 All right. So we'll get started. I see all four of us, but I'll confirm by roll call of commissioner Cameron. I'm here. Brian. And commissioners Sunica. I'm here. Okay. Excuse me guys. I just am bringing up the document. I am. I'm using two screens here and. Just a reminder as I, as I find the document. That we are again, using remote technology. Given the relief that governor Baker provided to us and other public bodies. During the pandemic, actually, the relief was given. So I'm going to go back to that. I'm going to go back to that. Almost a year ago in March. So that public bodies like us could use this kind of technology to meet remotely. So. Here I am. Just one minute. I want to make sure I've got. The right agenda. It's 11. Just past 11 o'clock. And now we're meeting on February 17th. We're meeting for a second time for a full public meeting. So I'm going to go back to that. I want to thank our team for being especially nimble to be able to accommodate this public meeting a little bit out of order, but we're thankful. For the ability to meet virtually allows for us to get some with them. In a good timely fashion. And with that, we have one item. It's a legal update. I'm going to turn to executive director. I'm going to turn to the executive director. I'm going to turn to the executive director. So this is sort of a follow-up from a matter that was discussed in executive session with the commissioners on two occasions. And those minutes that was that matter was concluded. Those minutes were made public. But the reason we're here today is the SJC did solicit. Amicus briefs on certain litigation in which the NGC is not a party, but it's regarding Massachusetts black Jack rule. So I thought we should follow up, particularly given the commissions note in the executive session discussions to address this, should the SJC make a call for briefs. So I'm going to turn it over to general Grossman general council Grossman just for some procedural background. So you have the lay of the land and some more information about finally moving this briefs in general and the process for that. I'll turn it over to general council. Great. Thank you. Thank you. If I may commissioners, just by way of background, as Ms. Wells just mentioned, you'll recall that of course there, the two pieces of ongoing litigation. To which the commission is not a party. But that relate to the interpretation of the prior version of the commission's black Jack rules. The cases are captioned as the Cosmo versus blue tar free development LLC. And then as Schuster versus wind resorts holdings LLC. And then as Schuster versus wind resorts holdings LLC. The Cosmo matter was filed in Massachusetts superior court and dismissed by the judge in response to a motion to dismiss. And the Schuster matter was filed in the United States district court for Massachusetts. It was not dismissed by the judge in response to similar. A motion to dismiss filed in that case. Each case though revolves around essentially the same issues pertaining to the interpretation of the commission's black Jack. The Cosmo matter having been dismissed by the trial court judge is now on appeal for the supreme judicial court. Because the federal court matter involved essentially the same legal issue. The parties requested and the judge agreed to certify the question bearing on the central issue in the case. To the SJC for review. To help ensure that the matters are resolved on uniform legal grounds. I feel recall was contacted by council law firm Brown Rudnick who represents the defendants in each of the respective cases. They inquired as to the commission's position with respect to the filing of an amicus. The commission for those purposes meant an executive session on January 14th and January 27th to discuss that question. And to set its strategy moving forward. Ultimately. As reflected in the meeting minutes that are posted on the commission's. The commission decided not to pursue the filing of such a brief at that time. However, there was discussion as to whether the commission would reconsider its position for a request to do so were to come directly from the SJC. It was agreed that the commission would certainly reconsider its position in the event such request. Was. See. We're here today because the SJC has solicited the filing of amicus briefs in the Schuster case. The Schuster case is scheduled for argument before the SJC on April 7th. The specific issue of the SJC is set out for the brief. Is the exact same question. That was certified by the federal district court. And that is. That is. That is. Did the February 11th, 2019 version of the rules of blackjack that were published by the Massachusetts gaming commission. And posted on its website in accordance with 205. CMR section. 