 Good afternoon, everyone. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We're holding this meeting virtually, so I'll take a roll call. Good afternoon, Commissioner Bryan. Good afternoon, I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon, I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. So this is a convening of the public meeting that is a continuation of an evaluation of our applications for the untethered category 3 sports wagering licenses. This is the beginning of our evaluative process. My notes indicate that it is public meeting number 425. So commissioners, I have some introductory remarks that will help us think about our work ahead. Today we will move into the final phase of our evaluation, which is identified as section 5 on today's agenda. This is the final evaluation to determine whether to allow an applicant to proceed in the process and pursue a temporary operators license. We'll begin the process today, but I move all likelihood and I think we can be assured given our established end time this afternoon we will have to continue our review tomorrow. It's important to note that even though we may award up to seven licenses, we need not award a license to each of the six applicants before us. We should only award licenses to applicants that meet the evaluation standard that we will undertake today. There are two parts to this day to the evaluation. The first part, which will begin today is review of the applications in light of the submission of supplemental information by the respective applicants to address any questions or concerns brought forth by the commission during the initial review of a particular application. Today we will review outstanding materials and confirm whether they satisfy our initial request. Tomorrow we will continue our review and if an applicant did not satisfy the commission's expectations in relation to any section of their application during that initial review, we will discuss whether the issue or deficiency has been cured via the supplemental information provided or whether the strength of the rest of the application effectively compensates for the deficiency or whether in the alternative a condition addressing the issue is appropriate. The second part of the review encompasses the seventh factor outlined in 205CMR to 18.06 subsection 6A. This can best be described as a collective review where the commission considers how granting any particular application or combination of applications would maximize overall benefit and minimize overall harms or the risk of harms to the common law. In reviewing all of the applications collectively, we must make a determination in the case of each of the six applicants if under the substantial evidence standard. A license award to the applicant would benefit the common law that the applicant has not only satisfied the regulatory factors, but also that in light of the entire landscape of sports wagering in the common law, that the granting of the license will maximize the overall benefits and minimize overall harms or risk of harms to the common law. So let's begin the first part of this process by establishing what the final version of each applicant's proposal is by considering any supplemental information provided and whether such information has adequately addressed issue. We've asked that Crystal Bolsheman refresh our collective memories as to each of the areas in which each applicant was asked to provide supplemental information, as well as an indication as to whether supplemental materials have been provided. We have in our top of our email boxes, Crystal's Excel sheet that will be really helpful, and at this stage I'm going to ask Crystal to begin that process. We go along. Let's make sure that we're satisfied. Crystal will keep an ongoing list along with Todd and Karen as to any additional information we may need. Crystal, can you start then with Boley's interactive please? Of course. Good afternoon, commissioners. So, in your Excel sheet, which I know you guys have already taken a look at, we have these hard tabs. I will just go right through those. If you have any questions, stop me. Okay, to pause to allow us to go through too, because there's quite a bit of material, so thank you. So, for Boley's, the first piece of information requested as a supplement within section C was an update on all the jobs related to Massachusetts positions and employment opportunities. We did receive from them various job descriptions on several positions that they anticipate. Those are all in the document and in the SharePoint access. Alongside that they provided the separate response that you that I've included in here about the roles and the number of employees. There are no questions. I'll move to the next piece. Again, in section C, the commissioners had asked for community involvement update, especially what is imagined for the Commonwealth, and they have provided a supplemental answer related to community engagement. As part of that they asked for information about the Valley's Foundation. That was provided as well as the game says Foundation trustees reports so those are both included in your document and in your SharePoint portal. And can we pause there commissioners on the on the, the earlier tab for the earlier link. Any questions with respect to the positions let's just check I know that crystal checked into that. Crystal, I'm not sure if we have notations as to the commissioner who requested each commissioners if you recall, asking for it. Perhaps, Council address when you have that. I'd love confirmation that it satisfies memory. I may have notes within my other document one second. The community engagement one was