because it seemed like there were valid questions about those two sports. I'm not really clear how an interpretation of 247 is going to change that. So, Todd, I don't know if you can speak to what it was you said specifically and then maybe, you can help me with that. Kathy, we can't hear you. Kathy, we can't hear you. I think Todd said it didn't have to be a sporting event. I think it could be an event. Well, it's not that it doesn't have to be a sporting event. It's just the definition of it does have to be a sporting event just so we're clear. The statute says it has to be a sports event or sporting event and it defines the term and that's what we were working off of. But what you're saying is still correct that the commission, Kathy, I'm sorry, I didn't notice you were, we can't hear you. I think Kathy may be asking us to pause. Okay. I have it on speaker view so I can't see anybody else I'll switch back. Okay. I think it's good at calling that time out. I will say. You know, and I never go to speaker view and I was like, oh, I can't see who that is. So I couldn't see anybody else. I know exactly what she's going to experience that last week. Everybody, can you hear me? Okay. So the reason why that became where I couldn't control the meeting is because we were talking over each other. I think it's always helpful if we just sort of, you know, go one at a time. I'm sorry, I accidentally turned off because I was trying to make sure I could hear and I accidentally turned off my volume because I was having trouble hearing. So just before we get into that full sum discussion that Commissioner Bryant has requested. I just would like clarification because we have a memo in our packet. And I think you went through the, your items on your list, maybe from your spreadsheet, but I'm not sure I'll reflect it in our memo. So I, for instance, after the one that. Cool. In there and then rodeo and then the third one that wasn't in there. So I just want to make sure we all know how a document that reflects everything that we put that was recommended. And then we'll go to the exclusions and think about. Our process for assessing. So. Did anybody else pick up on a few that weren't on this list. I was going along rigorously. Could you remind me, Sterl. After. After this Apollo. I think you said pool rodeo and something else. Cool rodeo rodeo rowing. Oh, rowing is here. Okay. Rugby. Oh, yep. That's fine. I think it was full. It's missing and rodeo rodeo rowing rugby. Sailing. So if we could just do, if somebody could, for Sterl do a quick comparison of all that's on his spreadsheet and this memo, because I think. I think that's going to be the most helpful tool for commissioners. Do you all agree? If we're all looking at that same document. So we should just double check on what the offerings would be. And then the other day, Commissioner O'Brien is quite right. And I think you highlighted them. You've got some red language in here and the virtual matchups you took out. So, um, from the wagers. So that's clear. And then awards. That has some red language, but I don't think that's, that's unintentional. The performance or voting. So then we get to the events. Now. Um, the last thing I. You mentioned earlier you said that you were talking about a sporting event. I think you mentioned it. Or was I know Chris O'Brien has some questions, but. Sterl, you said that given some of the instruction around the definition of a sporting event from council gross and that has altered. Is it altering your recommendations? Or is it just altering. Um, In other words, even if they were included in the definition. the awards, would you still have a recommendation that at this time they'd be included in the list? So that's what I'm trying to get before we start the debate. What is your recommendation, even if this morning event is a broader definition than you may have thought last week? So it might be helpful. I believe you're looking at the memo that was originally sent on January 6th. No, I don't know, but it's in our packet. Okay. So originally we were first tasked with having a refined sports catalog and then GLI, Joe referenced that we are using the licensees and they are requesting all of these, which would be coming up for a vote. In turn, the highlighted areas were areas that we first considered to point out to the commission that chess didn't really meet the definition of a sporting event or not. We decided that we were going to leave that determination up to the commissioners. So the original reason for having Cornhole in red is receiving notification of a questionable activity in that venue brought up by, I could be wrong, but US integrity I think sent out an alert or a warning. And the reason behind the red lettering for esports is due to us not feeling that we had enough information from the licensees on their oversight and governing body. The reason why you saw awards in red is due to you having the determination on whether you wish to allow awards that are voted upon rather than statistical analysis. So that was bringing it to attention. The virtual one of course is what we said in the beginning is we believe that that is very close to a random number generator more in the in the line of eye gaming. So we did not recommend that at this time. I am unsure if I hit all of the topics. I think you did. Okay. What about Chess? Commissioner Bryan, I am sorry? Chess? Commissioner Bryan said Chess. Chess originally was left out due to believing it might not be considered a sport, but I guess you can determine it as a sport, I guess in some people's minds, just like competitive eating. So, Sterl, just to clarify, I think you're absolutely right, it's probably not considered a sport, but I think under the statutory definition, there's discretion as to the type of flood sporting events, right? So, concentrate commission on and we can go to the full list, but why don't we have a question? I'm not hearing from Sterl yet on Chess that there's an issue around integrity, risk of, you know, on that light, it was more on whether it's a sporting event. I'm not hearing that yet. I'm being Commissioner Bryan. There's something to talk about there. Commissioner Bryan, just if we could just one at a time, but we're not hearing from them on oversight, governing body, risk or integrity. So, let's discuss Chess. Now, Commissioner Bryan. So, the overarching question that I have in terms of this list is exactly what due diligence has been done internally by us on the governing bodies of this list. And I understand there's a fair level of alliance on prior jurisdictions and GLI and that sort of thing. So, the questions that I have particularly pertain to the ones where there's question marks. I'm asking the two specific ones that I have questions about right now, given what's been out in general coverage about activity and questionable activity in those leaks. Okay. If I could turn to Executive Director Wells in terms of what you've learned from the three operators provided information on this in terms of governing bodies, suspicious activity, integrity. Could you just update us on that? Yes. So, I reached out to all three category one operators with three questions. I was asking if they could confirm back to me. One, they had done due diligence on their proposed events catalog and had no concerns regarding the integrity of the leagues or their governing bodies. And all three responded that they had and they were comfortable. The second question, confirming they had not identified any suspicious activity associated with any of the leagues or governing bodies that should be brought to the attention of the MGC as the regulator. All three responded. Yeah, let me back up. EVH responded. We haven't identified suspicious activity. PPC indicated we have not identified issues with the leagues or governing bodies, then they continue to monitor. MGM responded. The only instance of suspicious activity that we would note related to the MMA competition PFL Challenger Series competition at 1.80 Aaron, a pre-recorded competition that appeared to be live and all operators accepted wagers on this event thinking it was live. However, PFL has since substantially changed its practices by partnering with U.S. integrity and actively sharing information regarding event time. So generally, all three were comfortable. And then the last question was, is the company accepting wagers or expecting to accept wagers on these leagues and other jurisdictions? On core indicated we are accepting wagers and other jurisdictions as allowed by law. There's nothing new in this catalog. PPC indicated generally speaking, we offer a similar catalog in other jurisdictions. For example, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, West Virginia, Colorado, Indiana, and Louisiana. While we may not be able to establish a viable market for every league and every jurisdiction, we have no concerns about their integrity. And then finally, MGM indicated yes. All competitions in the catalog are approved in other jurisdictions. These catalogs would prepare to submit submission and some or all of the companies intend to offer these competitions. So that was the response. Just to get a handle on how the companies had approached due diligence about what they were offering as part of their recommended catalog. So Commissioner Brian, your specific question then? I do. So my question on Cornhole would be if we're getting questions about integrity from U.S. integrity issues with that. And then in terms of chess, I mean, if you do a Google search in terms of the scandals and what's been going on, I guess the licensees, it's not their job to be monitoring everything that doesn't percolate up. So while I respect that they put this forward in other jurisdictions, this is, I mean, I think it was going through with somebody the other day in Ohio and trying to compare how Ohio did it. I have concerns about those two areas in particular. Okay. So I think we were just talking about chess for right now because there was no notation around integrity upgrades. If there's been some scandals, certainly does everybody want to hold on chess right now? Given this or is there a consensus on it? I'd like to hold on chess, Madam Chair. I'm not familiar with whatever scandals you guys are referencing. So I'd like to hold just to come up to speed on all that. If you'd like to hold, okay. I think it has to do with a younger member who may have cheated a young, very, very accomplished chess player who there's some theory around cheating. So it's as fine level as I have, Commissioner Skinner. And that was me just hearing the news, not doing any due diligence for today. Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Maynard. Commissioner Hill. Well, it's Commissioner Maynard. Thank you. I thought Commissioner Hill was moving. This is tough for me because if the operator is asking for it, if it can't be considered a sport, a lot of people watch chess and get into chess, especially after the Queen's Gambit. I would be more on the let it go side and let it go live. Commissioner Maynard, I don't think the debate is about it not being a sport because I think Councillor Grossman explained we have this discretion on less traditional sporting events because the definition can be broader. Todd, do you want to remind us of the definition just the statutory definition of sporting event that allows something like chess? Sure. The definition of it's sports event or sporting event is a professional sport or athletic event, collegiate sport or athletic event, a collegiate tournament, motor race event, electronic sports event or other event authorized by the commission under this chapter. And then it goes into a number of exclusions, which I think you're all familiar with, that sporting event shall not include high school and youth sports or athletic events or a collegiate sport or athletic event involving one or more collegiate teams from the Commonwealth unless they are involved in a collegiate tournament. And then there is a similar definition of what sports wagering is, which has a lot of these same themes in there. You'll recall the part where it says sports wagering shall include but shall not be limited to single game bets, teaser bets, parlays over under money lines, pools, exchange wagering, in-game wagering, in-play bets, proposition bets and state bets. That's part of course you already talked about. But those are the definitions that are in play. So I think Commissioner Bryant is really raising the issue around more concerns around governing body integrity right now. And then Commissioner Hill, your impression, your thoughts right now? Because we may move ahead and come back. Can we visit Chess? So here's my thoughts right now is the, well in terms of we're talking about Chess, we're talking about Chess. Let's just do Chess right now. Thanks. I have no problem moving forward with this today as part of the catalog. However, there has been some concerns that have been brought up by my fellow commissioners. And in the spirit of trying to move the catalog forward, I see no reason why we would not take Chess off the list for now and have the folks come to us and explain to us why they want this on the list, which I believe under the process that is set up, they can do. So I would be okay with moving forward if that was the majority, but understanding the concerns of my fellow commissioners, let's take it off, bring it back at a later time so that we can move this catalog forward. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, so with all that, let's move now to Cornholne. I want to point out on our memo, Sterl and Company Raise, that they have a question on oversight. Maybe that hasn't been resolved yet, Sterl. Is that still the case? To my knowledge, they have addressed the issue with the match in question, but it still took place. So that was one of the reasons why I felt maybe excluding it and making sure the operators then came, like Commissioner Hill said, came forth with why they felt comfortable that this has been resolved by the Cornholne League. Okay. So how do we deal about Cornholne? It's the same. I feel we're launching this for the first time, and I think if there's things that have been identified as questionable, I think the better and more responsible approach is table those, have everything else moved forward, and it's only a 72-hour turnaround if they're ready to come back and say to us, here are the issues. Here's why they're resolved. There's not an integrity issue, et cetera. They can get it back in in a matter of days. Okay. Are we in agreement on that approach to take the same approaches we're doing with chess? I would agree with that, Madam Chair. And for all the Cornholne champions out there, funding champions, I think that the process will allow for us to get any clarification. Madam Chair, I have a question. I just have a question. I need to be the fly in the ointment, but isn't Stirl saying that he went back, got more information, and came back? Yes. He did exactly say that. I mean, listen, just because we approve the catalog, this is across the board, how I feel, doesn't mean a patron has to wager on something. We're not forcing a wager. The market bears these things, and people have their own minds and own ideas. If they think there's, you know, if the governing body isn't called into question, if someone thinks that they don't really trust the sport or trust the event, they can choose not to game or game. And so that's kind of the way that I'm looking at these, each one. As long as there's no integrity issues with the oversight or with the sport itself, and again, even if there are integrity issues, if they're being addressed, I mean, I can't think of a sport in the history of mankind that someone hasn't been accused of cheating in. So that can't be, you know, to me, that can't be the final, I don't judge. Stirl, I'll see you trying to. If I wasn't clear, if I wasn't clear with my statement on Cornhole, there was an integrity issue. There was, it was brought into question. They had a problem with cheating. I brought it forth for you to vote on because Todd's interpretation and reading of an event, I am not stating recommending or not recommending. I'm just stating that you have that opportunity. They did have cheating in it. And I will leave it. They did have a problem with cheating. Okay, Stirl, because I'm having a little trouble hearing you, my apologies. I think my heater in the back. But what I'm hearing you say is that you did feel there was an integrity issue? Okay. Yes, there was an integrity issue. Yes. I feel differently then in that situation. I misunderstood. I thought you said that the issue had been resolved. Right. So Stirl, the recommendation was really a matter of, is it a sporting event or a bat? I think we've resolved that we've got discretion on what that may mean under the statutory definition. But what I'm hearing is that it might be, there might have been an integrity issue. And does it make sense to give it a little time to settle down? Is that what we might be recommending? I think Commissioner O'Brien's thought of going slow and leaving this off to the side and they can cut back. And if they want to offer it, give specific examples on how it was addressed and cleared up would be prudent. Okay. So, and I see Commissioner Maynard nodding. Commissioner Skinner, are you on agreement? Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Madam Chair, before we go on, just to respond to Commissioner Maynard's sort of broader comments in terms of our role to just give my view on it, which is I take a more proactive view of what our role is, which is someone of age who's going to place a bet. That's their voluntary conduct. However, I do believe we have a role in looking at the integrity of what's out there. There is probably some level of reliance on the fact that the MGC has approved this catalog. And so I do think we have more of an affirmative obligation to take a look at things that things have been raised in question. So I'm not taking that more passive stance of if the market wants it and the licensees have asked for it. I do think that we need to probe a little bit deeper on certain things. So that's just my view on how I went through the catalog. Commissioner Maynard? I don't think, Commissioner Bryant, I don't think that I would disagree with that. What I would say is, you know, my caveat was if there are no major issues, right? And I'm happy to join you anytime there are major issues. And we should probe into to see if there are issues. At the end of the day, I think, you know, we also have to be somewhat understanding that people do want to engage in this. And I don't want you to take what I said to mean that, you know, I don't care about public safety, because I do. I care deeply about it. And I just believe that also consumers should have choice. Yeah, I was not implying you don't care about public safety, Commissioner Maynard at all. But I think it was more less accepting of other jurisdictions have done this and licensees asked for it. And my, you know, my nature again, being cynical is to ask more questions necessarily, because I do feel like there is a reliance somewhat on the fact that this catalog will be approved by this body. I think we're going in the same direction, maybe slightly different, of course. I think that's right. So why don't we continue with our discussion for now and then we can go back to further discussion. Sterl, it's am I correct that the next is hi, how do you say hi? That's the problem. Oh, hi, Lai. Hi, Lai. So I'm terrible for me, but I am not, I am not great at pronunciations unless I hear it twice. So thank you so much. Hi, Lai. Hi, Lai. Yes. So the reason Hi Lai was excluded was I believe it's Bet Rivers out of Detroit. You're going to have to speak up for me. I'm sorry. Can you hear me? Can you hear me better? Now I can hear you. Do I sound cold today? So Hi Lai has a magic city, has an exclusive deal in North America with Bet Rivers app. So that's why it was removed from the Oh, exclusive. Yeah, they have an exclusive deal with them. And you did say that earlier and commissioners were fine with that being excluded then on those grounds, correct? Okay. Thank you. I'm very familiar with Biathlon, not so familiar with Lai. Okay, let's continue. Special events is the next highlighted one and that would be that would include the Academy Awards, the Emmy Awards, hot dog eating contest, and then majorly eating sanctioned events. You want to just go over again why your initial recommendation was to exclude that and then we'll chew on that. No pun intended. So this is two fold. These events require voting. So it's not a statistical analysis, but an opinion. Um, so you first have to take those as the Academy Awards and the Emmy Awards. First have to decide if you're comfortable with a voting type of system for an awards wager. And then secondly, it was brought off because of the first initial interpretation of is it a sporting event? And as we have learned from Councilor Grossman, we leave that interpretation up to the Commission. And then Chair and commissioners, I'm not sure if it'd be helpful. So this one is an interesting one. It may be helpful to talk about what the criteria are for determining whether to approve a sporting wager. We've all been, you've all been talking about them broadly, but it may be helpful just to recall that the Commission did set out in Section 247 five things to consider in determining whether the sporting wager shall be authorized. And the first one is that the outcome is not determined solely by chance. The second is that the outcome can be verified. The third is that the sporting event generating the outcome is conducted in a manner that ensures sufficient integrity controls exist. So the outcome can be trusted. The fourth is the outcome is not likely to be affected by any sports wager placed. And the fifth is that the sporting event is conducted in conformity with all applicable law. So that that's in the Commission's regulations in Section 247. And I think that's really the lens through which you want to view each of these requests. Okay, Stirl just went up, he's back. How do we feel about special events? Stirl, are you and Director Bann still recommending that we hold on this or because of the understanding of the statutory language have you shifted? What's your recommendation? I think that we really are leaving that recommendation up to you now that the events are kind of open to interpretation. Initially, we thought it was just for sporting events and with Todd's clarification, it's really a commissioned decision at this point. So I know that we've put eating events in contests in the same category as the awards, but eating events is that less objective and there's never a concern there. So I just... How do we feel about encouraging the... Go ahead. The licensee placed it under special events. So that's why we're putting it into the category. I'm just wondering how you understand that. That's really helpful, Stirl. So do we think about them differently in terms of the factors that Councillor Grossman just outlined for us? So I have a question that lies into... Why would this asking Stirl that? I'm sorry. I just wondered if they looked at them differently and then I'll turn to you, right? Sure. After Councillor Grossman's statement, I would assume that you could look at hot dog eating contests as a statistical analysis. I don't know about a box score, but I guess you could look at it differently than the Academy Awards or any awards show. I'm much more objective. Okay. So you say statistical and then order the box score. Okay. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, thank you. So that's the question that I had, which is going back and thank you for drawing my tentative to 247 because trying to remember what the criterion was that we all agreed on, to be honest with you, I needed a refresher on that because as I'm looking through the things that seem like they're more subjective and I was having a conversation with Mills about this, Tom Mills, because I had some other question we were talking about. And things like gymnastics where it's all, yes, there's a level of skill and there's a mathematical computation, but there's a level of subjectivity to the voting is not normally included in stuff like this. And you have skating that's almost the same way. So on a put it in the parking lot, but I want to circle back to it is whether skating, speed skating versus figure skating is treated differently because you can objectively look at a result on one another. The other, that's the trouble I'm having with pure voting. So something like the Academy Awards on pure voting. It's not this guy, this much poundage of food in this period of time and it can be quantified. I have angst about anything that's just based on subjectivity and voting. It just doesn't seem to me to be a sporting event under any interpretation of our statute. So happy. I'd love to hear what the other my fellow commissioners have to say on that, but that's where I seem to be finding a line that I don't think is meant to be in this. Right. Can I just, you just mentioned skating and gymnastics. Gymnastics is not included in this list, correct? And skating is this. I think it is. There's parts of it, right? But it doesn't, I don't think it breaks down figure versus short track, right? That would be based on time, but I don't see skating in this list, but maybe it's in the Winter Olympics. So I would say that they are, and Commissioner O'Brien does bring up a great point. Can I just ask, so Stroll, they are on this list because I don't see it. Under Olympics. Winter Olympics. Winter and Summer Olympics only. Yes. So skating, figure skating is determined by a board. Remember that the Olympics have their very, they have a great deal of oversight over every one of their events. They were brought into question, I think, 10 or 15 years ago. And suppose I don't believe it was with sports as much with venue determination, but they have a great deal of oversight. But as Commissioner O'Brien did state, figure skating, dancing, they're all, the winners for gold medals in silver and bronze are all determined by voting. But they can also look at it as saying the judges gave them a 9.5 and a statistic, not statistical number. So they do have both, right? It's, they don't know what the others are doing at that time. They all give their grading. So it is kind of a statistical analysis as well. But her final, I'm sorry, just to finish my thought, the final thing is, I agree, the Academy Awards and the Emmys could be considered subjective. And I want to turn to others, but so gymnastics included under summer athletics, that would be helpful for me. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes. And Sam Rose. Thank you. Commissioner Skinner. I was hoping Todd could point me in the right direction and where that language is in 247 that you just summarized. Sure. It's 247.03 sub four. Commissioner Skinner, it's 11 o'clock. Yeah, I'm good for now. Okay. Just let us know. Thank you. And that Commissioner Maynard, thank you for the heads up. So to be honest, just to respond to Commissioner O'Brien's concerns, I hadn't thought about, I hadn't thought about that. And so would that be contrary if, if we're allowing the subjectivity, you know, a sport that is more subjective? Is that contrary to 147.03 section four? Okay. I'm going to read it. Okay. I'm going to read it. Is that a sport where the outcome is not determined solely by chance? I'm just trying to make the set the, trying to match up. I think that one, if you could clarify what that one, give an example of that particular restriction under our reg, that would, an outcome that's solely determined by chance, is that the vote, the point? Well, like a random number generator is solely by chance. So that's, that's an example of something where there's no skill involved. For example, ice skating, I think you could figure skating, I should say, and gymnastics and the sports that have judges, you could argue are really determined based on the skill of the athletes, but there is an element of chance, I suppose, where the judges are applying their own judgments, but they're based on standards and technical requirements. It's not just which one they like better per se. So I think it, I'm not going to opine, of course, whether it is or is not met, but I would just note that the word solely in there is important that it's not determined solely by chance. So for, to answer Commissioner Skinner's point, that particular provision of our reg is not applicable with respect to subjective, more subjective judging, such as ice figure skating or gymnastics. Is there any other provision under, under the regulation that would be more applicable for Commissioner Skinner? I don't have the reg in front of me. That's why I have my memory and my Yeah, I mean, there's subsection C here, the sporting event generating the outcome is conducted in a manner that ensures sufficient integrity controls exist. So the outcome can be trusted. So if we fit, I mean, if the concern is that the subjectivity of the gymnastics event or the skating event will not allow the outcome to be conducted in a manner that ensures sufficient integrity controls exist so the outcome can be trusted, then, you know, I think we should, we should we should talk about that. I just, I just, I want to make sure that, you know, we have these regulations that we promulgated and I'm, I would feel more comfortable if we identified exactly which portion of the regulations will not allow for us to approve skating or, or gymnastics and that's not at all to say that the concerns aren't valid. And maybe we just need to talk about amending the regulation at some point. So that's, I just want to make sure that, you know, the decisions that we're making are not arbitrary. And again, I'm not suggesting that they are. I know the concerns are valid. But to be honest, I hadn't thought about the subjectivity of an event before Commissioner O'Brien raised it. And, and then, and then so that leads me to, you know, another question. Should I be? Should I be when we had, when we hadn't thus far, we hadn't contemplated that thus far. Let me follow up with that, Commissioner Stenner. A factual question right now, the events that are gymnastics and figure skating, are those in a pool of their own or they only under the Olympic review under the Olympic paradigm in summer games and winter games gymnastics. So sterile is nodding his head. So I'll, I'll be frank. I would, every, every four years, we watch Olympic athletes. And while there's, there have been issues in scandals in certain points in time, I would say that the Olympics is a, all the, the governing bodies of the Olympic bodies are, from my perspective, to be trusted. You know, these are athletes who are going in and competing and they expect fair and equitable judging. They, they have rigorous, rigorous rules around drug testing. And I, so I see that paradigm different than, you know, the notion that there's subjectivity in the sport. But I, that's me and how I look at those governing bodies. And that's why I imagine sterile, those, those, I think their sports are included under that paradigm as opposed to on their own because of that governing body. Okay, go ahead sterile. Yes. And I was just about to say, and I really don't want to do this, but there are far other ones. Diving is also judged. If we're going to go through, we're going to go through all of them. Now, to be, I am with Chair Judd Stein's opinion is that the Olympics in these games are, it's a panel, I believe, of five each time. So it's five, a panel of five. So they all pretty much get the numbers close. There's very rare that they're far off. And they, I believe they have to answer to the Olympic Committee on their judges. So if they are off a great deal, they're all looking at form and, and, and they're all supreme athletes from every nation. So I think they have a higher person to answer to being that the whole world is watching. And so I think we would be able to trust them and they all have an integrity operator always doing all of these events as well that needs to file a report if anything questionable was to happen. And as well as being able to remove these immediately if something was to happen. And a follow up, and are there many jurisdictions that keep the Olympic Games out because perhaps it's been an issue? To my knowledge, all of the ones that I have seen allow Olympic wagering and the summer and winter games with these, with these types of judgments. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Maynard. Madam Chair, I would have a follow up question to that. Sturrell, are you certain that the judged sports in the summer and winter Olympics are included? I, I tend to think that I read an article somewhere that it's not, they're not, or they haven't historically been that that doesn't mean they won't be in the future. But I just want to make sure that we're clear on that. Commissioner Maynard, could you explain your point a little bit? I'll say it as plainly as this, I don't think that something like gymnastics has been allowed to be bet on in the Olympics. I don't think so. I could be wrong on that, but I don't think so. That's my understanding as well. And what about figure skating and diving and all other, can we get clarification on that? I would need that. I don't, can someone explain the exact statement? Are they, are you saying they're not in the summer games or have a judge? I think my understanding is what Commissioner Maynard just said, which is if it's, if judging is involved, then they're not part of the betting repertoire in the Olympics. That's, that was my understanding. If the judging is involved in the competition, so there's some level of subjectivity in that judging process, by the nature of the judges, you know, putting in artistic impression, whatever, they're not included in the, in the panoply of choices in the Olympic. I thought that's what it was. I think that's right. But I will say that I'm separating this in my mind from events. So I know we've went off course a little bit, but now that we're talking about this, I think Commissioner Maynard is correct. Well, that's an important distinction because I knew we didn't have it out in a category outside of the Olympics. So I wondered if there was some kind of a blessing because it's the Olympics. So if there's any question to that, that would be important for me to understand that there's a carve out, judged events from the Olympics, then we should get that from the operators. Commissioner Skinner, do you need to go? No, I just, I had a follow up question and that is what other sports governing bodies offer gymnastics, skating, diving, if any. And I know we probably don't have any presented to us today for consideration by the licensees, but that doesn't mean we won't have those requests in the future. So I think this is a, it's a good discussion to have so that we can think about any such request outside of the Olympic sponsored events. So Commissioner Skinner, when I looked through this list originally, I did, I looked for those types of events outside and I actually didn't even think they were in the Olympics originally this morning, but then I heard they are included, at least conceptually, from Sterl's point of view. So I need clarification because I wouldn't necessarily agree with them to be outside the Olympics unless they were, I assume there was a reason why they weren't included separately because of that judging issue. But if you're saying that they are included, at least conceptually, I don't think that, oh, okay, under the Olympics, okay. Yeah, that would only be, but I actually was surprised to hear that they were included today and that I thought it must be because they're under the umbrella of the Olympics. I think it's a good time to pause because I think we need to get the answer to that question. And so Commissioner Skinner, I know that you were going to have a quick call, but is it a little bit, is it a little delayed? No, it's not delayed. I'm waiting on a call, actually, because what if we continue then, and I think we all agree on the Olympic issue, if it's not included, right, if judging, and then even if it is, I know that it would be a second. There would still be a second discussion, but we should definitely clarify if judged events are not included for the purpose of betting. So if we could just put that in the parking lot and then go through the rest of this document, there's no other, I'm trying to think in the winter games, you know, there's jumping, there's a lot of judged. There's freestyle skiing, there's so many judged events. So I need to know if they're carved out for any of the winter Olympics. So just quickly, looking at other jurisdictions, they do offer. So my understanding is they offer all of these events and other jurisdictions. That's why I originally said that you can look at all of these as. Now, if we're speaking to winter Olympics, I can look also statistically, I was assuming that the summer games and the summer events would also have these, I will double check to assure, but I've just checked in both Michigan and Colorado, they have skateboarding, shooting, figure skating, freestyle skiing. I mean, these are all judged events. So I can then double check also when we take a break on the summer games and whatnot. Yeah, perhaps we could just get some clarity because there seems to be, we've got a couple of commissioners who have an understanding of what is permissible. And then I'm hearing you stir. I think we just need clarity, right commissioners on that, because I think it could affect our ultimate decision making. So if we put this issue into the parking lot, I think we're really close on this, correct? Or should we just talk about the the catalog in general? Are there any, besides the particular issues we were discussing, are there any general questions? Commissioner or Brian, I want to make sure in terms of general. A general question that I had asked somebody as well as whether