 Good morning, Austin. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. We are calling to order commission meeting number 285 of the Massachusetts Game Commission on Thursday, January 9th at 10 a.m. here at our offices at 101 Federal Street in Boston. We'll begin with item number two, the approval of the minutes. Commissioner Stevens. Good morning, Madam Chair. Included in your packet is the meeting minutes for the December 19th meeting. I would move their approval subject to correction for any typographical errors or any other non-materials. Second. Any discussion, suggested edits? I had one. On page three, bottom of page two, 1043, it talks about the materials that we discussed at the last meeting, the IEB use of information. But I think we really came to a clear consensus. We gave direction not to use that information. I don't know that that's clear from those notes. Just the note at 1043 or carrying over to the top? Well, I mean the whole, it could be, just the fact that there was a consensus that we not utilize that information at all. And when I read this, it just wasn't clear to me that that's what our discussion really... You're correct. I agree with that point. And I think that was a consensus. And also just, what's not really reflected in here is my lack of comfort with taking that approach all the way up to the highest level in terms of the executives. I would like that reflected that I actually would prefer their meeting exemption when you go up to the highest level. We'll have these on that point. Yeah, so we'll go back, relook at that, put those two items on, Commissioner O'Brien's concerns and the work for January where you guys came out. I would then suggest because it's obviously media content that just the typographical correction or non-material matters. So we'll just table that motion and we'll look at the revised minutes our next meeting. Thank you. And moving on to item number three, the administrative update. This would be Executive Director Bedrosian's last administrative update. And I think there are, here there are cheers through the Commonwealth on that. I don't believe that's the case. So let me do a couple things. I do have some comments I'd like to make. First, one housekeeping item, maybe for a little bit of discussion purposes. I think at some point last meeting you had suggested potentially going out to Springfield to do a meeting in February. I'm going to channel my inner Janice Riley here just to say, I think there are some legitimate purposes. I understand the substance behind it. The risk is with whether this time of year we commit to a room, commit to streaming services, we pay for those, whether we use them or not. Having said that, I think there are some legitimate scheduling substantive issues. I just want you all to be aware of it before we committed to signing contracts. I think you were talking about the last week of February. John, I don't want to put you on the spot, but we were looking at the end of February for the commission meeting that possibly would be held in Springfield. And there were reasons that we thought that made sense. Of course, what we're concerned about is in the event of a snow day, we might have difficulty getting there. There is a somewhat significant cost associated with maintaining the venue or streaming, and there's just a slight risk we might not be able to retain the space. Exactly. Should we take that risk right now and not necessarily sign the contract? I would just like to add, the local and John will help me fill in the right name if I get around the local historic preservation trust of which has done some projects in Springfield with money provided by I think through the community mitigation. What's interesting showing us around is some of their projects that would be outdoors and maybe walking around between the convention center. I hope we would be able to add that to our schedule the next time we're in Springfield, but again, it's just one more thing to think about weather-wise and doing it in February. To be clear, we're all hearty and lenders. We are, we are. But we just want to be, we do want to be smart about the commitment. What if we took the risk of maybe losing the space ideally on that date and wait just a bit? Does that make sense, Marianne? That was what we had planned on. And we might be able to see what the options are putting a temporary hold on it with the commitment by the first week of February to see if they would go for that or not. I think Marianne just said you've never had a problem getting there. It doesn't mean it can't happen, though. I'm okay waiting, especially if there is the potential for the matter to be resolved in the early February. We could still try to schedule something at that time. So I'd say let's hold on. That's for the time being. Thank you for raising that. So with that, I would like to comment on my last item. I started the commission in January of 2016, almost exactly four years ago. My first public meeting was January 7th. That was public meeting 174. And as the chair said, today is public meeting 285. By the time I started, I had already accomplished an interesting goal. That was to have a job interview with a subsequent discussion about my qualifications streamed live on the web. I recently rewatched that meeting thanks to our website. It will live on forever. I loved my confidence at the time. Looking back on it now, I think it's a good thing. I didn't know what I didn't know. But I appreciate the opportunity commissioners gave me as a novice to this industry. I know some of you inherited me, but you all supported me. So thank you very much. I want to recognize former commissioners, McEwa McDonald, who were also very supportive of me even when they weren't at the commission. I also want to credit former chairman, Frosby. He had the courage to embrace transparency and push many of us to appoint those outside our comfort zone, for example, establishing agenda-setting meetings of which we've had 68. He also championed the request of a legislature to allow the commission to accept certain service employees so that most of the people that could have an opportunity to be employed in this industry could be employed in this industry. Thanks, of course, to my family for supporting me during this adventure. My wife has pretty much supported every decision I have made, and I thank her for that. My kids never completely understood my job, especially when I could not give them any inside tips for casino nights at their schools. I can't begin to say enough about staff here. I would love to list all the individuals, but time prohibits them. Except for my own assistant, Mary Ann Dooley, sitting right behind me. She put up with me for four years. She gets a shout-out. What staff has done during my tenure is nothing short of incredible. Refining our regulations, opening two major casinos while