Commissioner Hill, that's the one involving the valleys foundation. And I believe the others were based on inquiries from Commissioner Skinner and O'Brien. Commissioners. I do want you all to take the time that you need this is our opportunity to make sure we're all set. You know, one document is more confidential. I can speak for myself as to section D, which is, I was with Commissioner Skinner on requesting that information as to valleys. I've got what I need. Did you say section, did you say D? D. Yeah. Spender spend and workforce. Right. Yeah, I didn't know Chris had gotten to that yet. Commissioner Maynard, but that's fine too. So if we'll just go and look at all the outstanding matters, Commissioner Maynard, you asked about the commissioner Skinner on workforce. So those are satisfied to you. Yes. Commissioner Hill and I'm satisfied with the supplements to section C. Excellent. I'm satisfied with the supplementation for section D. In fact, I think the information provided is more expansive than I had asked for. And I appreciate that. Very comprehensive. Excellent. Commissioner Skinner. Yeah, I'm satisfied with what I had asked for for C and D is fine with me also. Okay, excellent. And, um, Chris, hearing that everyone seems satisfied with these. Is there anything that is outstanding from this particular? There is not every submitted all requests. And it says that on our sheet, but I just wanted to make sure. Thank you so much confirmation that all requests have been received. Thanks. Still for that. Okay. Commissioner should we move them on to better. Also to move on. I guess that that means move on crystal. Why don't you walk us through it. Okay, so there were several requests for supplements to better. The first request was for the current diversity spend to place the goals that they had stated into context. We did receive a supplemental letter that I've included. As part of that, we had requested the veteran and LGBTQ plus workforce update and they have requested that both of those are in your document. And we'll stop there because that's just that's the, and those were requested by commissioners here. I'll note here though, this was a little bit different. When we went through them, the meets standard for the applications, every commissioner did note that they had already met. Requested, they had met. What we were looking for here, but we just were requesting some supplements to keep them on par with what we requested from other applicants so I don't know that we need to further see if this meets. I think we're okay. And so we're not going to go through the entire application today on the section by section we'll do that first thing in the morning. We're just looking for what you need. Great. Thank you. Thank you for noting that. Sure. Thank you. And then the response on Section E. For Section E, you were looking for the approved responsible gaming plan. They've submitted the plan that was approved for Ohio and the plan with intent for Massachusetts. As well as the audience segments, the demographics specifically related to the social media presence, they've provided that the chart is actually right in your document. That was the full request for Section E. So I have a question on, but I don't think it's for public consumption. I think it's drilling down into some of the numbers that I'd asked for. I'm wondering if that's something for a breakdown of the 18 to 20 versus an 18 to 24 or something. I think is how they break it down. So I can follow up with them. I'm wondering if that's, is that's, that's all they can get access to or because. But I will see if we can at least get a response for that request. Yeah. I mean, it could be the industry that only turns them out in those trenches. I don't know. In my experience, they have these franchises, but some can drill down deeper break out. So what I will look into what what they're using. Okay. Make sure they have their costs. They do have at the bottom the 18 plus versus the 21 plus. So I think that shows the 18 to 20 segment kind of but Okay, let me look at that again. It's highlighted in yellow. And can, can you remind us of each commissioner that requested the information. If you have that. Otherwise commissioners, maybe you recall. This one. This, the stats was me, I believe. Right. In terms of the supplier diversity center, perhaps both commissioner and commissioner scanner. Yeah, I think, I think I requested that. I'm just going back. I viewed the supplemented documentation. I'm just going back to review. What was originally provided as part of the application. And I just, I just need some clarification. So I do see, I do see now I have to get back to it. Sorry. I have two documents together. So feel free to come back to me if you need to, but I'm looking at. And I'm sure that everybody understands that we're getting, we received a lot of this material in real time. So we're, we're, we're looking at it at real time and we are very appreciative of all the response to being provided in timely fashions. So thank you. In the sub, but this is still an important exercise for us to go through it today. My memory commissioner scanner is that they have put a goal in the materials, but then we wanted to see what the current state of affairs were. That's my memory. So I see where you're. But I think there was, I think there was a number. And that's what I'm looking for. I don't see any goals. The original material. Have you seen, did you see commissioner Maynard. Yeah, I think it was in their presentation. I'm also pulling it up to. Yeah, I don't, I don't see any, I don't see any goals for the MBE. VBE, but I do see in the supplemented documentation. There's a percentage