147.02. Permit a Massachusetts casino to pay six to five odds to a player. Who is dealt a winning blackjack in. In the next five months, the state will decide whether to approve the final draft of the blackjack. And will approve the final draft of the blackjack variation rules. That were articulated in rule six a of the February 11th, 2019. Version of the rules of blackjack. So that is the question that has been certified. And that would be the subject of any amicus brief. If it were to be filed. Making a decision as to whether to pursue the filing of an amicus brief. There are a few factors you may now wish to. I'm going to go back to that. October 8th to the 2020 public meeting. The commission discussed the blackjack rules among other table game rules. And ultimately voted to amend a number of the rules and regulations, including those pertaining to blackjack in the six to five variation. That game in particular. The changes were designed to ensure clarity. And now, if I may, on that point, I would like to move on to the next slide. I think that's just to jump back in. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. So, um, you know, on, on that, I think it's helpful to know a couple of facts. Uh, that, that are just a matter of public record. Uh, one, what is that, uh, the IEB purposely did not take enforcement action against either casino at the time. Uh, these light lawsuits were filed or since then. And they do have that ongoing obligation to look at the games and also, um, it's helpful to note that the clarification of the rules, um, that was consistent with how the games were being operated. At the time, uh, related to the timeframe for this litigation. So I think those, uh, two facts, which are, um, are out there in the public record are helpful in that, um, you know, I think that the commission did recognize that it was a neutral party in this record, in this litigation and the commission wanted to maintain that neutrality. Um, but they also noted that the amicus brief was not necessary to ensure confidence in the integrity of the games. And those, those two factors, I think, uh, that are part of the record, uh, are, are important in establishing that, uh, there is, uh, information out there publicly demonstrating, uh, the integrity of the games at the Massachusetts. Well, I'll turn it back over to Mr. Grossman. So I wanted to make sure that was clear. That's the difference of any questions. Director Wells, I just want to point out that, um, um, the. Director Lilios is available on a, by phone. Just on. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that she was just because that she called in. Okay. Okay. Um, did you want to turn it back then to Todd? Yes, please. Okay. Thank you. Counselor. So just a few other quick things to possibly consider under the rules of appellate procedure, amicus briefs are due 21 days prior to the hearing. Or on the particular matter in this situation, the amicus brief would be due on or about March 17th. Um, if the commission were elect to file one. So time is a bit of the essence at this point. To move forward. If the commission concludes that it would like to pursue filing a brief, a request to do so would have to be made the attorney general's office of the state solicitor. Um, there is a specific process for making such a request that includes providing a description of the nature of the case, the due date, the issues, the brief would likely address the reasons for filing an amicus brief, any risks entailed and whether the necessary internal client agency permissions have been sought. In accordance with the process set out by the attorney general's office, there are a number of factors that they may or may not consider in determining whether to take on any appeal, including likely the filing of an amicus brief and involves things. Um, like whether the law and facts provide strong arguments, whether the legal issues have important beyond the particular case, whether an adverse decision would harm the Commonwealth's legal interests. Um, then in the need to preserve the Commonwealth's credibility in the appellate court. The attorney general, of course, must also ensure that the Commonwealth and its agencies take consistent legal positions in the appellate court. So those are just some of the factors that they weigh in determining whether to move forward with filing. In the publicly available minutes of the executive sessions previously referenced, the commission has outlined the considerations that weighed in reaching its original decision relative to filing of a brief and Karen just mentioned some of them. Hit them really quick and these again are all set out in the meeting minutes available to the public. By consensus, the commission concluded that based on the facts and circumstances, including those contained in the record of its previous review of the matter. The benefits were not compelling enough to pursue the filing of an amicus. The commission decided that filing of an amicus brief was not necessary to ensure public competence in the gaming operation in Massachusetts. The commission recognized the importance of its neutral position though, and that given the manner in which the prospect of filing an amicus brief was brought to its attention at the time, that filing a brief then would not prevent any suggestion that it was anything but neutral when it came to the oversight of the industry. Specifically, a concern was raised that it may appear that the commission was aligning itself with the licensees if it were to file a brief and in the fashion the idea came to us. And that it may