ensuring diversity and opportunity in the construction and operation job, licensing and doing backgrounds for thousands of people entering this new industry while studying the impacts of the introduction of casino gaming in Massachusetts and offering mitigation grants, being literally a worldwide leader in responsible gaming and conducting a major investigation under appropriate scrutiny. At the same time, keeping racing going, revenue collection going, our own HR and technology staff keeping going was nothing short of incredible. And as a leader, my job was literally to stay out of their way. Thanks to the men and women of the gaming enforcement unit for helping with background checks and public safety for casinos. Thank you to all our attorneys, both in-house and outside council. We've had our share of legal challenges which have been handled both professionally and successfully. I want to thank other state agencies, DPH, the Lottery, the Attorney General, EOTS, and also our appointing authorities. There are many other regulators who are incredibly helpful to us, generous with their time, allowing for staff visits, allowing for calls, a debt of thanks. This commission of staff worked day to day under the appropriate public scrutiny. Our communications team is best bar none. I also want to thank the press, those who attended our meetings in person and some who watched via the web. You most of the time appropriately held our feet to the fight. There were, oh, I'm sorry, I also want, not least but last, I do want to thank our licensees. While we are the regulators, our relationships have been professional and for a newbie to the industry, they were often helpful and respectful at the same time. There were a number of challenging times and maybe not the most obvious. I will remember the day in January of 2018 when I saw a tweet from the Wall Street Journal about an article involving Steve Wynn who literally followed up a second slater by a phone call from Jack and Cromby. But for me, I'll remember the day I got a call that one of our senior gaming agents who had spent the day helping us prepare to open MGM Springfield at Glockholm and Pasquale. That was a tough time. But I am most impressed. Through all the challenges, commissioner and staff alike have taken their jobs both incredibly seriously and with a good dose of humor. I have been privileged to serve as your executive director and I can't thank you enough for the opportunity and support. I wish you all the best in watching your future endeavors. Thank you. Thank you. So now... All of your fellow commissioners do want to chime in right now but I think we're going to respect the agenda. I can see commissioner Cameron's emotions and if you want to make our short comments well then we'll move on to the next part of his review. No, it doesn't matter when we speak. Yeah, that was touching. That was moving and to mention an agent that we lost. Yeah, that's emotional. So we'll hold off. That's fine with me. That's the regular schedule program. Exactly, exactly. The erosion tool. All right, that's what I like. So thank you. So we do have an ongoing issue. One that will I assume exist beyond me. Our draft region C RFI and request for public comments. As you know, we've had this. We've kept the tempo on this to try and get this resolved. We've had this on the agenda for a couple meetings in December. The last meeting we talked about a series of questions. Derek Todd and I put those in a draft RFI. Elaine helped us put our format for draft public comment questions. I had circulated those individually to commissioners and gone back for comments and I did get some comments on some potentially follow up questions that have also been included in the package. So I think what we would need is potentially some discussion about the draft RFI, whether we want to include any of the follow up questions or not. And then Derek is here to answer any process questions about the RFI. We obviously would need to think about dates, about when you'd want to post it, how long it would be out there for. And also that same goes for the public comment aspect. I can just start with the public comment part of it since it's probably shorter. Re-reading it and looking at the bullets. I feel like the third bullet down is a question of law that's really not appropriate for inviting public comment in this venue. I'm pleased with the others but I do think that the question about whether Section 91 of the compact impacts our authority, I just don't think is an appropriate question for public comment. I agree with that. Makes sense. Is there a consensus we should take out the Section 91 question? No, I think I have one. That makes sense to me as well. The immediate bullet gets to perhaps the point that we could hear from regarding the tribe, which is how those dynamics play and etc. Some of which we've heard before as well, but it's good to have it again this time around. So I agree that we should just leave that third bullet. And as we know, interested parties will let us know what's on their mind regardless of the question. Yeah, I would, you know, you have a kind of an open-end piece to the stand at the bottom, which is the deadline for comment submission. I would just recommend we keep it open. Folks have certainly, as Commissioner Cameron just alluded to, they always weigh in, they always come through MGC comments or through a hard letter into the members of the commission. I would leave the date and time open. We might come back at some point and say we're going to close it. So the only thought I would have on that is a deadline sometimes spurs input. So maybe we should have something like preferred deadline, something that incentivizes people to respond. I hear you, and I understand that deadlines, like April 15th for taxes always drives people to get stuffed on. Maybe, again, only because this is a companion piece to the RFI and we're not quite sure where the RFI process is going to begin to take us. You know, I think a combination of, you know, our excellent communication staff kind of promoting that the questions are out there may drive a lot of immediate responses without necessarily shutting anybody off. But again, we've always been open. We've always been flexible to have comments come in from the public. I just think with this, it's not really necessary to set a deadline. Okay. Just one thing. In terms of focus on the public comments, can we just put them aside if we don't have further discussion now and then look at the RFI and maybe that we go back to the public comments rather than say we're all set on them just in case our next discussion on the RFI informs them. Okay. Looking at the RFI, we do have the additional questions that were offered and we have the draft. The booklet did include the additional questions, correct? It does. Yes. Discussion? Sure. Well, I can maybe give a