of overall spend, at least minority and small business spend. But as I read the request, it's current diversity spend. So goals can be placed in context. That's what's written here as requested. I think what I might have asked for is the total spend to put whatever diversity spend. You know, you're making currently into context. There's definitely some supplemented information here. I'm just not sure how to interpret it to be honest with you. That's what I'm struggling with submit. I think that's why we're asking for additional requests to them. Commissioner Skinner, are you saying that you would like confirmation that a goal was set and that you haven't been able to find that. In their presentation, it says they commit to 30% of their supplier and vendor spend tied to organizations identify as diverse. So I think the, that's why we were asking for what the, that spend would be. That's helpful. Because parking off of paper copies and I don't have the benefit of three screens. Thank you. Yes, so I think if there's any further response. We want to follow up on, I can certainly do that. That's what I see me. Yeah, just in keeping with the original request for supplementation. I am looking for, and I'm not going to, you know, say that the section doesn't meet expectations without that, but it was a request that I had. What the, what the current total spend so that we can put the current spend on minority businesses into context. I don't think they're probably seeing them as well. Right, right. That is the seven percent. Whoops. None of us. Something kind of saying further. I read it. I read it. That first graph. That's where they are. And then they're wanting, they publicly said this tip to 30%. So that's, that's how I read the information. Yeah, and then, but what's missing too is, I guess, I guess women. Women category is included in the minority category that that's what I'm struggling with that too. It's already owned businesses. And women owned businesses, so it's not quite broken down in the way that we're used to seeing. Madam chair, I didn't catch that. I didn't. I was just giving me something. I'm related. I said, thank you. Okay. I have all of that noted and I will follow up. Okay. And perhaps we can even just circle back to that. Perhaps there'll be some clarity from the applicant. Okay. Okay. So that was sections. You like me. Before you do that, crystal the other subsection of D where supplementation was requested. It meets as far as I'm concerned. And that was your request. I remember that one. So they're all set. On the LGBTQ veteran workforce update. Correct. Correct. All right. So then in terms of the responsible gaming. I'm just going to go back to that. Thank you. And I'll go to the. The one tailored from as chooses. I believe Michelle Brian was that your request? Maybe Kelsey Grunzman. You have that noted. I unfortunately did not have this one noted. This would. I believe this was. Part of what we were thinking would be more of a. Prior to licensing related more to a condition, but they got us this. So I included it in here. I think Todd might have some notes. That's right. Unfortunately, I didn't take down which commissioner requested that, but just that the plan was requested. I think it was me because I had, I had something in my notes. Yeah. Thank you. My question. I think it was yours. I have that. And then the audience segment demographics and the article. I think those were the three I had under. They kind of cross E and G. They kind of cross purpose really. And I think perhaps the, the section G on the complaints. I think you requested for those two. I think perhaps commissioner Skinner you as well. Yeah, I thought commissioner Skinner asked for it. Maybe I did as well. You might have joined in. So I'll just check in with you, commissioner Brian. I'm not, I'm not sure if you're ready to, to state it. Yeah, so I have not had an opportunity to look at the. The complaints that were submitted. I've looked at the responses to briefly to the others, not in depth. I think there's one stat that was missing was unclear to me, whether it's not attainable. I think there's one medium where it wasn't available. I'm sorry. I think there was one medium when I was asking for demographic stats. Oh, on the demographic. Yeah. Can we just go back to the complaints though? I understand you had to read them and perhaps that will be important for tomorrow's review, but can we agree that they. Check the box that they. Okay. Thank you. So we'll start on that now going up to the, the stats, the demographic stats. I know you're looking for a particular segment that's not included. We're not sure if better could supply that, but can you be precise as to what segment you're asking. I have. I thought there was one disclaimer when they gave us some stats. Oh, Twitter. Yeah. I don't know if that was a time thing or just a can't get it to you thing. Oh, that Twitter wasn't data was not. Yeah. Okay. So you would like that as well. So Michelle, Brian, would you say at this point. It has not been, it's not yet been met. Or you're looking for more. I'm looking for clarity. And whether it's not available at all. Or whether it was just, they didn't have time to get it to us. Okay. And then in terms of the two responsible gaming plans. I have not had a chance to review them. But they, I see that they did submit them. Okay. So we can. Credit for that. And then in terms of the. Response to the articles. Yep. I saw that. And that's all set then. Yeah. I mean. I don't love the answer, but it, you know, it is. That's their answer. So they check the box. They gave me the answer. Okay. Thank you. There was a question about. How things are going