any particulars are sort of carved out for any reason. And I think, I don't know if it was Ohio. Some jurisdiction recently said notwithstanding the catalog, no events occurring in Russia and Belarus shall be included. Colorado. Is it Colorado? Okay, I don't know if it was Ohio or Colorado. And so I would be curious to have that conversation amongst ourselves, particularly as to those two. But then if there was anything else that anybody was thinking about in terms of, you know, whether we were going to have, you know, accept, you know, such and such tacked on to the catalog. So I just want to clarify my understanding of Russia and my welcome being corrected. My understanding, having, I think I was, you know, I was at an event with the Colorado's executive director. And the carve out on the Russian event wasn't a matter of an integrity issue, but rather a geopolitical issue. So, and I presume you knew that commission. Yes, I assume that that was the basis for it. And I actually, that's why I wanted to bring it up. Okay. For consideration by this. So, and I think I welcome that discussion on my fellow commissioners. I'm just wondering if commissioner spinner is now on her call because I wonder if we should break on the issue. She raised her cell phone and gesture to it before she disappeared. So I think she had to take the call. Thank you. So why don't we break because I think she would want to be part of that discussion. And then we need a little bit more information on those judged events. If they fall under the Olympic umbrella or the summer games, those official big seasonal games or if they're outside independently under separate governing bodies, how we feel about them. Just, just quickly, I've been googling the question and I think I have an answer at least for the 2024 Olympics. And it I'm, I have to dig into a little further, but it looks as though you're going to be able to bet on judged events starting in the 2024 Olympics. I will get you a website during the break, I hope that we can all take a look at, but it looks as though judged events will be allowed, at least initially from what I'm reading. And that's consistent with what Stero and Bruce were bringing to light. So I guess then if that's the case, and we should still verify, then the question is why? You know, and is it because of the nature of the governing bodies that there's not an integrity question? You know, as we started to describe the Olympic governing bodies are well established and perhaps it's a trust, they're trustworthy. They look at our reg. So if we could get any information on that during our break, Commissioner Mayer, is there a question you'd like answered during our break? No, I just, I'm happy to be stand, you know, to stand corrected, especially on, you know, an event that happens every two to four years depending on summer and winter Olympics in an industry that's been legal since 2018 and all but a few states. So happy to stand corrected, Stero. Yeah, so, okay, let's just do a little bit more digging on that, Stero and Bruce and Karen during this break. It's 11-20. What time would you like to, I do know we have also one of our outside council has a time limit today, so we're going to turn to our regs right after this and make sure that Mina's heard right up front get his work done. So presuming Commissioner Skinner's back by 11-35, does that work? I would say 11-40 just because she would need a break, probably in addition to the phone call. So if we can give her a few more minutes so that she can wrap up. That's about 20 minutes, 20 minutes. Okay, now it's time to do some work. And Madam Chair, I have all the way till three. So if that helps. Okay, thank you. I mean, we're taking a short break of the media dispensers in advance of the meeting. So, excellent. Thank you so much, everyone. We'll return in 20 minutes. Thanks, Dave. Stero, I think I was having a little trouble hearing you because of the noise in my background. So if you can just stay close up to your microphone, that helps my ears. Thanks so much. No problem. We'll also change then you to hopefully have it. Thank you so much. All right. I didn't want to have you repeat everything. So thanks. Okay, Commissioners, we're all back. This is a reconvening of public meeting, number 427 in Massachusetts Game Commission. I'll take a roll call. Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Where should I help? Here. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. And Commissioner Mayer. I'm here. Excellent. So we'll turn back to the issue around the Olympics. Okay, so I've looked into other jurisdictions as well. Michigan, Colorado, more specific. And yes, they also allow all of the figure skating, diving, snowboarding, as competitions to be wagered on, as well as the summer and winter athletics. Commissioner's questions for Sterl. I wonder if, Sterl, if we know what the operators, the three operators were intending, do you know precisely what they're intending to allow for bedding in Massachusetts because there could be a distinction? Just from our conversations through testing with them in the past three days in several hours, they want to offer whatever you will allow. So they will offer everything that they possibly can. They like to have what's called as an open market. And they want as many offerings as possible. So the tier, in your understanding, they're not, they're not eliminating any particular Olympic summer game, winter athletics, summer athletics events based on the judging element. Correct. And as stated before, I think what they rely on is their vendor for oversight. And whenever there is a possible question on an event or any kind of alert, they immediately take it off the board. Questions for Sterl? Commissioner Ryan? So I just wanted to follow up. I know that we were just sending some information from GLI about the different jurisdictions. And I'm curious about Indiana and it's basically because it's trending towards sort of my view of the objectivity in assessing these. And they seem to carve out artistic gymnastics, artistic swimming, things like that that are more subjective. They don't do the panoply of everything in the Olympics. They actually have sort of subapprovals. That was my first thought was to ask the licensees, well, exactly what are you looking for? But if the question, if the answer is, well, everything, unless you tell me no or some subset, then I put that out for conversation because I do feel like looking at some jurisdictions, Indiana being the one that jumps out most obviously on this chart is maybe going in and looking at things that are deemed a little more subjective, like trampoline, artistic, this, that, or the other, which I have concerns about the subjectivity in some of those sports in terms of being able to sort of objectively verify. So I put that out for conversation amongst us. Second Director Wells, are you leaning in? No. Commissioner Hill, what are you thinking? I'm at a point now, Madam Chair, where after seeing this chart that I'm okay with what has been proposed by Sterl and Bruce moving forward. I don't see that we need to make any changes at this point. And just a clarification, I think the eSports is not in red, but I do believe that Sterl, your recommendation is to keep eSports out now. And I think we're actually required to take an initial step in a regulation to establish the governing body in any case. So this list does not include eSports either. Yes, absolutely correct. And it is carved out separately in regulation, correct? Yep. Okay. So Commissioner Hill would be, Commissioner O'Brien less comfortable, including, is it right now? That's with respect to those judged events under the Olympics. So yeah, and to be more specific in terms of what I'm proposing is that we don't include the Olympics in this catalog right now until we get the opportunity to have a further discussion and look at how it's treated in other jurisdictions. I realize that I am the more cautious in going forward with these, but it doesn't appear to me anybody would be betting on the Olympics in such a fashion that we'd be getting in the way by doing that. And we would have a year to be able to digest it. So Commissioner Hill, are you saying then that you would be receptive to waiting on chess and chess and corn, and the Olympic games of summer and winter? I'd be okay with that, especially with the Olympics because we, we have plenty of time to be able to get more information and to be able to take a better vote. And right now too, it's a recommendation. I don't know if it's an affirmative recommendation, but we do have to go back to special events. But let's just put that in the parking lot for right now with respect to chess, corn, bull and Olympic. Let's be precise. It's number 41 on this memo, page 13, summer athletics. And then number 47 on page 14. Yes, Doug, Cheryl, thank you so much. I do need that. I need that. So thank you. No problem. Just remember, if you want to carve out the Olympics, you're going to have to carve out summer athletics and winter athletics for the same reason. Right. I just, and so I just said, the two that I just had on our memo, because I think we want to be really clear that we're all talking about the same thing. So the summer Olympics, let's see, or the summer games, that was number 30 something on our list, right? You just had it, but now I'm screwed. Sorry. It should be in alphabetical order. So after softball. Okay. So I've got number 29, summer Olympics and winter Olympics. Okay. Now we also had commissioners, what did I just say for the number? 41, 41 summer athletics. Does that, and is that also inclusive? And then 40, so 41 on page 13. And then the winter Olympics on page 14. Winter, winter athletics, 14. Yes. Number 47 on this list. I know the list number has changed because of rodeo and pool were left off. I don't know if they're able to verify sharing that this list with rodeo and pool is now complete. How do we feel while we're verifying that the list is complete? If we could turn to two outstanding issues, one, that would be the special events. Let's look at the eating events differently than the awards. The awards are more subjective. I think we've heard that distinction versus more statistical approach to how many hot dogs do we feel about the awards? Would we like to hold on that? Or do we want to move on? Mr. Skinner thoughts? Just I know we're on special events, but I just didn't make my position a little bit clearer. I'm going to join commissioners Hill and O'Brien and make it a consensus. I do think on those earlier referenced items we should hold until we do a little bit more digging. Relative to special events, I think for the same reason we should also hold. If we are distinguishing the Academy Awards, for instance, as a subjective event, then I think for the reasons that we're holding on Cornhole Chess and Highlye, well, no Highlye is a different category. Sorry, Cornhole Chess and the summer and winter Olympics and athletics, then we should also be holding on those kinds of events. I'll turn to Commissioner Maynard. In terms of the overall approach that Commissioner Skinner said, holding on the Chess Cornhole Highlye is already out. I think they understood that. Then the winter and summer Olympics and the two other sections, are you comfortable with holding on that? I am comfortable holding on Cornhole and Chess, given Sterl and Bruce's commentary earlier. On the summer and winter athletics, I'm perfectly fine to say when I was wrong about something, I was wrong. I had read an older article and it seems like it's trending towards moving that direction. That said, Commissioner Hill raises a good point which is the summer and the winter Olympics are some ways away and it gives us some time to sort these out. I'm fine joining Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Skinner and O'Brien on that front. I'll clear the deck and make this really easy. I would allow contests like Nathan's Hot Dogs to go forward. I would also allow the Academy Awards contests like that to move forward also. So that's where I stand. Okay. So Madam Chair, on the special events category, I see them as there's four listed. I'm not really sure what major league eating sanctioned events are. I assume it's akin to the hot dog eating contest. I see those differently than Academy and Emmy Awards. I still don't see how Academy and Emmy Awards are sports events within the statute. I just don't. So I've got that issue with that and then you layer on the other things that I've talked about. So I'm actually more comfortable with the latter two in the category moving forward. But because I don't know a lot about them, my preference would be the same. The first two, I just don't see how they're sporting events within the meaning of the statute. I don't. So that's my view on those four in that category. Councilor Grossman, I just need to hear the language one more time. Sure. Sports event or sporting event is a professional sport or athletic event, collegiate sport or athletic event, a collegiate tournament, motor race event, electronic sports event or other event authorized by the Commission under this chapter. So it doesn't say or other sporting event. It says for other event authorized by the Commission. But the overall phraseology is sports event. I mean, to interpret it that way, I feel like it's an exception that swallows the very title of the definition. So I'm not convinced that it's a sports event. And I have other issues with the subjectivity of it and the voting versus an objective criteria. And I have sort of multiple layers on that one that make me raise an eyebrow. So Dave Mackey, you weren't leaning in just now. Where are you? I was I was wondering if you were leaning in on our statutory interpretation. No, I'm I'm getting ready for what I understand is another event on your schedule related to another matter. Thank you. Yes, Commissionist. Can I just ask for some clarification? The Nathan's famous hot dog eating contest and the other major league eating sanctioned events It wasn't my understanding that those were judged subjectively. Are they? It's relative right there. That's still pointed out and I'm just I'm interpreting here to just keep our process going. Folks, still has said that unlike the Academy Awards and the other awards because it is a matter of a number of items eaten that it's more statistical in nature, even though it's not a box outcome that your terminology director van event it is more statistical. Yeah. So for the subjective, I think Commissioner Bryan is now distinguishing that it's that the Academy Awards are not sporting events. I guess one would say then chess would not be able to be included if that's not a sporting event. And I'm not really sure if eating hot dogs is a sporting event. But I would actually I would beg to differ with my fellow commissioner. I think that language tagged to the end of the sporting event was purposeful to align itself with what happens in other jurisdictions because certainly that's our place on less sporting in nature events as part of the sports wagering ecosystem and landscape that's out there. So I would probably assume that they were thinking when they said that language, they were thinking of exactly something like the Academy Awards. That's my interpretation. Yeah. I would and I would tend to I would tend to agree. My point in getting that clarification earlier is just to say that, you know, my reservation about moving forward on the Academy Awards and Emmy Awards is based on the subjectivity of those events. So I am comfortable moving forward with the latter two of the four in that group. So I just want to make sure that that's clear. Okay. So what I'm hearing is there's a couple of commissioners who would keep out the Academy Awards because of subjectivity. I guess I want to be on the record that I am hearing a lot of discussion around events that include more of a subjective analysis. I want to be clear that I do. I understand why that it may be it may appear to be something that we could we would not be able to quite as easily to for confirming, you know, accountability and to build it's not as black and white. But I also don't want to in any way appear to suggest that I want to impugn that there's lack of integrity in these types of events that are so part of the sports landscape. And so I'm willing to put this issue aside so that we can get more information. But with respect to the Olympics, I again just reiterate that from my point of view, the governing bodies are among the most trustworthy given the world stage that they appear on, that they that they work from. But with that said, I would like more information, but I just don't want to suggest that I'm at the starting point of suggesting that they aren't trustworthy because of the subjectivity. And I include that with respect to the Academy Awards and the Emmy Awards. These processes are in place. They are subject to a great deal. Screwed me publicly. And so I look at the governing body and assume that they all operate with that degree of integrity that they that the world has come to expect of them. So that's my starting point as opposed to thinking that there might be an integrity issue. But that said, commissioners, I would like to maybe put a date or I know that we're going to hear from the other operators as to events that they would like to include. They may come back and say we want the Academy Award. So we want winter sports and winter and summer Olympics. I'd like to be better prepared for that those requests to be able to answer any of our questions around integrity. So director, as I when I say better prepared, I feel our team is very well prepared today. So but there are outstanding questions. Director Welles, do you think that will work for us to get those these issues answered over the next month? Okay. Before the an address and to get to see if there really is some risks that we would not want to enjoy as regulators here. And that's true. That's if we can get more data on that. Patricia Skinner. I just wanted to add in there that that that I feel that there might not be much of a risk. But but as I said earlier, I hadn't even thought about the question until Commissioner O'Brien raised it. So I think it's a good consideration. And I would like, you know, I think it's a good idea to just allow the time to have it to explore it a little bit further because I don't know what goes into judging those events and voting on, you know, a winner. So so do you think like over the next month, this this list may come back to us. So we'll be in a position to have more information, Patricia Skinner. Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. I expect so. You feel the same way. Yeah. So as the Academy, the Emmys on this special events list, I would agree with Commissioner Skinner. And I again, the latter two seem to be more objective, quantifiable events. So that's the word I needed. Quantifiable. Thank you. I was looking for that word. But as still pointed out, you know, statistic based, you can you can count those hot dogs or those ties. Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill, are you okay if we just hold on the rollout for retail on on the the items that we've listed and include, I guess, what we're hearing is the consensus that the two eating contests could be included right now. Is that fair, commissioners? That's fair. That's fair. I will note that March, there's there's a major event in March that, you know, if we are going to put it on for this year, I would like to make that decision before before it comes up. So I think that we'll have time to get this information, you know, into third week of February. I think they're going to come to us. You're going to be requesting any additional items from the new licensees, Karen. And it will come back to us. And I think we should be prepared to to be responsive, perhaps any of our questions answered. And and clarifications. And I see Commissioner O'Brien, you're nodding your head. That would give us just enough time. Okay, good. So now, before we go back to the general question as to whether folks are ready to move, Commissioner O'Brien, you asked an important question that I don't know. Commissioner Skinner heard, but I did clarify that it was based on not an integrity issue, but on a geopolitical issue. And so if you want to reiterate that, Commissioner O'Brien. And Madam Chair, I think you knew the jurisdiction specifically. I think it was Colorado, but maybe other, yeah, other jurisdiction. So Commissioner Skinner, I had mentioned this, I think, as you had just hopped off, which is at least one other jurisdiction has carved out an exception to the overall catalog, which excludes any, any events, any sports wagering events occurring in Russia or Belarus, given the war in Ukraine. I am interested in this commission taking the same action. And so I put that forward for discussion for this body. Cheryl, do we know there's no carve out in this? Or do we know if the operators are going to carve them out in any way on this list? Do we know the event in which we are speaking about? Anything that's in Russian or Belarus? So each event has inside of it. I was, I did not view to assure Russian sections were carved out or not. I can take a quick look. Um, but we can only, you can always make that statement and require that the operators carve that out and not offer, right? Commissures, how do we feel? Is there a more definitive statement? Am I muted? No, I'm not muted. I can hear you. Okay. Is there a more definitive statement that can be made that Kenner should be made to exclude those events other than, you know, tying the rationale to the war in Ukraine? I guess, you know, is there more to the other jurisdictions decision to exclude beyond just that fact? It was not tied to integrity. I think that's fair to say. Okay. My understanding, and I'm only speaking anecdotally, so we should get verification. My understanding was there was this decision made as a result of Russia's invasion in Ukraine. Okay. So I'm in favor of following suit. Commissioner Mayer, Commissioner Hill. I think they're doing some good thinking. Commissioner Hill, are you leaving in? I would, I have no problem adding this type of language at this time. Commissioner Mayer, are you leaving in? I was, I was thinking, and I was thinking about some of the work that I did in my previous job when the war broke out in relation to state contracts. I would support language to that effect. Well, I'm complete support, and I'm happy that the issue was raised. Thank you, Commissioner Bryan. So we would just need to have language included to any motion. Commissioner, Councilor Grossman, I don't know if you want to help out here, but if we are, if there are no other questions generally about the catalog as presented. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner. As I was starting to go through the list again, it's being proposed, or at least I think I heard a consensus, that we would not allow 41 and 47, which would be the summer athletics and winter athletics. If you go through that list, there are actually some sporting events that I don't see why we would not allow. So for example, the Commonwealth Games, within that, hold on one second, I'm having issues with the muting thing. Thank you. Within the Commonwealth Games, for example, badminton, basketball, hockey, shooting, weightlifting, tennis, those are all sports that we're allowing in other federations, I guess you would call it. So there are sports, as is the case with the Olympics, where there's subjectivity involved, but there's also other sports where that isn't involved. So I'm bringing it up for discussions because these are big games that a lot of people bet on that we're now going to be not accepting. Certainly. And then there's also above that, the Olympic Games, which, and maybe your point is that these would be coming forward faster than the Olympic Games, right? That's accurate. Yeah. So I'm just keeping my eye on number 29, including trials, because trials occur at different times of the season. I think the challenge is for our team to be able to carve out all those that are based on judging. If we're comfortable, we could move on some kind of language about including everything but that, which is based on a judging panel or individual judges or something. We could do that. Or we could just put a hold on these all together with the idea that we revisit them over the next three weeks. It's just that they will not be offered at retail. That's the thing. They will not be offered come next Tuesday. So, Commissioner Hill, if you want to carve out those that are subject to individual judging or panel judging. And if there's a way we can do that in the motion, I think we should move in that direction. And then that would be the entire catalog. That would be from wherever, yeah. And I think we'll only see them in that 29 and those other two categories. 29, 41, and 47. Thanks. Page 11, page 13, page 14 of the packet. Yeah. Thank you. And I don't know how others feel about that, but the more I look at the sports in each of those, we'd be missing out on a lot. Well, and that's the concern that it has is the subjectivity and the voting, not the other events that are, that's really quantifiable and determined. So, if there's language that we can implement in the motion, I'd like to see that happen. I don't know how everybody else feels. I'm hearing a consensus on chess, cornhole, these parts, my eye, and now sports that are subject to judging, both individual or panel judging, as those events that we would like excluded from this catalog. Do we have kind of a consensus on that? Am I missing anything? No, I think that captures it. Well, do we need to narrow that down a little bit? I mean, isn't the hot dog contest, is that, I mean, the social event and the academy awards are out. I'm sorry, I did not mention that. Those award shows are out, the hot dogs are in. So, this is just what's being excluded. I should have included the academy awards. Now, the academy awards are coming up in March. So, this will not allow them to bat on it. You have captured my thinking, Madam Chair. And so, Commissioner Skinner, is that helpful? Thank you for reminding me of the academy awards. I would follow it to include the award shows, because I would be really interested to see how much activity there is in terms of voting. I don't have any concerns about integrity with respect to them. Probably I'll find that there's a huge scandal this year or something after saying that. But, commissioners, are we comfortable keeping the Emmys and more shows off? I believe the Emmys is next Sunday, so that would keep them off them. Commissioner Carpenter sterled. So, I really like the language of just stating we won't not to single out Olympics or athletic events, but to say judging, because in doing so, just remember that a lot of sports are judged. Boxing is judged by a three-panel crew each round. So, you're now eliminating anything that falls under that category. That's what I was a little bit, and I'm sorry if I didn't get there, but that was my point relative to specifically the Nathan's hot dog contest, because they're, you know, that is judged as well. So, I was just thinking maybe we should, we need to narrow down that language, Commissioner O'Brien. If you restrict the language to the categories that we identified, then it won't capture things like boxing, which I also, I've had that conversation, I can't remember with whom, about that very issue, but I think if we say that the numerical categories that you identified and then put the exception, the judging on that subcategory, then you're not going to accidentally capture the eating contests in the boxing, although Sturrell's got to step again. Sorry. Just to be clear, Nathan's eating contest, which I don't know why I know this, but they have, they rule, the judges are there to stop the eating. They are judged on the number of hot dogs, and I guess the amount in which is, if it's close, let, eaten. So, I don't think there is, I think it is a statistically based contest. So, they're more referees than judges. Exactly. Referees exactly would be to stop the eating. Yes. Brad, you're right. I watch it every year. I am more comfortable with the carve out just around the Olympics, because then we're not impacting for the retail. As I understand it, those games are not, they will not impact any events between now and March 1st. Is that right? Is that fair? That's fair. Okay. I'm going to reiterate. We are impacting the award shows, and we're good with that. I'm good with that. I'm going to vote nay because of that, Madam Chair. Yeah. I can say I'm not loving carving out the award shows, but Commissioner Skinner. I'm fine with carving out the award shows. Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah. I'd prefer they be carved out at this point until we can discuss it further. Sterl. I thought you were leaning in. You're right up, Sterl. So, I'm sorry. Just listen. Okay. So, Commissioner Maynard, I join you in my level of discomfort, but in the interest of moving this issue along, this may be the year where Massachusetts Betters are not able to bet on the Academy Awards or the Emmy Awards, but I do look forward to the discussion in February. Again, the subjective nature of judging. I'm not as troubled by that if the governing body is strong. And again, the issues that Executive Director Wells addressed. Whether or not the operators, our operators have no desire to have any event that is in any way not able to be verified. They are looking to see suspicious behavior. They have their integrity monitoring. It is absolutely in their business interests. It is absolutely a priority for us. And unless I hear that there's suspicious activity of certain quantifiable amount or that there's any integrity issues or issues around the governing bodies, I'm really comfortable. That's where I'm looking at it and I'm looking at also our regulation. So, I'm willing to kind of compromise to keep the award shows off, but I would like to understand that going forward and then, of course, with respect to those issues that we carved out of items number 29, 41, and 37. Before we vote, I just want to thank Sterl and Bruce and team, including Gay and GLI for what has been great work. My understanding is that in order to truly compete with the illegal market, you have to have a robust catalog. And I think you've presented that to us with the backing of our current category one licensees. You've discerned where there might be issues, but you've retained really a robust catalog, which I think will help us be able to compete with that illegal market. So, that's my perspective. Commissures, do you have any other questions or anything you wish to say? Commissioner Skinner? I just want to echo your sentiments. I do appreciate Sterl and Bruce for pulling this together and presenting it in a way that's easily digestible. And just a special thanks for the extra help I was given over the last couple days to come up to speed on this. So, job well done. Thanks, Commissioner Skinner. Commissioner Bryan? I would add to that the patience that everybody has given to me because I've asked a number of different people to help me get up to speed on this. And it was no uneasy task, to try to get this together and get us all up to speed to types of wagering and the catalog. And this is going to be a living document too. So, I don't think you're done with me yet in terms of I'm going to have to circle back with some of my questions. So, a huge thank you to the team on this. And Commissioner Bryan, the questions always come really important discussions. So, thank you. Commissioner Braynor and Commissioner Hill, are you set or anything you wish to add? Commissioner Maynard? I appreciate all the hard work on this. Commissioner Hill? All the work that went into this was superb. And the information you're able to get to the commissioners before these meetings was invaluable for us to be able to make these decisions. So, thank you, Bruce and Sterling, to the team. Okay. So, if we're prepared then to move on this important item. We've got a few important issues to address. I don't know if we need a little bit of help from Councilor Grossman or if the Commissioner is prepared to move. Madam Chair, I think Sterle has a question. My apologies, Sterle. I was thinking to note. No problem. But we had three sections and I just wanted to make sure you're aware that the guidelines will also still be voted on or need to vote. More specifically, most were covered, except for the drafts of the NHL, NBA, NFL as a wageable, a wagering event to be wagerner. Oh, I think we had just excluded in the wagers. Again, we're looking at the memo that's in a packet, just the virtual matchups. But the drafts, is that more an event? It is an event, but it falls under wagering on the event. So, it's kind of separate. Thank you. So, we haven't brought up the drafts, but it is more aligned with special events. Madam Chair, that is part of what I was thinking when I said that I have to be a May vote on this, is not just the events that are coming up this weekend in March, but I just support adding events to the catalog. So adding drafts to the, as well as the academy. I guess the request came from, there are many other special events that we could think of, but the operators asked for academy awards and the awards and the draft, as well as the eating contests. They asked for one eating contest. I think we added an eating contest, am I right? Think. Or did they ask for both eating contests? They asked, whatever they asked for was placed in this. Okay. They are requesting draft, they request for drafts just falls under this guideline time. And to be, just to be clear, most of the drafts fall under their league policies. So, the NFL would fall under football and it's a draft that takes place in April happens. So, we're talking drafts across the board for all the professional leagues. Yes. What page of the packet are we on? I'm sorry, Madam Chair. This is part of, Nakisha, this is part of the guidelines and comments tabs that would be posted as part of acceptance to the catalog. I think that that's part of the Excel sheet. And I just don't have it in front of me, stir on my apologies. So, is there anything else in the Excel sheet that we're missing? I will go to the guidelines and tab form. And it just outlines, just so you know, it outlines what's not allowed as to be wager on in a sporting event, impermissible player, proposition wagers, as we had said before, like players getting hurt. That's statutory. Exactly. So, most of the statutory. Yeah, just the, we've gone over the statutory one. So, is there anything other than the traps? The drafts and just so you're aware that when you approve the, like the NFL as a whole, you're approving their preseason, postseason. It's just listed out on that tab. And then, of course, we've discussed the red outlined one of, if it can be voted on, can, might be considered subjective, it's carved out, or at least you've carved it out for right now. So, I believe as long as you approve all of the wagers, then all you need to discuss is whether drafts are able to be wager or not. And the judging is restricted to just the three items that 29, 41 and 47. So, drafts, let's talk about drafts. So, if it's just carved out for the judging or voting in drafts, I mean, in those events, there are several awards in sporting events that also have judging. So, I just want to be clear that to let you know that there are awards that fall under that. That's all. And, Sterl, is that, I guess I'm trying to figure out, like no one came to us and said special event because those aren't considered special events, right? These would just fall within approval of saying, yes, you can bet on NFL draft events. Oh, no, they see, they, so they, they all submitted the NFL soccer, all listing them down. Only things that were carved out as a special event is what's on the special event tab. That's what they listed as special events and it was four. Okay. Director Van, I see you're leaving it. Yeah, I kind of agree with what Sterl was saying. So, I have, I have to ask clarification. The draft is not a statistical or box outcome decision. So, Sterl and Bruce, are you recommending at this time that they not be included for the drafts of any of the routines or pro leagues that they not be included? I would recommend they are included. You are recommending that they are included, okay. And that's what the offers are asked. Correct. Now, besides the drafts, what about the awards, like MVP versus, you know, I would look at that as the same as the Academy Awards essentially, wouldn't you, Sterl? Unfortunately, yes. The whatever has just voting, I would classify it as a the same system set up as the Academy Awards. So, if you have reservations on that, you would have reservations on the other. And what if it's based on yardage? No, exactly. So, there's two types of awards, exactly. Chair, Chair Juddstein, there's the awards that that the person wins the Russian title means he rushed the most amount of yards on the football field. I agree that should be allowed. But if you're the Sayon award is one that comes to mind, it's voted on by the media, not their statistics. Okay. So, for sure, let's get some input on that. How do you feel like you want to adopt Bruce and Sterl's recommendation? For sure, Brian. Yeah, I mean, I have the same reservations about it still. And that my reservations may change depending on the entity you're talking about too. I have a hard time with subjective voting like that. Being part of it. Understanding that it would be a very quick turnaround time on coming back and revisiting it, but I take the same position. But are you willing to adopt drafts as an event that can be bet on and also those awards that are based on specifically quantifiable? So, yeah, the quantifiable, you know, the most goal scored in a game, the most absolutely, to me, that's quantifiable clearly. I struggle with the more subjective voting that the draft, I guess, I just need someone to