appear to be compromising its independence. But all that being said, the commission did leave the door open to reconsider its decision if a direct request for a brief was received by the SJC. The SJC has now solicited generally solicited briefs through an order and has posted that on the amicus website. So those are just some of the considerations and the past of the procedure that brought us here today. So I can, I can pause there. Madam chair and commissioner. And go back over to you. Commissioners. So there's a question before us. There is this. Now a solicitation of briefs. From the SJC, which. We. Recognize could occur and it has occurred. Commissioner Brian, would you like to start? I would. Thank you. Madam chair. Two questions for you, Todd. I don't know whether you can answer them. The first is. Whether the general practice when they get a certified question at the SJC is to make a general solicitation for amicus briefs or whether this is only done. Selectively. And then I have another question about the solicitor general's factors. One of them that you listed off, but I don't know if you could answer the first one. Sure. It's my understanding. That. The SJC. Will solicit briefs in each of the ways you reference. Sometimes by direct requests to an individual or. Party. Or a group of individuals. Other times just the general one. The specific request. According to what I've been told is very. Limited in the times it's used. And it's not a frequent occurrence where the SJC will reach out. Necessarily to a specific entity and ask that a brief. It's far more common. That a general solicitation be done for briefs on a particular case. And then the SJC. Typically tease up what the issue is. They don't do that in every case. They don't solicit briefs in every single case, but it's fairly common. If you go on their website. Now you'll see there's quite a number of. Solicit. Solicitations in. Many of their cases. And that is exactly what's been done in this case. They posted. The solicitation on the website with just the question that I read earlier. Which is not uncommon. And has anyone else filed or indicated that they're going to file on amicus briefs. Not that I'm aware of. Okay. And then in terms of the factors for the solicitor general's consideration for whether we'd be allowed to file. One of the things you talked about was needing to maintain the Commonwealth's credibility in the appellate courts. Yeah. I think we're doing a technical fix to make it clear. That is. Commonwealth defined as. The attorney general's office or the agency, you know, I'm thinking of a situation where. You know, we've had staff come through IB say consistently. They did not violate these rules. You know, we're doing a technical fix to make it clear, et cetera, et cetera. But I don't know if that rises to the level of, you know, what that means for the solicitor general. Is it restricted to credibility of the Commonwealth broadly or credibility of the agency? Maybe a question. You know, I think there could be a number of ways to interpret that provision. The one that jumped out at me and perhaps the most obvious to me was that they, the AG's office won't be inclined to take a position that is clearly inconsistent with some of the principles that the office has stood for, that the Commonwealth has forwarded over the years and they don't want to take wholly inconsistent positions on the same issue, because that would lose the credibility of the courts and its ability, the AG's ability to represent the Commonwealth. So that was kind of the thing that I was thinking about when I read that, but I think there are other similar considerations like the one you mentioned, where they could look at how we would be perceived if a negative, so-called negative finding. It depends on where you're coming from, but a negative finding. I mean contrary as opposed to negative maybe is the word. Right. Right. Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have some threshold issues. Commissioner Zuniga, would you like to go next and I'll circle back to you. Okay. Yeah, I was, thank you. I was just going to pick up on the last point. That would be up to the attorney general to decide. Wouldn't it, because they ultimately approve this filing of an amicus brief. Is that, is that a first statement? That is, that is a fair statement. I think, you know, the agency's preference though could be highly persuasive as to whether there's an interest in doing it. So you're, this is really an important part of the decision making process. The AG ultimately will decide whether to move forward or not, but the commission view of it is, is definitely an important piece of it. Thank you. Commissioner Cameron. I don't have any questions. I do have a thought about it though, which is, I think I understand the difference between a general call for briefs and a specific call for us to provide a brief and I see a clear distinction there. And I don't know that anything else has changed, meaning earlier. I don't know that anything else has changed other than this general call. So that was just my thought on. On the matter. Todd. Well, I think that's, that's totally true. I mean, there's