with the Ohio launch update. Do you remember who's question that was? I think that was me as well. Correct. Yeah. Yep. And they gave us the update. And you're good. Yep. And then I think they clarified on the GLI certification. I don't know. That came. Organically. When we asked about that. Yeah. I don't know if that came. Organically when we asked about that from GLI, but we're all set on that. I think that was just a bonus update. So bonus update. And it's in the darkness. So on number, line number 13 crystal, we just have. A couple of things are outstanding. Yes. All of them. Yeah. And you see the stats. Who on section G. Sorry. So you see the additional chart on. Yes. Okay. Yep. All right. All right. Commissioner has any questions on. On better except for the couple of outstanding matters. The commission compliance raised. All right. Hearing none. So you want to take us. Oh, so sorry. I'm looking at the supplier diversity. Plan. I think one of the missing pieces was goals. Relative to increasing supplier diversity. And I see that. I'm sorry. The better has provided. Oh wait. Nope. I'm sorry. I've moved ahead. So never mind. Forgive me. You're okay. All right. Okay. I'm okay. Thank you. That's good. Okay. Thank you. All right. So. And again, if somebody comes up. You know, if you think of something, we can go back. So no worries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So for fan tool. The first. Supplement we had requested. It was related to sex section C. The breakout of the diversity or the Commonwealth employees. And across their level of position as well as in the C suite. We received a supplement that included. Those demographics. So I'll get to that. So. For fan tool, they were provided one response letter with everything in it. So that's linked in here. I think that might have been my request relative to Fandall. I still don't see any goals in the supplemented material, but. But I am still revealing commissioner Maynard. Did you happen to. I was waiting for you to bring it up because I thought that last section when you said we're going over, I. I mean, I think section C. I've got everything I need. I just for section D, I'll have to. Join commissioner Skinner and say, I mean, if the answers. No, the answer is no. That's what it looks like. It is to me right now. Yeah, I interpret. The supplemented materials to say that. There is a plan to develop. The plan to develop. The plan to develop goals. And if that's the case, and I see heads nodding. And I would need to, I would, I would need to. Review the plan. So I'm not prepared to comment on the section today. Yes. Indeed. Their response was that they're taking steps for the golden plan, but for section C, they did provide. The plan to develop. Or, or I would say commissioner Skinner, that if we don't get to review the plan. To review the plan. That I've got to weigh that in this comparative analysis. Yes. And I would join in that commissioner. And I also believe section C needs expectations. After supplementation. All right. We'll go through that. Thank you. And because you can note that. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Commissioner Skinner, but so commissioner Skinner. And I, and I hear you saying. That they didn't. The plan for establishing the goal. Is that what you're looking for? I can see. They did provide the plan. They didn't provide actual goals, however, but the plan will get them there. Eventually. And so what you would like is what's outstanding. Just time to review the plan. Time to review the submission. So that can roll over for tonight. Would that be possible? Yes. But they have checked the box as commissioner Brian. The term she used. We'll take that. That's very, very helpful. Thank you. Okay. Okay. There was the issue around. Yeah. Taxation. Yes. Commissioner Brian. Are you all set with that answer? Yeah, I believe it was partially rectified. And then. I think imminently to be rectified, right? By reading. Third. And then. Confirmed receipt of their certification. Great. Okay. So commissioners who made those increases there anything. Other than time that we need. That we need in terms of three views or anything else. And. Crystal, I don't see your green box, but is there anything that you know of that's been requested that hasn't been. No, they submitted everything. They submitted a response to everything. The only reason I didn't include the green box was because they dedicated section D to an in progress. Yeah. Thank you. Would you like me to move the drop Kings. Just to make a note, just one sec. Okay. To crack, to crack Kings, please. So our first submission from draft Kings was related to section D. And the draft Kings. And the draft Kings. And the draft Kings. And the draft Kings. Again, regarding the diversity goals, they had included some in their slides, but. The request was for it to be put in writing and the overall vendor spend again for context. As well as potential goals for supplier diversity. They submitted. The slide as well as a response, which I've included in here. So I'm going to go through the, you know, the, the, and our M B. B. B. B. And WB goals for the businesses for 2023. With respect to. Section B of Lee commissioner Skinner and commissioner Maynard. The responses meet. I'm satisfied. Excellent. Thank you. Alrighty. Now with respect to section G. we ask them to provide an update related to their Ohio launch. And they have submitted the response included. I don't remember who asked that. I mean, we all said that response. I believe it was Commissioner O'Brien. I'm satisfied. Okay. And the additional two that are noted in here were updates they provided based on conversations and