explain it to me a little bit more in terms of why that would fall. I do feel like there's so much subjectivity and that it's a bizarre event. I just, I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around why that would fall within this category. So, somebody just needs to explain it to me more. Richard, Ben, are you two, we're also leaning in. Did you want to, were you asking the same question? No, I, well, I think I understand how the draft works. And I think the subjectivity is a secondary, I think factor. But the objective piece for me, I thought was like the pulling of the, you know, the drawing of the numbers to determine what, which order, you know, the team gets to pick. So, I'm, and I could be wrong, but I'm going to stay consistent and accept the recommendation made by Bruce and Sterl. And that is, you know, to include the draft to exclude any awards that are subjectively determined. And that's those are the two we're dealing with, right? The draft and the sports awards. So, my question on the draft wasn't sort of how it works, but also like the, the timing of it. I mean, because it's going to be this rapidity, right? So how does that work? One of the bets shut off? So if I can explain just a little bit of how the draft works. So with the draft, they would have betting up into the start, you can have it by commission that it stops immediately when the draft starts, or you can allow in-game wagering during the draft, where the operator usually shuts off picks, I believe, three picks prior. Okay. So, what's the rec here or the request here? Do we know? It's up to you to decide on whether you will allow it and then those conditions. So the drafts on football and baseball and whatnot, they, why we feel that it's a sporting event is that the way that the players are picked are due to their statistics from their college and, you know, their performance on the field. So that's why we feel it's everyone really enjoys the drafts. They get a lot of publicity and they build their teams with these things. So they are, there's not subjectivity in the draft. Each team isn't going to pick somebody that's going to hurt themselves. So that's why we feel it's a good thing. You're essentially betting on, you know, as each team gets a turn, you're betting on which player they will select. Yeah, no idea. Yeah, based on where their priority is in the pit. Yeah. So the question of when it gets cut off is deferred, right? Yes. That's not for today. Okay. Okay. I just need to have a pause for a second. We've learned, I've learned that Big Mac, giving K is only available to one and we had hoped to get an executive session update. So commissioners, can we all have our notes ready? Or are we prepared to move right now? And then we go into an executive, anticipate going into an executive session. Discussions now going good two hours. I would say go into executive session, Madam Chair, just to make sure everyone's language on emotion reflects our understandings. But perhaps, Council Grossman, you can, I know that you're going to be going into executive session too, but maybe members of our team could perhaps take what we've, they've heard today and help on a full slump motion draft that we can then pick from and perhaps address Mr. Racky's need to go into his schedule from one o'clock. Do you think commissioners? Okay, Todd, do you want to set up the executive session and we'll just put this on item? We are going to have a vote on this item today, commissioners, on number three, the sports catalog. So to the public who've been listening, it will happen, but we do need to address a matter that we need to be updated by our outside council on that's appropriate, I believe, for an executive session. Council Grossman, you want to go through that with us, please. Sure, I see. I don't know. Caitlyn's here as well. Caitlyn, if you want to jump in, feel free. Otherwise, I'm happy to walk through. Okay. So this is item number five on the agenda. It pertains to the ongoing litigation caption FBT Everett Realty LLC versus the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. The purpose of this executive session would be to discuss certain points in the litigation that require some strategic decision making. And in order to do that, it's important that you be updated as to the ongoing movement in the case. And furthermore, you would have to find and I would submit to you that there exists information that it presented publicly would have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the commission, which would make moving into executive session to discuss this matter appropriate under the statute. Okay, wishers, you know that I have to read language into the record. Mission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with GL Chapter 30A, Section 21A3, discuss strategy with respect to FBT Agribility LLC Massachusetts versus Massachusetts Gaming Commission as discussion and open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the commonwealth. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that we go into executive session on the matters listed by General Counsel Grossman and for the reasons stated by the Chair. Second. Okay, any discussion? Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Please don't go into the executive session quite yet. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? I mean Skinner? I'm sorry, I can't see faces. So Commissioner Skinner? Aye. And Commissioner Maynard? Aye. Okay, and I vote yes. So that's five zero. We will be reconvening in the public meeting. I would say that it will be more along the line of 130. We'll take our lunch break between one and one 30. Okay, so to the public, we will convene back in the public meeting. We have a lot of work to do. Thank you everybody. And we can now join the executive session room as invited. Thank you. Oh, Mills, I get it. There's another option. Leave and go with that into the main room. Yeah, but you don't see option two until you hit leave. At least not on my iPad. Yeah, so I hadn't done that before. I just used to clicking on whatever crystal initiates the invite. That's cool. Mills, are we streaming? Yeah. Thank you. You guys get pretty well. You can walk between rooms as you please. Yeah. Okay. So commissioners, we're reconvening public meeting number four, 27. I want to just take the roll call, given that we're holding this meeting virtually. Good afternoon, Commissioner Bryan. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. And good afternoon, Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. Okay. Everybody's had some lunch and we've had our executive session. Thank you so much. And that was item number five on our agenda. We're returning back to our wholesome discussion on sports, weight, ring, implementation, and the review of the events catalog that Estrella Carpenter and Bruce Bann, director of Bann, introduced to us. We've had a lot of discussions. I think there might be some degree of compromise going on with the idea that perhaps for retail launching, there may not be every event that was requested of the three operators, but certainly a very, very robust catalog. And for a few of us, we might be wrestling with a suggestion that some be held off for the launching. My thought is that we will be hearing back from the operators before the March launch, and perhaps they will address some of the issues we've raised in our earlier discussion. Commissioner, who would like to speak on this right now? Any last minute issues? We discussed the idea with respect to items number 29, 41, and 47 on page 11, 13, and 14, respectively, of our agenda, of our packet, that we would hold on those items that are individually judged or judged by a panel. And we also, and I'll get to you in just a second, Bruce, and then also we discussed having some kind of a carve out on Russian-sponsored, Belarus-sponsored events. Director Ban. I would like to bring one thing to your attention that during your closed session, it was brought to our attention that one very, very, very popular bet during the Super Bowl is the MVP wager. And it is especially important if it's a boring Super Bowl that that wager skyrockets during the Super Bowl, during that, just wanted to bring it up because that's kind of a subjective wager as well. So earlier, that that particular award was clumped into the idea of the same awards like Academy Awards. And there's some degree of concern about perhaps from my fellow commissioners as to whether subjectivity involved or how do we feel comfortable in its ability to be quantified or verify. I think I'm pretty clear on the record that I am thinking that with respect to all of those involved in those judgments that there's such a degree of scrutiny on them that their job is to be transparent and move with the integrity of their judging exercise. So those events are the Academy Awards, the Emmys and the MVP award fall into that category where we were thinking of a carve out for now. That means we would not give the opportunity for the detail to have those items. Just wanted to bring it to your attention, that's all. So you've gotten some feedback. Yes, they would have the opportunity to bring it before you before then. They could in the couple weeks of February before. It just wouldn't be on, they wouldn't be able to receive bets on those events. That's all I had. Commissioner Hill, what are you thinking? And also the drafts, for some reason drafts kind of fell into this notion that they're somehow more reliable and less subjective than the MVP Academy Awards? I ask, do not involve judges or opinions of the media. They rely on the team's command center, the general manager to choose the player. Academy Awards doesn't rely on the media, right? But you're saying that the MVP does? Yes, the awards like Cy Young and MVP rely on a portion. I believe it's like 80% is the media. 20% is the people voting on an app or on the online. And all of that is all regulated by the governing body. Commissioner, you're meaning it? Yeah, I mean, this isn't going to come to a shock probably to anybody on here. The more we've talked and discussed today, the more I'm comfortable allowing these types of these types of wagers, both for the drafts, especially for the awards of the drafts, but then I can't make a logical distinction in my mind between that and the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which are very old institutions, much older than this body that also works. So I just, you know, I am having a real struggle not allowing for these wager types. Commissioner Hill, are you? So the more the conversation goes on, the more you think about and I'm really leaning the way my colleague, Commissioner Maynard, is leaning at this point. We've heard the discussion. I actually feel very comfortable. I was trying to put something out there where we could compromise to move this forward. But I think I'm at a point now where I too want to allow these awards to move forward. I mean, the MVP of the Super Bowl is like one of the biggest bets you're going to see. And let's be honest about that. So I'm torn, but at the same time, if I was a better and I couldn't bet on that, I'd hightail it up to New Hampshire where I could. I'd hightail it over to Rhode Island where I could. And I think our citizens deserve the right to be able to bet on that particular bet on that issue. So I've shifted as the conversation has now gone on for almost two and a half hours here and hearing the testimony from our staff and my fellow commissioners. I feel very comfortable moving forward with allowing these types of bets to happen here in Massachusetts on day one. So, Commissioner Hill, would that mean that you're looking at our list? How do you feel about events 29, 41 and 47? So that was my compromise is that we would have language put into place where those, if you were to perform an athletic event and it was judged that we would not allow that type of betting to move forward. There's where I stop. But right now. And then also we're holding out on chess. The chess and cornhole. Yes. And then I, I, and I, and I think that's it with drafts in. Yes. And awards. How do you feel about eating contests in? Yeah. And what about the entertainment awards? The entertainment awards. And I, you know, this, I'm going to sound like I'm on both sides of the fence. It doesn't matter to me those issues that have been asked for. If we allow them, I'm okay with it. If we disallow them, I'm okay with it. I care about the sporting events that are taking place at this point. Again, I'm torn. And can I just ask is it because, is it because you're worried about the integrity or just because it's not a sport? Both. Both. But as I've listened to you, Madam Chair, and I've listened to our staff, they believe there is that there is integrity that I shouldn't be worried about that. And that the governing boards of those issues or those events are very tightly looked after. I could go either way on them. But in regards to the sports events, I think I'm clear. 2941 47 we put restrictions on and allow everything else to move forward as presented to us today from staff. Okay. Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Skinner, I couldn't tell who's first. Mr. O'Brien, you were back, but I think Mr. Skinner is leaning in. So I'll go. Yeah. Okay. I'll go. So I haven't swayed from my original position here. I think the integrity considerations raised by Commissioner O'Brien are important. And I would like to explore those. That being said, I would hate to stand in the way and really don't know if I would vote no on this question of giving the residents of Massachusetts what they're looking for. We've gotten feedback from the public. I don't think, Bruce, you mentioned who, but it is a compelling consideration for me. And so I'm wondering if there is a little bit of wiggle room here. We have a meeting right now scheduled for February 2. We have a meeting scheduled for February 9. And on February 6, we have some time set aside for an entirely different matter. But I wonder if we could perhaps set aside some time on either of those days to bring this issue back. And so in order for us to do that, I think we would need to get clear on exactly what it is we'd be looking for to tie up the discussion. I think having the discussion completed on either of those days and a vote taken, I think that would enable the offering to be available before the Super Bowl. Commissioner O'Brien, if you want to be next, Commissioner Hill, are you responding, Commissioner Skinner? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. So I haven't changed my position. I understand that there's going to be a clamoring for the MVP. I have the same concerns about having voting on something like that being betting on. Doesn't in any way impact the fact that I don't think, I mean, and that sort of thing or not sports. And then I have the same integrity concerns on it. So I haven't changed my view on that. I would ignore any of the other discussions and compromises that we made before we went into executive session. I have to ask this, but I don't want to prolong the discussion. But when you say integrity issues, Commissioner O'Brien, what is it that you can point to that shows that there is a risk? To be blunt, Madam Chair, I'm not convinced that there isn't, because I haven't really looked at it in depth. And so this idea that, oh, a bunch of people vote and this has been going on for ages and there's integrity to it. Well, with all due respect to staff, I want to look at it. And I'm not 100% convinced that voting in that capacity is really something that has such inherent integrity to it that we should be betting on it. I realize that I am in the minority in that. I am not convinced in this moment, maybe two weeks from now or a week from now, when I've had the opportunity to have further discussion, I would change my mind on the sports specific things. I don't think you're going to change my mind on Emmy and Academy Awards, because I just don't think it's a sporting event. But again, I don't know in a couple of weeks. So I don't think going forward in that capacity for January 31st is unreasonable or unwarranted. I thought we had come to that conclusion, but clearly people have shifted their views. I have not shifted mine. So that's where I sit. Well, we did get some new information. So that was important. Well, I mean, I was aware of the MVP was out there. I was surprised we didn't have more conversation about it at the time, but it's not so much new. It's just someone flagging it, something that was out in the ether before lunch. But I understand that the conversation prodded some people to change their positions. I respect that. But I have not changed mine. Thank you. That's helpful for me. Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Hill. So we need to move this along. I know that we have the opportunity to come back. We know we will be asked about different events on an ongoing basis. This is the dynamic that's been pointed out, a dynamic list. We're very fortunate to have it be robust. I think it's competitive with the illegal market. And as Commissioner Hill, it's really important for us to be able to compete to keep our own residents happy. So at this point, there was some consensus on at least a few items. I can tell you that I'm very comfortable with Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Maynard's approach. I have no reason right now with what's been presented to me by our team and by the operators and through the work that Second Director Wells did presented to us early on, that the operators have not seen any level suspicious activity, any concerns around the governing body, any concerns about integrity that would prompt them to say to us it should not be included in this catalog. And I take that with a great weight. So if I have a motion that we can all start to think about, that would be really helpful. But I do think we need to get a catalog in place at this point. Madam Chair, before we get to a motion, can I ask for either Bruce or Sterl to explain to me how the MVP awards work? The MVP, so the MVP of the Super Bowl requires voting by 20% of the people watching or out there can vote electronically through the NFL website. And 80% is determined by a select 16, I believe. Commissioner Hill knows as well. 16 media people. Great predetermined. Now, this is similar to, it's more instantaneous, but there are all other kinds of voting awards in sports that follow the same formula. Similar to the Cy Young Award, Sterl. Correct. Did that answer your question? Yeah, the 20% of people watching that you referred to, that's just people in their living room, Sterl. Correct. It happened to be. And then the results are certified, if you will, by the NFL. I'm assuming the commissioner then gets that and they certify a priority taking the stage on the winner. Okay, where does the media come into that? I missed that. The media is selected prior and they issue who they believe is the MVP to the commissioner prior to them getting on the stage and issuing the awards. So the media is separate and apart from the 20%? Correct. Thank you. Any other questions? I'd like to call the discussion. So someone who would be willing to make a motion. Commissioner Hill, I don't know. I'm going over some language right now, and I just want to make sure I'm clear. I just wanted to do it for me. Thank you. So I guess the question I have, I've seen the draft language and I'm sure I don't know if this is what you're struggling with is as written, temporarily not at this point, approving awards that were not based on sort of statistically quantifiable evidence and that it specifies the Emmys and the Academy's Academy Awards, which would seem to encompass the MVP. I was not in my motion. I was not going to include number five. Number five. Okay. Which then begs the question. Should we do that one separate? We could. I could then I could voice my note in number five separately. And then I think we're all unanimous as to everything else. If you want, I could make a motion to that regard if you want a second and then it can go to vote. Yep. And that's fine. And then I'll do the other one. Yep. That I move that the commission determined that awards not based on achievements that can be measured statistically, including for example, Emmy Awards and Academy Awards, not be included in the catalog approved today. Second. Any discussion? But that, my discussion is, doesn't that include the drafts? Does that include the MVP award? The drafts is separate. Okay. Does that include the MVP award then, Commissioner Hill? Yes. It would be. It would exclude then we will not be allowing for voting on the MVP award. That we're just, this is just an up or down vote on that one alone. And my suspicion based on the conversation is I will be the lone vote that says I and then everything else would be moving forward in a separate motion by Commissioner Hill. So seconded that. I seconded it for discussion purposes. Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion? Michelle Bryan? No. Commissioner Skinner? I abstain. Commissioner Maynard? May. And I vote nay. So three noes, one abstention and one yes. Okay. Madam Chair, I then would like to make another motion. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. I'm just going to need help from Sterl on one word when I get to it. Madam Chair, I move that the commission adopt the guidelines and catalog of events and wagers as included in the January 6, 2023 memorandum in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today pursuant to 205 CMR 247.01 and authorized sports wagering operators to offer wagering on those sporting events and wager categories contained therein, including on the drafts for approved leagues subject to the following exceptions for which wagering shall not be allowed. One, wages on virtual events and electronic sports. Two, wages on any sport or sporting events overseen by Russian or both Belarusian governing bodies, leagues, events and players. And this is where I need to help Sterl. Wages on. Phylai. Phylai, chess and cornhole. And four, wages on summer and winter Olympic competition, including trials. Summer and winter athletics, including the Commonwealth Games, X Games, World Athletic Championships, World Athletic Indoor Tour, World Athletic Continental Tour, European Athletics Championships, International Skating Union World Championships and World Cup, International Box, Slay and Skeleton Federation World Championships, International Lube Federation World Championships, Federation International Duski, International Ski Federation World Cup, Four Hills Tournament in which the final outcome of the event is primarily based on the evaluation or assessment of a judge or panel of judges. Second. Okay, discussion, questions, edits. Madam Chair, I would just say in my discussion, I'm going to vote in the affirmative, but I would have included, given the information we had today, the summer and winter Olympics. And my discussion on that would be I'm comfortable voting in favor of this today because it's my understanding that between now and March 1st, these are, well, I can't say that that's necessarily true for the winter athletes that there might be events happening over the course of the month of February, but primarily they will not be arising in the next, the next month. So I'm comfortable voting for this, but we're going to come back with more information. I just don't know about some of the winter sports and some of the trials that they may be doing. Okay. Under discussion, Madam Chair. Yes. I would hope that this would be brought back to us very, very quickly so that we can have a vote on it and discussion. Excellent. I agree with that. And I see that they're nodding heads. So I think Karen will work on that with the team. Get commissioners questions if we all have some answered and we'll put it right up. We have an agenda-setting meeting on February 1st. We'll get it right marked up for an early discussion and look forward to it. Any further discussion on this? All right. Commissioner Hill, I mean, Commissioner Bryan, sorry. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. So five-zero on that. Great. Good work done, everybody. Commissioner and for the team. Thank you. I just wanted a special thanks to Sterl Carpenter for all his hard work on this. He put a lot of effort into this. So thank you, Sterl. And thank you, Sterl, for all your patience with us as we ask question after question. And, you know, you have you and I know that you would say that you had some good support from GLI. I'll love to help you, too, Sterl. I know you're passing on their thanks, but it was a really awesome discussion for us. Look forward to the poster. Thank you. Thank you so much. Just a little side note. Yes. In my youth, I was a high-lie player in which I played amateurly. So I know how to pronounce it since I played for seven years. That's a great side note. That's a great side note. Thank you. Thank you all. Thanks. Okay. Excellent. Commissioner, okay, we're all set then. Commissioner, let's move on. Let me get our agenda. And I know that we have a little bit of a deadline with respect to Nina. So, Nina, I think that will turn to you for the advertising reg of that is 256. And then I think the discipline reg, which is item 46 on our agenda 232. Does that make sense, Nina? Yes, Madam Chair. And hopefully we can get both of those done before 3 p.m., so if possible. But if not, we're on it. We're on it. I don't want to rush anybody. So if we end up having to figure out another time, we can do that. So if I may start with 256. And I, you should have in your packet starting at page 17, I believe, a red line version of 256. Kerry, is that the right one to refer to? They don't have an updated red line Friday. So I can share it or you can share it or whoever you want to do. But I hadn't added it to the packet. Oh, that's okay. So this is in the, I believe in the full, this is a cumulative red line from the first time we discussed it. So we've discussed a lot of these red lines already. I won't go back through them. Since our last discussion on Thursday, on Friday, excuse me, we've done the only a few minor things relative to the discussion we had. One, which I'll actually go in reverse order just to cover the one we've talked about in 256.09. One, which appears in the packet at page 23, excuse me, we would propose cleaning up the language regarding endorsements to reflect the conversation last time to read an advertisement for sports wagering shall not state or imply endorsement by minors comma persons aged 18 to 20 other than professional athletes. That's in parentheses. Collegiate Athlete Schools or Colleges or School or College of Athletic Associations. That reflects the vote you took last time, but that's that's one just that's in this. Would you like me to, we don't have that language in front of us. So I'm just gonna offer to share. Thank you, Gary. Sorry about that. No, thank you so much. I wondered about that last night. Thank you so much. Here it is. This is the language we talked about last time. I think I read it into the record. And I believe from my what I understand and having read the written comments from yesterday, I think you wanted to revisit this in light of the conversations with the Players Association. I am not aware of any additional comments on this particular point that they made. Commissioners. Any concern? In light of yesterday's conversation, the Players Association did address this specifically. No, I think the language that we compromised on for the most part reflects what the Players Association talked about. I still wouldn't want it to go to minors, you know, flat out. So I, I still like this language. So the Players Association didn't necessarily address under 18, but they certainly advocated for their younger population of athletes to be able to have this income straight if it were made available. Commissioner Maynard, are you leaning in? Yeah, I support this for the exact reasons Commissioner O'Brien just said. And I too had brought up this issue last week. And I think having the language in the parentheses is sufficient to what we had hoped to have. So I'm okay with this language as well. Good. Commissioner Skinner. I'm also okay with the language because it reflects our last discussion on the issue. Excellent. Okay, I'm all set. So, Mina, next one. Thank you. And so, Madam Chair, if we could go up to 256.04, I'll just note a type of, this was the only comment I believe we received. We received two sets of comments on the ranks. One, I believe all of them were from Ben MGM, Kerry, if you can correct me if I'm wrong. There was a consistent comment on a variety of sections where they suggested that a lot of, frankly, a lot of these different standards be changed to a knowing standard so that an operator is only responsible for advertisements they knew about that were in violation of this. We don't recommend that. I think as you will see further up the conversation was that we're capturing, they have to be responsible for what they put out. So I'm seeing a lot of agreement by shaking or nodding of heads depending on what I was saying. So I can move on. The one other comment they had was a small type of graphical one just removing that ant. So that's why I'm just noting that in 256.04. It said and or and actually it wasn't even attended at that. So I mean, there was one other application. Are you all are you going to move on? I'm sorry. I was going to move on to two different, at least one issue in six, if that's okay. Yes, please. I thought you were saying we're all done. Okay. No, I'm not. That was just the one other thing that we received in the comments. The this was a suggestion I believe came from the AGA guidelines to expand the definite to the scope of advertising on college or university campus to explicitly include college or university news outlets, such as student newspapers, etc. That's where the focus is really student newspapers. The AG uses language that I think something along the lines of newspapers that are owned by our assets of schools or universities. We chose new assets, the news right and we we chose to broaden it slightly to to encompass that so that there isn't an issue if there is for for instance a nonprofit entity that or club that happens to own a particular newspaper which I think is true on some campuses or radio stations. So that is that change. Madam chair, I think there was also a question that I know I've received from staff about the or just as a reminder of the origins of the 25% and its relationship to the AGA guidelines. So for B right there, Commissioner, so I think that oh yeah, B and E. So I think that Director Van Der Linden looked at the AGA requirement and it's actually not quite um 75. It's short of that. I don't know if Mark is on but Karen, you have that as well. Sure. Madam chair, I'd be happy to take that. So I reached out to Kate Devon and Casey Clark from the American Gaming Association yesterday just to get a little bit of clarity about where that percentage came from. And as Kate said that the AGA marketing standards was informed by similar marketing codes for beer and spirits industries which set a percentage at the FTC, I assume Federal Trade Commission, endorsed rate of 71.6 in 2011 and based on census data from the 2020 census, the AGA raised that to 73.6%. So we had in passing, I think Councilor Macarius said we referenced it was we were adopting the AGA standards. So I thought I think we wanted to make sure we understood exactly what the AGA was recommending and where it came from. I do think Executive Director Wells, you received a little bit of feedback from these one operators saying they would prefer majority. The only comment I received from an operator was that it was some concern that the 75% might prohibit billboards. And I would point out that in Massachusetts, Cannabis Commission I think operates with 85%. So I think it's entirely up to the commission where in that range you fit. I think the fact that the Cannabis Control Commission already has it at 85%. Granted it's a slightly different demographic but it's at 85%. The AGA standard as Director Vandal and Linda just mentioned has moved over time because it's sort of it's sort of packed to the census. Our recommendation would be if you're looking to peg it near there 75 is a little bit easier to follow than 73.6%. I don't think that the deviation from the AGA standard creates a significant risk and considering the 85% standard there's a precedent for that. Is it the 75% would kind of impact the billboard advertising or is it the 85% standard that Cannabis Commission is following? I know we're not doing 85 but which which is it? Or is it the 73.6%? I think the operator was responding to what we adopted the other day so the 75. Correct. So I think yeah I think my observation is that it's not as high as what the Cannabis Commission has to comply with and given the AGA's research right that it's not unreasonable. Do you think commissioners want to go with the rounded up to 25, 75? Yeah I mean we talked 73.6 we had that actual stat when we went back and forth about the number and I'm comfortable with the 75 concept. My apologies that I missed that I didn't remember the 73.6 so thank you. All right any objections to keeping it as it's? Excellent I'm seeing no. Commissioner Skinner are you in agreement that it's okay? Yeah I mean yeah the only new information is that and this might be just anecdotal that it might affect billboard advertising but I mean you know I'm not concerned about that so I'll just state that for the record. Thank you. And I'll just know we did not get that comment through the public notice and comment beforehand so it's something that I think the conversation the other day might have alerted someone to. Anything else? So I don't know Mina if you're done? I am done that's it for 256. I just wanted to bring something up Mark and I had just been talking he reached out to ask a question of me and I wanted to put it out to Mina and to everyone else here which is and I think Mark you can probably say this in a much clearer way than me but I think it had to do with him sort of being on site talking to the licensees about implementations of some of these and there's he's worried about attention between I think as written and as required in 23N4D3 there's a requirement of putting out the DPH approved phone number when you first enter the app or the website and we have sort of adopted that and rolled that into the advertising marketing requirements and I think his concern was is that going to squeeze out RG messaging? If the phone number has to be there all the time is that going to mean that that would take precedence over them putting some other form of responsible gaming message out there so Mark I don't know if that captures the concern you would raise with me. Thank you Commissioner Bryan I mean that is the essence of it right I think both are important right I think the commission would agree that we wish to assure that the DPH problem gambling helpline is out there and well known and we have a well established responsible gaming program with really important messaging to promote positive play and reduce gambling related harm I think that saying both would need to be on any given advertising begins to kind of squeeze out the space and so I just wanted to get some clarity about you know where should we go with this what direction should I give licensees about placement of RG messaging in the problem gambling helpline? Yes and if I could I think it's 205 CMR 256.062 I think is the specific part of this reg say it again please 256.062 I think that's the paragraph Mark is talking about statutory requirement around I believe there is well yes it's 23 and 4d3 is the statutory site but that says we that has to be in the first time a customer goes into either the website or the app and our reg has sort of extended that to include it into advertising I think we want to keep the helpline number in so that was the question just whether that was going to be problematic if they wanted to put RG is it too much in the ad is that something that we want to talk about it's not it's not something I thought about quite frankly until Mark raised the question after he was on site with them the last few days. I think we can work with the operators to get the RG messaging in but I think my opinion and I just going to put it right out there is the helpline it's how they expected and and fast there's an emergency right there's nothing faster than a phone the phone number right Mark you're looking for something that says that they'll agree to work with you on RG messaging. So yeah I guess I will I don't have a clear cut answer to this chair I for recommendation I think I would like there to be space to assure that the RG messaging doesn't get squeezed out because there has to be the problem gambling helpline messaging and I and I honestly don't want to lose the problem gambling helpline messaging either so I don't know how to solve that through through a regulation you know I we don't address that for our casino regulations and the general rule that we say is you know make sure that the problem gambling helpline messaging is out there as well as game sense and you can you can kind of go with go with both but make sure something is there so what's the suggested solve I mean I would like either or on any given on any given advertising that it's either the problem gambling helpline or at minimum either the problem gambling helpline or or responsible gaming messaging but I mean to me as a general rule if they are going to split it it should be split around 50-50 I understand that they're from an operator's perspective asking for there to require that both are there would take up a lot of space and perhaps both messages would then be lost and I don't think anybody wants wants that to be the case like I said I hadn't even thought about it until Mark brought it up and then when I went and looked at the statute clarifying that it's upon entry into the app and the website that is mandated so whether