bit of an overview of the questions here labeled as additional questions. I contributed to them and maybe I can just summarize some of that as, in my opinion, there is not a foregone conclusion that this RFI will result in a market study. That's a clear possibility. I think there's a real business case for us to examine in one way or another the current state of the market but also go back and look at the assumptions that were made when the market studies of 2010 and 2012 were performed. So what I think we are trying to do here is to frame the discussion as one of important time frame. Is it too early to tell what some of the dynamics were predicted at the time? Is it necessary for some of those assumptions to be revised and how much of the factors that have ensued since then weigh in on what we are observing, whether it's additional expansion around us, the consumer preferences, online gaming, which may or may not include gambling options either around us or available in the marketplace and so on. So I would say that's sort of the theme of some of these questions. I don't know that it's relevant to get so specific as to some of the details of those market studies so by necessity they only address the totality of the market in New England and Massachusetts that was envisioned at the time. But we can talk in more detail about any one of them. I try to also pull out what I think we are seeing and that is specifically only slots, revenues. I would like to have anybody who might be interested in responding offer insights as to whether there is a dynamic here that we are observing that is only temporary or whether there is a trend in a decline perhaps of slot revenues because those games are perhaps changing in terms of consumer preferences. So that was perhaps the idea or the themes in some of these questions. So there's certainly going to be some overlap with the questions that are presented by so integrating these questions into the draft will take a little bit of some part. In terms of setting aside the additional questions can we turn to the draft for any particular discussion right now on the draft? I do have some thoughts but I want to defer first to you all. Well also for the draft I included one point which is at the back of the page of the additional questions labeled for background maybe that should have been labeled for the introduction and that is perhaps an enhancement of what's already here where it describes appropriately that the Gaming Act allowed for or prescribed up to three licenses in three regions with a minimum capital investment of 500 million and a slot sparler with a minimum capital investment of 125 and to update that reality to what we have seen effectively since then which is really, I should get that number right a total of approximately 3.7 billion in capital investment or a premium if I could turn it that way of 2.1 billion over what was then the minimum capital investment. I think there are a couple of things that should be noted which is of course that was a minimum there was an expectation that there would be perhaps with competition there would be an increase from that but I think it's noting that there was a significant more than doubling of the capital investment I think perhaps frames what may be hopefully some of the insightful responses as to what we may be seeing relative to interest or the lack thereof as well as indirectly the profitability and the ability to recruit investment from private operates. So you would ask for a little bit of strengthening on the background with respect to that point? Yes, with respect to that which again I began to sort of note here it's essentially updating what that paragraph talks about. And I don't have to really expound on that but I do think we probably want to strengthen the background so that the reason for our buy is very clear even including a little bit of a description of our current licensees. One thing that I'd like restored that we had and I think it's the memo dated December 16th it was an outline I'm not sure if it was completely comprehensive but there was an outline of the relevant statutory provisions in that memo that we use as our roadmap and if we could restore that in the background that would be really helpful. That was in one of the December memos? It was in the December 16th memo we probably want to look to see if it's comprehensive if we could add to it that's helpful if we could add context as to why the relevant that might be helpful. So would you like us to include some of the suggestions from Commissioner Zuniga on the investment context and also the statutory references from the December memo? Right and it might actually even warrant a little bit more history to the extent it's helpful just to set the stage. One just a question for Derek because this is a hard process with an RFI is it appropriate to have a question and answer period? Because I mean we're asking for information so I just wonder So we contemplated this the first graph that we had had question and answer so we can put that back in Do you want to explain that to make sure everybody understands? Yeah so during our process there are different options you can have you can have questions and answer you can have a bidders conference you can invite people in for interviews to get clarifications on points of view before you accept the final answer but because this is just a request for information we left those pieces out because we figure if we do an RFR based on information here or if we do open up a process or one for the public comment we can ask for that specific to the information that comes in this is more of a fact gathering time period information gathering time period not a open for your response and then close the door based on that one time period of responses Right and there is even our public comment page they could request clarification as the policy would do that even though it's relevant to the RFI we always accept the public and given that this may or may not lead to a process later and we don't want to block anyone or conflict anyone out I do think it's probably safer to not do the Q&A and have any allegations that someone's going to sit down meeting a Q&A that then put in a bid I think it's probably going to do the RFI without a Q&A In terms of just a couple of clarifications on the questions just for discussion purposes with respect to number one I think one in three that might actually be a little bit of a redundancy so if we just ask what factors should must be considered if we were to engage in a new market study one prompt might be what other jurisdictions offering casino and possibly sports betting should we be considering I think that you allude to that of course in your new questions but in how far do we reach it's not necessarily obvious in terms of number four we're looking at the time frame and a prompt there would also