having watched what the commission is interested in. So one of those is an advertising update. You'll see in line seven and line six is... Line six, you'll see a bunch of little pictures noting some visual renderings were related to responsible gaming that they just thought you would be interested in in noting that they've made those adjustments in the mobile app. Yeah, because I'm just having trouble finding those little... If you look online, eight, there's a tiny, a little link that says supplements and that leads to the entire... Yeah, so I'm there. All those little mobile app footer, mobile app sidebar, if you click on it, they're just pictures, they're screenshots. Yeah, they're things you'll see until you're clicked in, but they are all screenshots of their headers, footers, and sidebars in the app. Yeah. Related to... So... Little added bonus does as well. Just wasn't quite responsive, but now I've got them fixed. And thank you for that to DraftKings. So I noted that all the requests have been received. So those were just giving us additional information, which we welcome. Thank you. So if there's nothing else standing on DraftKings, Crystal? Yeah, everything's under seat. Okay, commissioners all set then on DraftKings, moving on to DGC. Digital gaming court. Yeah. Okay. In court, we had a request in section C for the overall supplier diversity spend in context to their goals. They have submitted a supplemental letter, which I've attached. I believe the overall supplier diversity spend request relates to section D. And I don't recall if I asked for it, but I wouldn't be surprised. I think we decided that that section... I think it came up in section C while we were talking about the Massachusetts, their commitment there, but it would be more relevant to section D. And I think in their response, they refer, yes, in their response, they refer to their section D of their application and their original response. Commissioners, in terms of section C, do you need more time? I don't go there to see. Yeah, I'd like to be too, but I don't really, I still don't see what was requested, which is the overall spend. But I'm noting the clarification that was made relative to the marketing budget versus their overall. Where it first came up was in section C because of that. Yeah. And I mean that the information's not required. The information that I requested isn't required, but noting we didn't get an overall spend for one of the other applicants. I don't know if that's something that is just not readily available or just something that applicants just aren't willing to share. Were you able to scapulate or kind of be a first engineer? Donna? Hi. Let me go back to the DGC. I think the answer you're looking for, Commissioner Skinner, is paragraph six. That's where they dove into that. I think it's paragraph six, one, two. That's the last paragraph on that first page. I will tell you how I'm thinking about this. Commissioner Skinner, which may be totally complicated in what you're thinking. I'm thinking that the number is ambitious enough, the call number. That even if that is their current state of affairs, they got two years in a row of that, great. I don't know what it is, and obviously we're not gonna get that answer, but that's the way I'm looking at it. Is there a progressive network? I think another way, if you were interested in getting more information, I could follow up, but it seems they're very focused on this number being the local number. And if you were looking for the number in context of the entire organization, maybe that'd be different. But they focus very much on how it's not tracked locally. No, yeah, thanks, Crystal. I think I'm good with Commissioner Maynard's addition because as I'm recalling of the applicants who did provide goals, I don't know if I even asked for overall spend. I mean, they certainly didn't volunteer it. So I'm okay, I mean, for the reason that Commissioner Maynard stated, I'm okay with checking the box on this one. Again, to the extent this was my ask. Yes, I have it noted that it was Commissioner Sanner and Commissioner Maynard. And I'm not sure, I don't recall this number being included in the original document. So I think it does give some context. So the next component, yeah. Yeah, so, but in terms of season we're all we're, I feel like I'll hear you. Yeah. Right, or D, D, I apologize. It came up in D, but it would be, yeah. That was the only section we had a request from. I don't know, and I think we had a section just a second. I just have to go out and then back in. We did have two other requests. It says other, but actually this was a request that came from me, but I think universally from all of us, with respect to the goal, I would say. So they, as a section B response, which is there. So in that response, I feel like we can check the box. I do note that the applicant on page, and I'm sure you all saw it as well, on page, was it page, this had it, page two of five. Is it the final paragraph? They're actually asking for commissions, particular permission, which is an interesting request. I'll digress, man. This is a matter that we wouldn't speak about in terms of, I believe it's all protected by executive session. I'm not sure I need to entertain that request. That's one commissioner, but I'm not sure how the other commissioners feel. And may feel that the rest of the request addresses the issue that got raised in the executive session. The direct request was satisfied. Do you see what I'm talking about, Patricia, I've already saw your look of. Can you be more specific with the location you're talking about within the document? Well, you know, I'm having a little trouble. That's