it's through internal controls or continued dialogue with the licensees in terms of and I agree with them asking them to put both in it's just not workable I mean it's just going to be too much I don't think that's true I think we saw examples of there's plenty of room to provide the RG messaging there's all kinds of room but I you know DPH is a different agency have we have we in any way um ask them about this uh to take them out I don't think we asked to put them in or take them out so we put them into a context and now we're taking it out right so I don't believe so that's why I think I bring it up for conversation today when Mark brought it up but um I do think it merits further discussion with the licensees going forward I know this reg is going to be moving today but um something to work on probably yeah I'm not um I'm going to hear from other commissioners but I would be um instinctively I would think our phone number is essential to have on a mobile device if someone's in crisis well and so advertising though this is not the oh it's going to be on it's gone it's on the mobile okay I understand yeah so if it's on advertising so rather than the number would be responsible game but no phone number no or two or both right so that's the question it's like you know I guess I'm imagining if it's if we're doing agency to help in terms of suicide assistance would we want only um information about getting general assistance or how to deal with suicide and not provide a phone number well but those those billboards are entirely devoted to the concept this is a concept that's getting rolled into a different message and so the question is do we want to also roll in adding in some sort of rg percentage in your ads um you know in addition to the phone number say we want x to at least have an rg message as well so on a tv ad the ad would be you know you know say responsibly our rg language no number no that's what I'm saying at all is do you do the phone number are we are going to layer on an rg component as well do we want to set a percentage overall that they shoot for so that it gets in there as well and this could be something I have a problem of taking the number out and including and not including the number that's my issue um it that's all I'm I'm asking yeah so I I mark with mark I think you said you you're worried about whether they could do all of it um you know I do think it merits further conversation with them whether we want to go in the future as this rolls out layer on some sort of mandate or percentage rg guarantee as they go forward um even with the phone number being in there I so this is an issue that came to me yesterday afternoon um an operator reached out and was asking for some direction on this and I of course went to the draft regulation to see if I could get some clarity and it and it wasn't entirely good you know what's clear is that the problem gambling upline is there in terms of the responsible gaming messaging that we would want to see it wasn't entirely clear how to proceed with that so um if it wasn't clear to me I want to I want to make sure that our regulation on this is clear moving forward okay so Sean could link to and phone number for the master's problem gambling help line using language provided by the department of public health and that information I happen I have been sharing that as as I've been asked for it so I do have that right madam chair if I if I might yes thank you there's a couple of there's a couple of things you could do but if it's just a simple I think what you were arriving at would be to actually require both for all advertising is that where that's going because I um if you look down at four it's information regarding the helpline and any other required responsible gambling information um at you so if you just take similar language what I would suggest is and Carrie I don't know if you have the ability just put that back up might be a little easier I don't want to make you type on the spot but it just a little bit easier to to see it um what I might suggest at the end of two would just to say um and uh such other information regarding responsible gaming as required by the commission and then put the sort of mini defined term it's really only used in this section responsible gaming messaging here you know so just as it appears in four in parentheses sorry I meant Carrie after that I would just put the parentheses responsible gaming messaging sorry I was just trying to um make it red so I didn't lose it could you say that one more time so sorry and then at the end of that I apologize for doing this on the fly like this too and then in parentheses responsible gaming messaging as a defined term oh yes thank you and then when you get to four um I would just say information regarding the problem gaming helpline and responsible gaming messaging must meet the following requirements and this is the standards for size appearance etc keeping in mind that if a particular operator then says well this is just not going to fit on this particular ad you do maintain and we're going to be bringing when we bring back the definitions reg for asking to formalize that again a waiver process for anything in internal control so an operator that cannot meet it for whatever reason should be able to ask for that in those cases. Does that work for you Commissioner Bryan? I think that captures it that was the the question that I was struggling with when I when Mark reached out to me right before the meeting was just that is do you add kind of that and language or an or RG message approved by the commission or in their internal controls that was the language that I was thinking about I mean I think that flags the concern yes other um other um thoughts commissioners to audit all right Mark are you all set? Thank you very much I I appreciate getting some clarity on that and I appreciate that the RG messaging is clear thank you excellent good good good okay anything else then on advertising or getting close Carrie can you remind the status of this um yep so you voted on this on Friday but we had held any filing um you know in the event you wanted to talk about it more so if you vote on it again today this is the version that we would file uh what most likely tomorrow um and what it would go into effect um should you vote to file it by emergency it would go into effect tomorrow commissioners are I'll settle that okay right the motion yep I move that the commission approved the amended draft of 205 CMR 256 as discussed and further edited here today and move that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process I further move staff be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or make any other administrative changes necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process second okay any further discussion that it's okay okay Mr. Ryan hi commissioner hill hi commissioner Skinner hi and commissioner Maynard hi and I vote yes thank you all righty Mina we got through that one now we're looking at if we I think we're gonna go to item four six two of our CMR 232 commissioners is that the only one counselor um carers is that the only one just those two that you need to address today I believe the only two that I'm addressing today uh Kate on our carry and were there others you were hoping I would okay excellent thank you okay so we're turning then to which okay um I believe this begins on page 45 of your packet so this is really the first time looking at this um Mina do you want to walk us through it sure um so the the reason this is red line is it's been in in packets before um so but we have not talked about it before so I just saw a walk through the whole thing um 205 CMR 232 it covers the discipline um of uh really the whole gamut of folks involved in sports uh wagering um it is uh we were trying to balance a few different things here the the statute has uh a provision that references a commission's authority to discipline um sports wagering licensees and occupational licensees directly um unlike the the gaming act it does not get into much more detail than that um as with respect to the roles of the bureau or others so uh it gives the commission a bit more of a um uh of a canvas really to figure out the the proper enforcement mechanisms or enforcement process for sports wagering so in in drafting this uh with staff and the IAB and and and input um from the legal team the idea was to try to balance um swift and and and capable enforcement with um when necessary deeper dives into particular particular issues so there's really uh three sections and I noticed that the numbering on the header just got thrown off but I think it's correct everywhere else so we will correct that um the the first section states upfront this is a red line section um to to clarify things because I think we got feedback and it was sort of it wasn't clear that the commission retains the authority it does to um to to lead any enforcement action it retains the authority to assign to the bureau or to any other party um the to direct an investigation of um of a suspected or asserted the distinction obviously is if someone comes in it complains of a violation that's what I mean by asserted there of 23 n with sports wagering act or 205 cmr um and it also provides in that 232.01 that the commission can establish internal policies setting out reporting requirements for for such investigations that was partially something that was suggested after some of our discussions with the IV given the increase in just some number of licensees and and folks that you have as well as the fact that they will not all be physically based um there's just more complexity and and perhaps more need for uh for systematic communication along that line so that's that's why that's there um the second subsection of 232.01 uh refers to the commission's general disciplinary authority um and makes it clear that uh at any point uh the commission may issue a civil administrative penalty um under 23 and 16 or take other enforcement action um so excuse me sorry my watch is trying to find my phone which is not necessary so um and that is um a general statement when we get into the rest of section I think you'll see why we we decided to put this here but the the idea is so that there's no doubt um that when the commission needs to act on its own for instance an acknowledged violation or a violation that might be multiple states um there's already been a finding of liability let's say for a national act just to go back to the advertising where we just did um and there may not need to be further investigation um taken first but there may need to be discipline or a condition um that could be done um more swiftly uh in those cases so any questions on the first section? Michelle's question is on that I'll ask that. All right in that case I'll turn to 232.02 um so 232.02 and 232.03 refer to um when the when the bureau's involved in an investigation what might happen and here we were trying to balance um the need for um uh efficiency with you know opportunities for commission input and involvement as appropriate as needed so 232.02 covers discipline of an operator and only operators in those cases the process we are suggesting here would be that if the commission um or either has directed the bureau to investigate or the bureau has suspected a violation and begins an investigation um that it engages in investigatory process um with with the reporting mentioned above as a as an ancillary feature of that so that the commission can have some idea of when when things are happening etc um it then um if it determines that any of the following violations on pages bottom of page 45 top of page 46 have happened which really run the gamut of any of the rules or regs that you've been involved in but put in a variety of ways or other criminal activity um it can make a written recommendation to the commission regarding the it's it's recommended discipline um the recommendation it should also include as you see on the bottom of page 46 and in section two uh and essentially a narrative description of what's happened a citations to the law or regulations that have been violated or allegedly violated proposed action by the commission um it should describe that the operator has an adjudicatory right excuse me a right to an adjudicatory hearing um that may that if they waive um may cause that discipline to be enforced against them um and the matter of compliance for for operators that discipline would not take effect immediately or would not take effect automatically it would come up to the commission for review uh under subsection three and the commission can adopt the the um discipline it could reject the discipline um and impose its own discipline um um and that's it finds appropriate it could also um do that by it's holding a separate adjudicatory hearing or if there's an appeal of course at that point of the recommended discipline it could hold an adjudicatory hearing and decide that um following following such a adjudicatory hearings there would be further recourse to court but that's the that sort of be the end of the internal process so that would be for operators it would mean that all discipline for operators has to go before you before it comes by law um any questions on that part of the process? Are you comfortable with the process? I think okay I see uh questions. Okay thank you and and so for discipline of others involved in sports wagering um this this is where we again we're trying to balance what may end up being a higher number of potential investigations um in this case the process would start out the same that commissioner of the bureau um the commission would either direct or the bureau might start its own investigation um there there are sort of fewer categories but they're really again cover the violations of of the of a regulatory or statutory requirements the bureau at this point would make the decision itself to discipline instead of a recommendation first of the commission however there's sort of two there's at least two avenues where that process might get interrupted before it's imposed one is of course if the applicant and sorry I should mention this is for everybody else meeting occupational licensees vendors and registrants so there's really the categories here um so in the gaming context um that would sort of be the end of the matter except for appeals to the commission so we kept the appeals to the commission process here as well however we also kept in a process by which when the bureau issues its notice of the discipline that it's going to issue it goes to both the commission and the applicant and the commission could decide at that point during the appeal period to say we'd actually like to review this particular one at the stage of the investigation which won't be clear this is in addition to and not in lieu of the ability to do that from the outset um under section one that I mentioned but this is uh in the event that it that the commission wants to um to take a look at that one as well so we were trying to balance again the what might end up being um lower level offenses where the the uh or the sort of potential for efficiency with the ability for the commission to to put an eye on particular investigations and I that's really that's it for this this portion of the of the rec questions for me any questions any suggested edits a plus yeah I don't have any edits or suggestions I know this went around and around um and I think it it does a good job sort of reiterating what the inherent authority of the commission is to act on things but also realizing in the first instance and in most instances functionally it makes more sense for IEB to be the ones doing it but you know as the chair and I remember sometimes you have circumstances brought to the the attention of the commission that would require maybe the commission acting in the first instance to initiate something so I think this deals with that pretty well I agree with Commissioner Bryan's observation I really want to thank um um you Mina for for um providing that additional um tax that gives the commission really I believe that we probably had it through the statute I think that's what you would argue Mina but it um it it's now it's clearly stated in Reagan it gives us that nimbleness which I think is particularly important this industry versus gaming it's just a faster paced um industry we we learned a lot through our application process that violations and infections may occur rapidly um at the beginning because it's such a technology based industry so I think this gives us the flexibility commission to act if we decide we wish to act but I completely agree with um Commissioner Bryan and with the way it's structured that we're very fortunate to have all the resources that IEB provides and on the expertise it provides but this does allow us to have initial discretion should we decide to exercise it I mean it it it clarifies that discretion Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Maynard, all set that's 245 we're going to have I think we can have a motion on this yeah um I moved that the commission approved the small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 232 as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today and further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency in thereafter and begin the regulation promulgation process I further move the staff be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes that's necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any discussion? Okay, Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I go yes 5-0. Thank you. Thank you. All right and we got you out on time. Yeah I was going to say Kale and I have 14 more minutes if there's another reg I'm supposed to take but I think I'm set. We'll think of something. Well I was going to offer that if there is foul play involved in a hot dog eating contest this now allows you to delegate it to Anderson and Krieger for review and we'll happily watch the tape so just let us thank you. I have to say I love a good hot dog. I'm just not sure I love like 30 of them. Okay we've got Paul commoners stepping in. That's great. Now who's taking over? Carrie or Kate? Paul? Okay so we Paul can kick this one off here. The next one is a draft of 205-CMR 229 related to transfers of interest and I will kick it right over to Paul here to walk us through this one. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners. Well if you could remind us what page you have there. Yes this reg starts on page 29 which is surprisingly appropriate. Section 6H of chapter 23N instructs that the transfer of an operator license or any direct or indirect interest in that license requires commission approval. This regulation sets out the process for that approval. Much of the process set out here is based on the process set out in the 100 series of regs for transfers of interest in gaming licenses. This process is familiar to the IED and our gaming licensees and it has worked well. It balances the commission's need for time to adequately investigate the transferee with the transferee's need for a predictable process and a reasonable timeline to close their transactions permitted. There are some distinctions between this regulation and the Cognate gaming regulations owing to differences in the statute and the context and I'll walk you through those as we go. 220901 provides at bottom that parties intending to consummate a transfer of interest must notify the Bureau of their plans. This gives the Bureau an opportunity to review the transfer to determine whether a new qualifier needs to be designated and what other steps need to be taken. 