nothing has changed other than the fact that the SJC posted a solicitation for briefs. So I might correct to understand commissioner Cameron that what you're saying is that it's not, it wasn't a solicitation directed to the MGC precisely. That that's why you don't see a big distinction from where we were before. Yeah, I know that in our discussion previously we talked about if we were asked specifically, then we would certainly reconsider. But in the explanation I received about the difference between a general call and a specific one. I do see that distinction and you know our first decision about not having to weigh in a to remain neutral and be that we didn't think there was an issue with the credibility of the games, the integrity of the games. I believe those are still the case now. Commissioner Zunica. Well, you know, I, I am maybe on the on the on the other side of the argument but it's not a, you know, it's not a. It's 64 years I'd like to say it's in some of these decisions in the in the notion that as, as, you know, the agency with the technical expertise in this matter are actions or in actions if you will. Maybe speaks volume volumes, you know, as we all seem to agree. But there may be some benefit in in at least attempting the submission of an amicus brief for the benefit of the SJC in its process. Granted, I think it's also, you know, tempered if you will, if we're struggling with whether or not in terms of appearances. I think that is effectively tempered by the fact that it's ultimately up to the Attorney General to decide whether in our position, and in the process of the AJC to file it or not, in other words to approve to approve it. So those two factors lean towards saying, you know, let's, let's give it a try with with the added caveat that perhaps times of the essence. But again, you know, willing to be persuaded leaning towards filing it because I understand it's not it's not a flunk either way. Hey, great. Just a follow up question for Loretta, if you are on or Karen about IV process. You made the point that IV did not take any adverse action against either at the time or since then. And just for clarification, am I correct that IV does not issue sort of letters of no action or something if you don't find reason to go forward so it's not that there would have been affirmative statement saying this was not a violation. That is correct. Actually, go ahead, Commissioner Zunica. Yeah, no, I think that's, that's a great point that, you know, that makes me feel on the side of filing. If we were filing an amicus brief, because if we had done letters of no action, that would effectively, you know, speak volumes in my mind towards, towards this matter. So I'll chime in now. And I am appreciating my fellow commissioners input. I do think to Commissioner Cameron's point, we were very confident in in our earlier briefings that there had not that the licensee had complied with the rules of the game. That's fair to say that simply correct. Is that that's our understanding and we and, and, and again to Commissioner Brian's point, we heard that while there wasn't affirmative action to say there had been compliance, we were briefed on that. Today, we have a different opportunity than what was presented to us and we discussed in executive session. I understand Commissioner Cameron, you know, making a distinction between a specific request or general solicitation for amicus briefs. I'm, I'm not necessarily weighing the general versus specific as closely as you Commissioner Cameron. I'm familiar with the general request. I do think that perhaps the gaming commission could be a public service here and, and, and help illuminate the issue for the, the SJC should the AG's office agree that, that we could file. From the perspective of public service, whether it's specific or general, I think there's an opportunity for us to, to provide the expertise that we have. And in terms of the timeline. You know, I think that it's one that with the right resources should the AG's office permit, we could, we could meet and be helpful. But I, I'm also open to, you know, any, any reason why we wouldn't be of that public service. Commissioner Brian, are you, what are you thinking is there, is there. It's, it's, I'm of the same mind as you in terms of to make, to Commissioner Cameron's point of their been obviously direct solicitation to us that to me is, you know, an obvious response that we would file. Yeah, this is a little step back from that in terms of it was a general call my memory from doing a pellet work again as they don't ask for me because we saw the time so it does indicate some level of interest it is kind of an obscure. You know, as someone who had to learn the industry and is still learning the industry. There is a benefit to having people who know the games inside and out explain it. I am leading, I think toward where you and Commissioner Zuniga, which is, it would be helpful potentially. Now that maybe that the solicitor general looks at the factors that, you know, Congressmen laid out and said, look, this is maybe necessary or helpful or consequential to you and you see but I just don't see it in the broader picture. And that