what I am. It's page, page changes, okay. So if you scroll down and it says one, two, three, four, up five, it is at the bottom, last two paragraphs, of two of five. Okay. Which document, please? The B4F01 that's tagged in the library. Oh, I see what you're saying. It ends that page and begins to rolls into the next one. It goes from the next one commissioner. Yes. Let me just make sure that that's it. I wish I had printed it out and I didn't. That is the, you're right. I'm working. Yeah, that's it. In this instance, that starts the sentence in the last paragraph, two of five. Do you see the wording I'm talking about in this instance, that sentence? No, I think I was looking at something else that looked like a request. Oh, if you look at, if you look at, it's for the fourth sentence up from the bottom of page two, about halfway into the, Okay. I was at the beginning of the paragraph. I took the whole paragraph to be, yeah, no, I'm in that spot. Yep. And I'm saying, I don't feel it. So we need to entertain that. I feel that the rest of the submission satisfies request that was made and that we don't need to explore that. Yeah, no, I would agree with that. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Hill, have you been able to follow? If you look at the page two of five at the very, very bottom. Okay. Yeah, gotcha. Yeah, I haven't, I'm just not ready to say whether the submission meets expectations or not. I guess I would say it in a different way. I'm not sure, like, I would say that it is, for me, it is the supplement. It's what we asked for. Yeah. Yeah, that's, is that a better way of saying it, Commissioner Skinner? It is, yeah. I just, well, I guess a better way for me to say what I said is I'm not ready to, you know, speak to the substance of. When you evaluate how you're going to assess it. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill? I will weigh it against the application. Agreed, same here. Okay. Good. All right, then Crystal, let's see. We'll just have to go back to that page. Yes. And so the only pending component is in progress. IEB has provided updates as they go along about the supergroup suitability and they are in the works working on the attestations. So that's all for Digital Game Court. Kudos to Kara and her team for completing the scalping that Friday evening. And so there's just some more work. Any idea from IEB when that might be done? They give that or no, no pressure, but I just wanted to say they hadn't noted exactly a timeline. I think it's a little bit on Digital Gaming Court at this point. They've given them everything they would need. And I think Karen's most recent update was that they were they were weeding on those qualifiers and the individual participant. Okay. I will continue to update you, as I'm sure Carol. Yeah, excellent. So I'll move on to points that commissioners. All set. All right. And impressively points that for just going yesterday has submitted all the requests. We'll start with section D, which again was the providing a discretionary spend to compare their supplier diversity spend to as well as the supplier diversity goal. They have compiled a EI objectives document, which I've linked to here. That also includes the updated workforce numbers and the workforce diversity goal, which was line three here to the both in that document. I'm satisfied with what was submitted, but I will know no one wants to put a number to the discretionary spent. Yes. I don't know if that's standard or what. It's interesting. Okay. And that's on both sections for both submissions for section D. Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Maynard. Yes, for me. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. I believe you asked about the supplier diversity supplement. I'm just I'm reviewing it because I think there is a number in there. Fine. So in addition, we had asked for a transactional waiver, which was received. And sorry, I lost my place here. I'm on line five. You've also been provided the university partnership supplemental, which was in line with, I'm, I'm unsure, but I think Commissioner O'Brien asked for that. I'm not sure who asked for a line for. And then alongside that, there was a information relevant to being matter in Indiana, which I've fully provided the response here. As well as there are two documents below that. Those links are both. People. Go with line. I'm not sure. I think it might have been both commissioners. Well, I think first looking at the university partnership. Systems. Right. That was. That was me. Yeah. And then the next one. I think might be both you, commissioner O'Brien and commissioner Skinner on the, maybe, maybe more. I don't know. The Indiana matter. And then there are two. Last documents. Which are related. Michelle Brian. If that's on the. University partnership supplement. No, it checks the box. Okay. It gave me what I asked him to give me. Okay. And then. Be very careful not to leave the meeting accidentally. In terms of the Indiana matter. That helpful. Satisfy that request. And the combination with the last two documents. For me, yes. Okay. I'm not sure if you would ask about that as well. It's second to the request. And it satisfies me as well. Okay. Excellent. Commissioner Skinner. Commissioner Skinner. We couldn't hear you. I think you just answered the question, but there was no volume. Oh, my apologies. We still can't hear you. Okay. I feel better. I just was wondering. We can't hear you. Did you accidentally press your. Your laptop button. That's strange. Where. You may have switched your microphone input by accident. If. I don't know if Tom or Christo could run in. Maybe. So you didn't accidentally hit anything on your laptop. It's funny because we're all in the office too. So we literally could just be all in one room. Just don't have that technology quite yet. We had it. There we go. Commissioner Skinner. Thanks, Karen. Okay. So our next question. I don't know. Okay. Thanks, Karen. Okay. So I was just asking about the Indiana matter. Commissioner Skinner. I'm sorry. That was a mystery. I would say yes. The documentation that we. Has have requested has been provided. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. So nothing outstanding on. That's received. Right. Right. Everybody went to your rescue commissioners. So. Anything that you want to go back to commissioners with respect to the applicants and supplemental information. This will give us a chance to. Tonight go through the applications one more time. We have that grid from. Crystal and Karen. That. Captures our preliminary. Review. And then we'll return to sort of a section by section. Analysis based on the supplemental information. You can fully integrate it in your thinking for tomorrow. And then as I pointed out in our. In our. The opening remarks, we would move into that more holistic look. We do have our consultants RSM. Available right now. It is 20 after three. I think it. If I could make the suggestion, we. We take advantage of them being available today. It might also be helpful as we review our. Our applications. As we move into tomorrow's more full sub discussion. Commissioners. Would you want a short break before we turn to RSM? Or would you like to go right into our seven? I have a little bit of introduction. I just want to, I want to take your temperature on where we are moving in on the next segment. Yes. No. I'm ready to move forward. Okay. Okay. So we have our consultants RSM here to provide a benchmark PowerPoint reports the commission, which compiles information of all the applicants to help the commission with the collective evaluation process. There's some information on the general market landscape, which is appropriate for the public session. So I think it's a very, two slides that are public. And then we've moved into. It's second session. If we sell phone. And then we could say to the public that we would not be returning to a public session. That's how I see this. Working. Council Grossman. You'll have to set the stage for us. But that. How I'm imagining it procedurally. Does that work? If there's someone. Yeah. If that was directed to me. Yes. That sounds like a good plan. We can start with the public information. And then we can engage in our executive session discussion. Okay. And so. Ones RSM gets to that point. We'll engage in that. That process. All right. Good afternoon, Theresa. Nice to see you. And nice to see you, Connor. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. I think today. Connor will be leading the discussion and I'll be, I'll be adding context and clarity. Okay. Excellent. Thank you so much. I will share my screen. Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners. RSM. Appreciate the opportunity to present. The Massachusetts gaming commission. We understand the importance of this licensing process. And the importance of these meetings. As a chairwoman. Judd Stein has indicated the RSM team has been asked to join this meeting and provide a presentation. Regarding certain aspects pertaining to the financial projection. And I think we'll be able to do that. I think we'll be able to do that. I think we'll be able to do that. And this is a discussion on the application. Regarding certain aspects pertaining to the financial projections. Of the applications on a consolidated basis. Specifically, RSM has been asked to provide insights. Based on our experience and research in the second B2. See two and G. Three. Of each category three application. In addition to what. What was submitted by the applicants. We have conducted further independent. research to help provide context for what is being presented today. In today's presentation, we will provide the consolidated overview of the applicant pool's self-submitted projections, as well as operating metrics and finally the liquidity positions to commence sports wagering operations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. While the focus today is on the untethered applicant pool, our presentation materials include all 11 Category 3 applicants to provide the commission with a holistic view into the potential Massachusetts online sports betting market. We must note that PointSpet has not been reviewed by RSM due to a pre-existing independence conflict. Instead, PointSpet was reviewed by Plitman-Gerson Associates, LLP or LGA per floor. Finally, before moving on, it is important to state that RSM is merely presenting a fact-gathering exercise based on information provided by the IED or through SEC finalists. RSM is not expressing an opinion with respect to the suitability of each applicant or deficiencies of any applications before the commission. The information in this presentation is provided at the request of the commissioners to help them with their temporary licensing process. We will begin our presentation or the public portion of our presentation by discussing general market research we have conducted relating to consumer exposure to locks in the event of a legalized Massachusetts sports book declaring bankruptcy. The topic of consumer protection is one that has been in the news a lot recently, especially with the recent fallout regarding consumer protections in the FTX cryptocurrency. It is worth noting that the commission has admirably made consumer welfare a focus of this application process. Outside of advertising and age verification, one