220901 provides that certain transactions that have an attenuated relationship to the license itself both in terms of ownership and control and in terms of the financial relationship to the license do not require notification to the Bureau and in effect we do not consider these to be the transfer of an operator license or any direct or indirect interest they're in. These two exemptions were developed in conversation with the IED and are consistent with 205CMR21502's list of who needs to be qualified for licensure. If there are no questions on 220901 I'll move on to 2103. Any questions commissioners? 220902 and 03 together set out the process for the approval of transfers. I will try to mostly move through these from top to bottom but I'm going to skip ahead to 220903 after 220902. Under 220901 transfers that do not create new qualifiers may simply be approved by the Commission in a public meeting. The qualifier determination requires an adjudicatory proceeding and we'll get to that in a second where there is no designation of a new qualifier the commission may simply approve that agreement. This differs from the 100 series in that an agreement that does not require the does an agreement that does not result in the designation of a new qualifier for a gaming license does not require commission approval under that statute. Here the statute is slightly broader about the sets of transactions that require commission approval so we have this extra step. 220902 subjects transfers that require new persons be qualified to the process set out in 220903. 220903 has the same structure and design as the transfer of interest regulations in the gaming world. I'm happy to briefly walk you through it if that would be helpful. Well I think on 229.02 pardon me did I drop a two there I meant to say 220902. Yeah 022 no it's 252.502 is that which one is the adjudicatory hearing process so that's a 100 right okay. 2502 is persons required to be qualified. Okay if a person is required to be qualified then the process then the transaction is subject to 220903 which does require an adjudicatory hearing further down but the requirement for an adjudicatory hearing is set out in subsections of 220903. I think that just if we could put as a note council adjustment I think that might be the one that needs updating or am I wrong on adjudicatory hearing at least. That's actually in 116 so that's the different body but yeah we'll take a look at that. Madam Chair we don't adapt the portion of 115 that I know is up for amendment that gives the commission a greater degree of flexibility that whether to direct a suitability determination to a policy. Thank you very much sorry to interrupt. Commissioners would it be helpful for me to briefly review 220903 or may I move on to 220902.04. I think you can go through them the approval that's required. All right so this begins towards the top of page 31 so the purpose of this process is to ensure that a transaction that does not raise red flags can be closed promptly subject to a final determination on suitability that a transaction that does raise red flags can be appropriately managed and that the commission and the parties understand the timeline and the steps in some detail. So 2209031 requires any transfer that will result in the next the designation of a new qualifier to come with a transfer application. In effect these are a scoping survey for the IEV to determine the identity of qualifiers and the materials required to assess the suitability of new qualifiers. It also requires a trust agreement so that if there are red flags with the transaction the commission can order that the assets be placed into trust and managed by somebody who is neither the transfer or nor the transferee who has otherwise been who has been deemed suitable through a separate proceeding. 22032 in effect is the same as 22031 but for transfers of publicly rather than privately held securities. 22033 has the commission meet to conduct a hearing on interim authorization in accordance with the general rules of adjudicatory proceeding in 205CMR101. The commission must render a decision on interim authorization within 120 days or if they're the closing and settlement days further out the commission has additional time. The commission can either grant interim authorization in which case the transfer can be completed and can be completed pending a final determination on suitability in which case the parties need to be equipped to unwind the transaction or the commission can deny interim approval pardon me interim authorization under 22034 in which case the assets shall be in which case either the transaction does not close or or in the case of publicly traded securities the assets are transferred into trust 22035 sets out the suitability standard for and the extent of the investigation for interim authorization it is based on the preliminary suitability standard under 205CMR215 it also instructs the commission to review it also gives the commission the discretion to review questions such as whether the transfer of interest would be injurious to the commonwealth in any way other than the transfer to an unsuitable person or to address any other issues that might arise relating to the transfer is that a statutory standard um this is not a statutory standard in either 23k or 23 and I don't believe this is this is adapted closely from 23 from the CMR 116 standard most familiar to the read process that's standard we use for the read transfer yes exactly these are the same essential regulations of use for that and that's the standard used for that too okay thank you on the middle of page 33 uh 22036 sets out the standard for trust agreements this is consistent with the one with the cognate regulation 116 with I believe one exception which is that 116 has trustees qualified as key gaming employees there is no equivalent to a key gaming employee in the sports wage and regulatory scheme given that the trustee wields a level of control over the over these assets comparable to uh other individuals that we would require to be qualifiers we have the trustee meet um the standards for for qualification uh meet as someone who is derrily suitable uh 215 oh pardon me 229 037 um governs the powers of the trustee 038 uh provides that the trust will remain and the trust will remain in force and the assets should remain in the trust until the commission makes a final decision and 229 039 uh addresses what happens if the commission ultimately determines the negative ultimately issues a negative determination of suitability if there are no questions on 229 or three i'm going to take you back up to page 30 so we're back in 2202 2202 3 uh sets out the standard for the commission to reject a transfer of interests broadly the commission may reject any transfer of interests that it finds uh injurious to the interests of commonwealth of the commonwealth and regulation also makes clear that transactions may be considered injurious to the interests of the commonwealth if the transfer would be found unsuitable or there were the transaction would otherwise create uh statutory or regulatory issues 229 024 uh sets out the the commission it sets out a time period after the issue of issuance of a license in which rights to transfer are more limited this is adapted from the gaming regulations in the gaming context was based on a specific statutory provision uh that limited transfers for five years after licensure um here we thought it made we thought it made sense but it is not derived from a particular statutory provision we would be recommending the commission adapt it uh as part of your right as part of your regulatory uh as part of your implementation of the statute as the regulator uh we obviously shortened the time period from five years because uh the gaming context five years is one-third of the length of a license and the sports wage during context it would be the entire lifespan of a license and this would uh in effect rewrite the entire transfer of interest regulation 229 025 um it finally is meant to ensure the transfers don't result in either an unlawful agglomeration of licenses in one legal entity or the forfeiting of tethered category three licenses it's two two more subsections uh 229 04 picks up at the bottom of page 35 229 04 uh is also based on a regulation from the is also based on a regulation from the gaming context in this case 205 cmr 129 uh the point of this provision is to ensure that if a transfer of interests would result in a change of control of the company uh the new controlling person agrees to step into the shoes of the original licensee uh with respect to obligations to the commonwealth and any obligations to the federal government or any local or any local government under whose jurisdiction they are this is in a separate regulation or this is in a separate section from the transfer of interests from the process for the transfer of interests because it is possible for a regulation to not result in the designation of a new qualifier but to result in a change of control in certain extreme circumstances um subsection three of uh 229 04 also provides that transferees have the same duties of cooperation with the commission with the ieb uh as any licensee of permission finally 229 05 uh responds to a sentence in section 6h of chapter 23 n that provides that the commission may establish regulations permitting it to charge fees for the review of the transfer of interests uh obviously we uh we prepared a regulation allowing the commission to charge fees for the review of transfer of interests this is based on 214 uh which is the application fee regulation and closely tracks the language of that regulation questions questions i'm sure it's probably seems familiar because we've done i think all five of us have done a couple these a couple of weeks together so any questions for all okay oh thank you my promotion madam chair i will do a motion and this is for cmr 229 madam chair i move that the commission approved a small business impact statement in the draft 205 cmr 229 as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today i move that staff be authorized to take steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process i further move oh my lord i lost my space i have further move that staff shall be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers of titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process second any discussion any questions mr ryan hi mr hill hi mr skinner hi mr maynard hi five sterile with my yes thank you very much pal very helpful okay now we're going to the next drag it's number 213 withdrawal of an application yes good afternoon um 205 cmr 213 is withdrawal of an application that starts on page 40 of your packet give everyone a second to get there and once again we will let attorney commoners take the lead on this thank you pal thank you gatelyn 205 cmr 213 is based on and closely tracks 205 cmr 111 05 which governs the withdrawal of rfa1 gaming applications and the surrender of credentials by gaming licensees the point of this regulation uh as with 111 05 is to ensure that somebody who has reached the point in the licensing process where a proceeding has been scheduled where they are subject to the commission's jurisdiction and where the commission has invested potentially significant time and effort in them remains subject to the commission's law jurisdiction for law enforcement purposes until the commission can ensure that the withdrawal is appropriate and to give the commission the opportunity to impose conditions on withdrawal included such as not reapplying within a certain time to avoid cases where you have individuals where you have persons and companies trying to bounce in and out of licensing processes this year's do you have that in front of you any questions or concerns regarding the withdrawal regulation i just have a note madam chair yeah um hi paul uh licensee and registrant in subsection one doesn't appear to be defined in 202 so i don't know if the plan is to include those definitions or not but just wanted to flag that for you pardon me commissioner skinner that uh almost certainly overzealous capitalization on my part um uh sports wagering registrant is a defined term which means i've gotten into the habit of capitalizing registrant but the adjective sports wagering does not appear in that sentence let alone uh capitalized so i would it's an easy fix i would be happy to lower case both licensee and registrant here and then in subsection two just the typo i think cases in the third line from the top should should be singular in which sort of mine i believe it's pluralized because it refers to three possible conditions which are mutually exclusive the ones right below okay yeah um but i i see where it's grammatically problematic well yeah i it might be fine i've just never seen it captured that way before so i'm deferring to you anything else with respect to withdrawal of an application commissioner skinner an easy an easy uh fix to avoid all to avoid to avoid any possible problem would be to simply say withdrawal requests submitted instead of a withdrawal request for outset yeah okay any additional comments or questions i'll take a motion well done paul thank you well paul maybe no one wants to move on it they just want to sit on it for a second more there we go appreciate it thank you so much i i move that the commission improved the small business impact statement and the draft 205 cm r 213 is included in the commissioner's packet discussed here today i move that the staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process i further move that staff shall be authorized to modify chapter section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process second thank you commissioner any discussion okay commissioner brian hi commissioner him hi commissioner skinner hi commissioner maynard hi i vote yes five zero well done paul thank you so much to you and your colleagues at ank thank you very much commissioners madam chair great so we are regulations and i'm going to suggest that we may um just want to take a quick break we do have house rules in front of us to go through uh commissioners uh we do not have that on our agenda for tomorrow so i think that we need to um work on these today so um how about it's 313 but just a um you know 10 minute break and back it i just have a quick question madam chair because i know todd had to leave at three o'clock i don't know anyone from legal is covering that for him i know bruce and todd were on the agenda for this but i'm not sure if we needed todd for that do you know that bruce whether you need todd i don't know if todd is needed but i do know that um katelyn and i are not uh familiar with this topic so we wouldn't be able to help out here and i'm going to be honest i i'm not prepared to engage in the discussion around house rules today given that we got the material late in the evening yesterday um but i will participate in as much of the discussion as moves forward today but i'm not i'm not certain i'm ready to to take a formal action on them commissioners so i was um had the same conundrum in terms of the time when we got the materials in times of voting on this today um so i was going to be asking a lot of questions in terms of having people be able to compare and contrast and i had a couple specific questions it was one thing i was hoping to apply to everybody uh that i can certainly talk through today but in terms of a vote i would like to be able to actually read them a little more closely than i was able to last night commissioners would you allow me to have a ten minute break just so i can figure out the process a bit um going forward over the next few days and then we'll come back and if there's a reason to roll this over maybe we can present the questions that we have for the team so that when it comes in front of us we'll be prepared but i just need a chance to to look at um our calendar so thank you so much um we'll return it um three three twenty five thank you okay commissioners thank you thanks for that uh very helpful there's a break um um Deccan's meeting uh virtually they'll do a roll call hello again commissioner bryan hello i am here hello again commissioner hill hello again commissioner skinner i'm here and hello again commissioner maynard i'm still here all right i think commissioner hill i can see that he's here and i'm i'm betting that he can hear us but we'll continue on so um as an update tomorrow we had not posted the um the house rules so tomorrow our agenda um is complete so we will have no meeting tomorrow we have a meeting scheduled Thursday uh we will add the commission um the house rules for Thursday i ask that all the commissioners take the time to review and get your questions answered um from our team members in advance of Thursday so that we can be um particularly efficient um i think director wells will also be a great resource on the house rules as well as director van and um sirl and um councillor grossman so we will plan on that for Thursday um on Friday we will roll it over in the event that we have a need but um i would urge all of us to work toward a goal Thursday okay does that sound alright for scheduling commissioners and i think rest all she'll take care of amending Thursdays that's been posted but the public is quite a way of our intentions here to keep our business going along and Thursday makes great sense for us to turn back to the house i i will resend out the house rules because i noticed the page is or came out of order on your packet for some reason uh thank you i'll have it correct right thank you and you can coordinate that with i would turn on my video but it says you won't let me turn on my video really yeah hope i have that's likely means that an admin turned you off there we go it's probably dave she's seeing it off of me today i guess yeah there you go we see thank you we hear you and we appreciate that if you can resend that that'll be great and and again thank you for being available for any commissioners questions on the house rules and so commissioners um with that you may have any other updates hearing none we'll take a motion to adjourn then commissioners great work today move to adjourn second thank you commissioner hill commissioner brian hi christia hill hi mr skinner hi mr maynard hi i vote yes and to the team excellent work today uh thank you uh a and k for its assistance and to all of you all of the good work have a good night everyone