be a follow-up question what factors render a gaming market study stale and what factors render a gaming market study potentially biased because we do have, we've heard publicly that there are studies out there that have been conducted in the past 2010 verses and other interested parties have conducted studies but if we could gain some insight on that that might be helpful if we want to include just a thought and then number five it would be what if any impact should be the potential introduction of sports betting here in Massachusetts because of course sports betting has been introduced around the country at this point and we would presume that the sports betting of our neighbors would be included and looked at in number one I'm really interested in also just for clarity purposes how we integrate the questions that Commissioner Zuniga has given to make sure that we have a clear document I personally have been pushing to keep this process going but I think probably we could, we could authorize the staff to go and have another review I'm inclined to want to have another review what do you think? I would agree I think what Commissioner Zuniga has offered again looking at the RFI process we're looking for some free help limiting anybody to having to answer all of the questions I think by adding more questions we might actually get more insight so I think the addition of the questions is helpful to the process may even generate more responses than originally anticipated but I think there's, I think Madam Chair at your point there's some wordsmithing that needs to be done we'll incorporate some things more into the background and see where we can dovetail questions either subsections taking your questions or subsections of the existing broader questions but I think there's a way to dovetail more media and again we don't have a full draft here right now so I think it makes sense when we incorporate new questions with existing and see if there's overlap with the suggestions that are certainly more than technical in nature so I would concur that we could take time to see a new draft and hopeful we have been thinking for the next commission meeting which is two weeks I think the commissioners will probably want to review it for a few days as opposed to just a day or two does it make sense to still I would like to still see this be presented in two weeks for our interim executive director that's your first assignment I just want to I already presume the interim executive director yeah I think there's enough here that we could meet that quick turnaround it does need more than just a cutting paste but some of the additional questions fit in a subsection at least a subquestions on a couple of the initial broad questions I think it's doable to come back next meeting rather I have been working with this with Derek and Todd Derek will step in you will want a little bit of a beefed up overview of Regency with more a little bit of more history, the statutory references and some of the information that Commissioner Zuniga suggested have that blend in obviously is what we have and then on the questions actually before you move on I think the chair also asked for more information on the actual current licensees to add texture to the market okay, thank you and the statutory references from the separate method on the questions we will try and harmonize one in three and also integrate Commissioner Zuniga's suggestions to give it a little bit more organic to make sure that the introduction of sports betting is clear about Massachusetts and insert a question about the factors rendering a gaming market study either stale or biased and then on the public comment I think we had suggested potentially eliminating bullet point numbers and I did have one suggestion and forgive me because I had intended to prior to today's meeting to get a little bit more information but prior to my arrival there were extensive public comments that were posted I think they were genuine and I came in February they're extensive, I don't know whether we should just go back and look at those comments to see if there's any public comment that you still would want you issued this before is there anything else that we want to reissue from these public comments to add to the public comment so maybe that could be circulated and then either Todd or Derek or Karen could go to each commissioner and get any of those particular questions to be incorporated into the trap I think that's appropriate within our open meeting law for you to give a suggested and then it would come back to us in any case just a suggestion Elaine was kind enough to give them to me and I didn't get a chance to go through each one and it would be extensive today I think we should have a public comment I believe you must have decided on them I don't know if the staff has done that given that we've already done that exercise and we're now reissuing a request just to make sure something shouldn't be included I think my memory is that was in conjunction with the motion for reconsideration process it might not be relevant we can go back and we'll go back so no vote, I got direction no vote needed any further discussion on this thank you and thank you to the staff for your patience as we go through these iterations now moving on to item number four I know that in fact our acting council is out today so thank you Interim Executive Director at least under informal process Karen Wells, thank you we have our Chief Enforcement Counsel Redalulios has worked with Interim General Counsel Mr. Grossman on a draft regulation for your consideration so I'll turn that over to her just to explain what the process has been and the language in the proposed regulation it's good morning commissioners so before you this morning are some suggested amendments to 205CMR134.09 in particular the last sentence of that subsection these amendments as you know are out of discussions at two of the prior Commission meetings where the IEB had asked for some guidance from the Commission related to sealed records in situations where the investigation revealed information related to a criminal matter that had been sealed information that the investigator was lawfully in possession of but the question being of policy should the IEB consider that information as part of a suitability determination again information related to a criminal incident that had been sealed you received input from stakeholders in the form of some letters that were submitted and are part of the prior public record and a majority of the Commission previously directed the answer to the question being the IEB should not consider that information for suitability purposes the amendment to the reg is designed to reflect that guidance and the IEB is appreciative for the clear guidance that had been requested that there be a method for clear application of the guidance and