would be their prerogative. I'm leaning toward presenting them with the request, and then letting them make the bigger choice in terms of the interest of the Commonwealth in general. And I think what I'm hearing from all of you is that the neutrality issue really isn't as much a play here due to the fact that there was a solicitation is that correct. I think that the big shift was that the request came from one party, and we were very careful to say it wouldn't matter which party, you know, we must remain neutral. I am, I am being persuaded that this as a public service I really hadn't thought of that that we could be helpful. I also think both you chair and Commissioner Ryan articulated well the notion of ultimately the prerogative of the attorney, the solicitor general to make the call on the bigger picture. So, you know, I think the neutrality concern is ameliorated by both the solicitation and their decision. So what what I'm hearing is there there seems to be a consensus to move forward with the process. If that's the case, then, you know, I can work with attorney Grossman and we can get moving on this as as he mentioned, you know, time is of the essence. I think it is a very narrow issue so the hope is that it would not take a lot of resources to complete the brief because it is a very narrow issue. So if that's, that's what I'm hearing we can go forward and and move along with that process. It had been marked up for a vote. Is a consensus fine or should we have a vote. I would recommend the vote of title. Have you chime it's always safer to do that. So, we might as well go ahead and have a vote on whether or not to file and make as brief in the aforementioned navigation. Director really also the opportunity if she can hear and chime in by phone if there's anything she wants to add that that we haven't thought of. There she is. Hi, thank you chair and good morning commissioners I have been following the discussion and have spoken to Karen and Todd previously about this. I certainly support the idea that requesting the AG for the filing of the amicus, you know, on the basis that it could be helpful and could be a public service. It's not surprising that the SJC issued the solicitation, you know, given that it has not interpreted these rules previously. So, you know, I, I understand the discussion this morning. I don't think I have anything additional to add, you know, other than acknowledging that the general call for the amicus is in a situation like this with such limited prior interpretation of the rules of the gaming commission. You know, isn't it could be expected in this scenario so you know really I don't have anything further to add. Thank you. General Counsel Grossman do you have anything else you want to add before we close comments. No thank you. Yes, have you had any additional thoughts that you want to share. I'm saying no. Is somebody comfortable to, to move. I'm hearing that they'd like a vote. Madam chair I would move that the Commission director general counsel and or executive director to formally requested the state solicitor general, the authorization to file an amicus brief in the case that we are discussing today. I'll help on filling that in. Because I have a friend of me, Richard Schuster and another versus when resorts holdings LC and others SJC 13060 with that amendment I second the motion. Any further questions or comments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, commissioner Cameron. I. Commissioner O'Brien. I. Commissioner Seneca. I. I vote yes. Four zero. Tonya, thank you so much. All right. And I guess then Karen will. We'll look forward to an update perhaps in the administrative review. Next. Does that make sense commissioners? Yes. So we had a productive agenda setting meeting right before this. I again, I thank everyone for joining us on that. As always, I thank the entire team for its ongoing work. Do we have any further business for the commission commissioners. You'd like to address that you thought about since we last meeting. All right. I just want to remind everybody to stay really vigilant with your health and your welfare. As much as we are seeing light at the end of the tunnel. There's a lot of tunnel left. And so we want you to exercise. Care with respect to your exposures, your health, your loved ones. And again, we appreciate all who are working the front lines to still address this pandemic. You know, we're keeping our fingers crossed. And want to commend all of our colleagues in the state who are working so hard. To help us get through this with vaccines and, and continued restrictions and guidelines. And we thank our licensees for their continued vigilance. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. And looking forward to. Getting on the right side of that discussion, but just a big reminder. Okay. Anything else commissioners. Just pull agreement on your words and. Move to adjourn. Thank you. Second. Alrighty. Commissioner Cameron. I. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien. I. Commissioner Zuniga. I. And to the entire team. Thank you for joining. I built. Yes. For zero. Tonya. And thank you so much for your help today. Thank you, Austin.