leg of consumer protection is what were to happen to consumer monies if a sports book were to abruptly cease operations. During a bankruptcy, consumers lose access to their deposit accounts if proper safeguards are not in place. The emphasis there being on quote-unquote proper safeguards. To mitigate this risk, other states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Iowa, Indiana have required that operators maintain minimum cash reserves and separate player deposits from companies operating assets. Initial outcomes suggest that these safeguards were effective during the recent nationwide closures of Fubo gaming and Max and Bet sports books. Many of these best practices have already been adopted by Massachusetts under regulation 205, covering separation of funds and protection from predators. However, even the best regulations unfortunately do not protect against fraudulent activity. Monitoring for continued compliance amongst licensed OSP providers is essential to protect customers in the event of bankruptcy. Given RSM's independent initial review of each applicant, RSM currently has no reason to believe any of the applicants in question has or will commit fraud and put customer funds at risk. RSM has prepared additional slides for the commission which contain publicly and competitively sensitive financial projections of the applicant pool. As discussed, we are happy to present this information where answered directed questions with just the commission in an executive session. In the meantime, we are happy to address any questions the commission may have on the materials presented thus far. And that ends our public portion of our presentation. Questioners, questions on this portion? Questioners, any questions for Connor or Dusa? If you want to take down the slide please, that would be great. The copy of those slides are available to us of course commissioners. So at this stage then RSM does have further information to provide for us but it's recommended that it's best to be presented in executive session. Councilor Grossman, do you want to proceed? Certainly. So this is in reference to section 4D, little one of the commission's agenda. And it is expected that RSM will discuss specific information associated with its consolidated assessment of financial projections, trends, and the methodologies applied in reaching the views it and the applicants has relative to the information that this pool of applicants has provided as a whole including revenue projections, market share percentage projections, potentially handle and hold percentages, the liquidity positions of the applicants, and other information associated with these matters. And that may relate to the financial suitability and stability of the applicants individually. Interestingly, the information that is likely to be provided would be competitively sensitive between and amongst the applicants themselves. So I believe this would just be RSM, the commissioners and staff included in this presentation. If that is in fact an accurate description of the information that the commission can expect to discuss with RSM, it is my assessment that this would meet the standard set out in section 6I of chapter 23N in that all of the information is and has been provided in the course of an application for sports wagering operator licenses. It is all competitively sensitive and would be detrimental to each of the applicants if it were disclosed publicly. Accordingly, if the commission is so inclined, this is an appropriate matter to discuss in executive session. So commissioners, if we're so inclined, we could move and if that's the case, you know that I have to read the language into the record. I'm assuming we want to hear from RSM? Okay. So the commission anticipates that it may meet in executive session in conjunction with review. Each of the category applications in accordance with GL, chapter 30A, section 21A7 and GL, chapter 23N, section 6, subsection I, consider information submitted by the applicants in the course of the respective applications for an operator license as examined by RSM, US, and OP in the context of any discussed financial metrics, ratios, or associated financial measures that are trade secret, competitively sensitive, or proprietary in which it disclosed publicly would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage. I have a motion. Madam Chair, I move that we go into executive session for the matter salinated by General Counsel Grossman and for the legal reasons stated by the chair just now. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Any questions or evidence? All right. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. And I vote yes. Bye, Sarah. Thank you. So we'll get transferred over to the breakout room. But beforehand, I want to point out that the public should not expect us to return to the public session. Our meeting is to end today around four. Councillor Grossman, have I covered that adequately? Yes. And just to clarify, of course, we will return to the public tomorrow, but just not today. Right. And our start time tomorrow is at 10 a.m. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. We do have a public meeting at nine. That's for our agenda setting. We're trying to stay up on top of everything. So we'll be convening at nine for our agenda setting meeting and then reconvening this matter at 10. All right. Thank you. Crystal, if you can do your magic, that'll be great. And thank you to the public for your interest. We appreciate it. I could assign people to the breakout rooms right now. So I'm just going through the list. If I omit anybody, please let me know and I'll make sure they get out. Thanks, Dave.