requesting that you review the language and process So if I could just from an editing standpoint I think the sentence would be cleaner if we get rid of the passive and started the sentence to say sealed or expunge records of criminal or delinquency appearances dispositions and or any information concerning such acts shall not be considered I think the placement of the sealed or expunged is a little awkward there and then the follow-up question that I have for you and for anyone else too is in the circumstance that an applicant wants to discuss sealed or expunge are they in any way prohibited or barred from this language and do we want to put a safety valve in that the applicant can bring up such facts that they feel like it's relevant to suitability but it's not something that IEB uses and in the hypotheticals that we gave you in the memo that was one of the hypotheticals or at least it was discussed in the memo that one of the sources might be the applicant itself him or herself so it's been my interpretation thus far that even in that instance it's indicative of overall forthcomingness of an applicant but it would not be indicative that the applicant is not forthcoming since they are under no obligation to reveal sealed records or incidents related to sealed records but if you think that would be helpful to clarify here I guess what I'm hoping to clarify once we do this is just to make sure that to the extent that an applicant feels like the information is relevant to suitability it doesn't bar the applicant or maybe we do want it to be a two-way street so if no one references it one way or the other where do we want to allow the applicant to be able to clarify some sort of conduct? I think nobody is barred from anything and we could make that assumption but I think the regulation here speaks to the consideration and it should not be considered one way or another so one way or another? I think we couldn't really have it both ways I don't know if that's exactly what is happening here I understand the scenario where it could be in favor of the applicant but I think it creates more confusion which was part of the intent was to really to clarify I think if I may we touched on this also last time but are we comfortable about the distinction between information and records because there was also the notion of we could obtain information by media searches or what have you that may not be technically in the record and this is where it gets dicey and I would like to offer what we are really talking about here is the information related to the records included in the records but it's really information the draft language is intended to cover information already the statutes on sealed records say we can't consider the sealed records themselves so this new language says that we cannot consider any information where is that? information concerning acts that have been sealed three lines in the bottom this is the part that we stop clarification on because before it was really just with respect to the delinquency or any information great, that works, I'm sorry however I think if I heard correctly you recommended a change and if you could go over that more slowly I think it's cleaner if we don't use it so it's eliminating both the placement and the passive so the phrase that has been sealed or expunged I would say we strike that and we start the sentence with simply sealed or expunged records with criminal or delinquency experiences and then it would finish if you could indulge us and read the entire starting records sealed or expunged records with criminal or delinquency appearances comma, dispositions, comma and or any information concerning such acts shall not be considered for purposes of making a suitability determination in accordance with 205CMR 134 and MGL 233 that works do you have any concerns about that? I think that communicates what my understanding is of your direction and that such acts shall not be available as part of the suitability determination I'm good with that that's very clear I believe we need a motion if we're satisfied unless there's further questions for council release we start of course with the small business impact statement do you have any questions with respect to the small business impact statement that's how I'm looking at section 4A first and then we'll move to the action clarification of regulation Madam Chair I move the commission to approve the small business impact statement for the amendments to 205CMR 134.9 is included in the commissioners packet and authorizes staff to take all steps necessary to begin the regulation of regulation and then we'll move to the action clarification and then we'll move to the action clarification Madam Chair I would further move the commission to approve the version of the amendments to 205CMR 134.09 is included in the commissioners packet and authorizes staff to take all steps necessary to begin the regulation of regulation of regulation we have to take all steps necessary to begin the regulation of regulation of the process with the clarification with the amendment second those in favor aye opposed 5-0 thank you and thank you for the process of both Director Wells and Deputy Durham in terms of your work on this the entire process was very helpful was incrementally done we got very helpful public input so thank you it's a critically important part of the investigators work and we're glad to have a fire clarification thanks we are now to item number 4B aye through little three ayes we have Justin Stepek and Dr. Lightbaum today on racing thank you so these regulations were before you back in early November for their initial step in the propagation process they're now back before you for the regulation vote the racing regulations themselves will then after today's vote if approved go to civil legislature for 60 days personally to statue the regulation concerning the hearing process which is our own regulation will then use office so we had our public meeting this morning so I think if you wanted to raise a few sure thank you Justin during the hearing process this morning public comment was provided by many of the stakeholders from the harness racing association membership some of those related to getting some clarification of definition which I think Justin will be able to walk through and there was also some concern about reducing the time of an appeal from ten days down to seven days which Justin addressed at the hearing but I would also ask him to address it here and then questions around appeal rights as to certain decisions by judges and racing officials so we appreciated the comment that came in from our partners in the harness racing community and I would turn to Justin to maybe offer some clarification sure let me start with the one that seemed to be the most significant as raised by the harness horsemen association that had to do with a misunderstanding that somehow the appeal time for the racing appeals had been reduced to seven days that is not the fact what in fact happened pursuant to these regulation changes is we moved from what the racing section into our own appeal section the timing of when the appeals were filed it remains ten days post the racing fraction that the appeal is to that's the way it's always been we haven't reduced it in ninety nine days so that was the first issue there was a couple of questions raised about the definitions of individuals contained and the change to the racing regulation that addresses racing judges conflict of interest you may remember this from a procedure here whereby racing judges can be recused from judging the races in which a family member or somebody of significant relationship to them is involved so we reduce any potential or actual conflict of interest so there's some questions about the definitions in there those terms are not pulled out and defined specifically because they're based on both the ethics statute as well as our own ethics enhanced ethics code so we defer to those definitions furthermore there's a catch-all within the situation change which encompasses not only your typical immediate family members or your spouse, domestic partner, that type of thing but also on your own means of judge or race in which they were participant so I think that as it stands it's not going to pop up also we only have three racing judges this is that there's a built-in a degree of discretion there on purpose so that we can move about so the racing director or whoever's viewing the situation can review it and say okay well you know there's a significant relationship in a immediate family I would defer to the definition within the ethics statute those issues of race, the public meeting with respect to definitions the last one that was raised came with respect to the ability to appeal infractions that occurred during race so this was something we removed the ability of individuals to appeal infractions that occurred during the standard race this is the way it's always been spread regulations made this recently as you may remember from last year's Kentucky Derby this is the most major issue of that Kentucky Derby race basically the genesis for this particular regulation change comes from the fact that we hire experienced judges who have an expertise we have three of them at Plain Ridge and we defer to their expertise their experts in the field if an appeal were to take place of something that happened infraction that took place during the race often what I've seen happen what has happened in the past is it goes up to a hearing officer who lacks as much experience as those judges who are paying acute attention to what's taking place during the race and sometimes it's a difficult thing to ascertain and more often than not what happens is there's a deference to the judges expertise already so I don't know that's correct, that's the main reason for the experts and they're kind of the ones who set the limits and all of us have the same hearing officer they're actually watching the race maybe every couple of years whereas our judges are saying thousands of them throughout the meet every single year and depending on their years of experience maybe they've been doing them the experience level is considerable so can I think should there has not been historically a regulation that prohibited an appeal on the harness race but there was on the thoroughbred side and that's just what, legacy maybe just the regulations have not been reconciled or unified or whatnot right tell me more about the history of the harness side you mentioned one or two a year but can you go back one or two every don't have one every year one or two every three or so years yeah and without a regulation historically what would happen an appeal to the hearing officer and then we would not have a hearing they would show the film of the race and the judge would describe what they saw and why they took the worst down you know imposed a fine or did a placing whatever their decision was and then the driver would discuss what they felt happened and why they shouldn't have been analyzed and the point you made earlier Justin is that more often than not has to defer to the judge who has the, or the three judges who had the expertise to begin with right, I mean the practicality of the matter is our hearing officer is a hearing officer they're not necessarily an expert on racing in particular they don't have the same level of expertise as a racing judge who as Alex mentioned may have 20 or 30 years of experience judging tens of thousands of races so you have our hearing officer being asked to second guess the opinion of three racing judges whose combined experience vastly exceeds their own and it puts them in an awkward position and often times it's just frankly it's difficult because this is a specialized skill to develop to see some of these minute infractions or to know when a wheel veers into the path of the other individual from a different angle I've seen some of these races myself and certainly not as many as any of these judges and I have a hard time seeing it so I defer oftentimes as well because I trust their expertise I also know maybe this is a point you were going to make I'm just guessing here but the video technology since since Ben came around has was significantly enhanced and improved which has had I believe a positive effect towards the questioning of some of those rulings is that the case gets resolved right there and are there instances or is it at least conceivable that the judges in an instance where the driver says I just didn't do it or I just I feel you're being punitive whatever the case may be is there a case in which they reconsider they talk about themselves go back and look at the video again and say well yeah maybe maybe it would be too harsh I don't know is that part of the process at all they've already conferred I think this is a good change I like the consistency both breeds the technology and one thing that wasn't mentioned is judges and stewards have been through a rigorous accreditation process where they have been their skill has been tested in this area so I think this makes perfect sense and having seen how the judges operate meaning collectively looking at that tape over and over again I believe their their experience as well as their their process for making a decision to sound this is a good change just in real quick there were just a couple other clarifications and definitions question of director Brason assuming that refers to our director Brason licensed association in a race and regulation whenever the word association is due that refers to the whoever has the license so like in this case if you're talking on the hardest side it's play rich and then if something was raising that refers to the association okay and directors of association was another clarification okay so does that need to be clarified anywhere or is that inherently understood if we don't clarify from a legal standpoint do we need to define that no I don't think so I believe association is actually in the definitions early it's clear to the extent that it would ever and I can't imagine a situation or something without having their legal obstacle to the actual definition of the association it's pretty clear in context as well if not it's not specifically set out the definition but I believe it is can I go back to the significant relationship point and so it is really just the definition of significant relationship that keeps rise to some of these questions or concerns is that the case? the question that came up today at the public comment was not the significant relationship piece it was the definition of immediate family I think life partner it was immediate family and clarity on spouse domestic or life partner and my response to that is that I believe immediate family is defined this all comes from our enhanced ethics code and the ethics code in general I believe immediate family is defined and even if you had to resort to the catch-all we have a catch-all in our regulation change which also includes significant relationships so if there's a question about whether somebody was a domestic partner or a life partner it would be almost irrelevant because you'd say well there's a significant relationship it's a living in the house it's individual for X number of years there's clearly a significant relationship there whether you want to say they're a life partner domestic partner or something else is there any need to make a reference around immediate family to our ethics code of conduct if that's what we're pulling in from I mean we if we were going to do that I mean we can certainly go back and define immediate family if for clarity if you think that's necessary I'm happy to do that honestly given that this involves the three judges Lane Ridge and their potential conflicts and interests I don't see it as being a stumbling block in the future or someone's going to argue that this person is not a member of my immediate family because once again if there was some sort of friction on that definition you could say well in the opinion of the director of racing there's a substantial relationship there so even if there was some question as to say it was an in-law relationship which is not technically usually a part of an immediate family but from what we understand you have a significant relationship with this individual so they may not be a family but not a significant relationship because so I'm happy to do that if that's the will of the commission we can do that if I don't see it as a major issue but if you do I'm happy to go back and end that No you had just raised the point about what you were basically that definition on it and it's reflected in the commission themselves in its code of ethics but I think that you explained it with a significant relationship I just asked is there a perfect parallel between immediate family in 268A and our enhanced code of ethics for some reason I feel like ours is a crazy I don't think they're a perfect match I think they may not be a perfect match I know in our enhanced ethics code I believe we do I think we define immediate families in certain ways we're trying to mirror some of the expectations we have from a complex of interest perspective into what we expect from our racing judges so that's where that language can come from so if everyone would be more comfortable with me defining immediate family or referencing back to our enhanced ethics code I'm happy to do that and just to tweak that aspect of that regulation in that respect that's fine one is I think more inclusive than the other and so I do think we need to decide just even with the catch-all I think we do need to decide which definition it might be we could easily write in regulation as defined or illustrated in our and then pick either ours or 268A in the event that we end up changing ours ever it might be because it sounds as though the policy goal is to make it consistent with both the state law and our enhancement sure and I can I could even go and make something even more specific about both blood relation or consequentity or something like that so it's clear without referencing a particular statute but is it I think that it eliminates the need to further amend if we tie it to the reference to the enhanced code because then you don't have to keep going in to make sure you've done the mirror change and just say whatever it says in enhanced code is the definition of consequent I'm happy to reference back to the enhanced code and we would be effectively treating the judges the same way we would treat for the gaming commission as opposed to referencing it to the 268 which is totally I'm fine with that we are subject to 268A too that's right, no I know but just to enhance where does that lead us in terms of today so what we would do the next step would be would essentially be a vote on everything except for that particular regulation that we were just discussing so we would hold that regulation for me to make the change we just discussed and we would have the final vote which there's a motion for on the 205CMR 3.00 sections excluding this particular section and a vote on the 205CMR 4.00 section but similarly that would exclude there was a mirroring provision under 205CMR 4.00 for the stewards it's a similar ethical conflict of interest in the identical language so we would want to pull those two out not vote on those today and simply vote on the rest of the package under 205CMR 3.00 205CMR 4.00 and 205CMR 10102 so I can tell you those particular ones if you just want to craft the motion to pull out those particular specific regs that would be 3.12 3.18 and then 4.30 it's just, it's 3.18 205CMR 3.18 we would hold for change and 205CMR 4.30 we would pull out for change so the others would all be for final vote today that's perfectly fine I'm sure that works as a suggestion to make things more expedient could we just agree to modify 3.18 the way we talked about this was the one only about referencing the enhanced code of ethics right something that we could amend currently and then vote on all of them I'm just throwing out an option so authorizing staff to make the appropriate correction what we talked about the motion just says with the corrections we mentioned let's move all of them and that doesn't disrupt the regulatory but it would still be a finalized vote because really it's not terribly material it's just actually a substitute in language so we don't have to go back that's great I think that would work best so it's a future agenda item so do we have a motion that will take it step by step but incorporating at least 13409 right a substitute in enhanced code of an appropriate section do you want to just repeat for the record the exact subsections just in part subsections that would include the amendment reflecting a reference to the enhanced ethics code would be 205CMR 3.18 205CMR 4.30 we don't need to make those we don't need to reference that in the approval of the small business impact statement we would need it referenced in the second motion which is the regulation part of the publication I'm seeing Sharer shaking how we do need that I'll defer to Sharer Sharer so that would be we don't want to do that and is that, those are the two those are the only two yes it's a fairly further discussion on anything else for Justin and Dr. Leibman before we move okay Madam Chair I move the commission approved the amended small business impact statement for the amendments to 205CMR 3.00 specifically sections 3.01 3.03 3.12 3.18 as amended 3.29 3.35 as included in the commission's second any further discussion all those in favor opposed 5-0 I would further move Madam Chair the final version of the amendments to the aforementioned sections of 205CMR 3.00 as included in the commissioners pack and authorize the staff to take all the steps necessary to finalize the regulation publication process all those in favor all those in favor all those in favor opposed 5-0 I'm moving on to 205CMR 4.0 before I reference the wrong right Madam Chair I move the commission approved the amended small business impact statement for the amendments to 205CMR 4.00 specifically sections 4.01 4.03 and 4.30 as amended as included in the commissioners pack second those in favor all those in favor Madam Chair I would further move the commission approved the final version of the amendments to the aforementioned sections of 205CMR 4.00 including amendments to 4.30 as included in the commissioners pack and authorize the staff to take all the steps necessary to finalize the regulation publication process any further questions all those in favor second commissioners Sunica and all those in favor opposed 5-0 and looking at 205CMR 101.02 there was no comments on this regulation right? no so I'll move that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement for the amendments to 205CMR 101.02 as included in the commissioners pack second those in favor 5-0 5-0 and I further move Madam Chair that the commission approved the final version of the amendments to 205CMR 101.02 as included in the commissioners pack and authorize the staff to take all steps necessary to finalize the regulation second any further questions all those in favor 5-0 thank you excellent job very comprehensive that brings us to item number 5 on Budsman Ziemba and our guest from Encore thank you and our construction oversight manager Joe Durlan will be joining us in a bit good morning good morning thank you very much Chair and commissioners we have two items on the agenda the first item is a follow up from Encore Boston Harbour's quarterly report for the third quarter of 2019 ending on September 30th 2019 although Encore Boston Harbour presented the bulk of its third quarter report at the commission meeting on November 21 there were a few items that were not yet ready by that date Encore Boston Harbour's here today to present on those few items and answer a few questions that were asked at the November 21st commission meeting as the predominance of the follow up items relate to operational spending and employment Director Griffin is also here for any questions that the commission may have after the conclusion of the quarterly report follow up we will hear a status report on the documentation of a number of commitments that remained outstanding when the commission received the operation certificate for Encore Boston Harbour at the time commission staff anticipated that a majority of these commitments would be documented within the 90 days after the opening of the facility Joe Delaney Construction Project Oversight Manager will provide the commission with the status of these so called 90 day commitments Jackie Crumb, Encore Boston Harbour Senior Vice President and General Counsel is here to assist on both of these items joining her today Eric Kraus, Senior Vice President of Communications and Public Affairs and Richard Pryor, Executive Director of Security and Investigations at Encore Boston Harbour so with that as a general overview I will turn it over to Jackie Good morning and happy new year Good morning Happy new year So as John referenced we are here to give you an update on what we did not have yet available when we presented last November the site is on the compliance aspect So as you can see the vast majorities of miners, 2500 compared to 128 or approximately 5% were intercepted by a security team before they entered the casino floor You had also requested a breakdown of where miners were intercepted slots first tables for example We've included this information but I'm not sure that there's sufficient data for us to make any inferences yet So we'll continue to address the miners on the gaming floor at every level We have since opening implemented some changes to further prevent miners from coming onto the floor and Rich is here to answer any questions or to give you any more feedback on that information Do you have median times that they're on the floor before they're intercepted? The amount of times Yes, if you go to the next page As you can see it varies widely So the smallest one is two minutes and the longest one for this period of time is three and a half hours We can talk about that As department we've taken robust efforts to prevent miners from getting onto the floor As you know we have nine entrances to the casinos Our security offices have been trained not only by our own staff on ID checking but the alcoholic beverage commission has provided training for us We have issued every officer hand-held Baridox machines to check IDs as they come by and we currently have a plan should be in place in about 12 weeks to put Baridox machines including passport checkers and ID checkers hardwired into every entrance of the casino And just to add to that since opening we didn't have stands up so we had crowds of people coming in at one time and we found people were hiding behind other people pushing strollers that couldn't be viewed by our security offices Since opening we've stanchioned all the entrances so that people have funneled and have to enter at most two at a time so it gives the offices a local visibility into and plugs into the casino We've actually reduced the number of entrances also And these averages that span over the entire time period is the number trending down as you get toward September or is that It's taking a drastic turn down Sometimes what happens is the very short ones are the people coming through past our security offices They get up to the nightclubs where they have the hardwired Baridox machines where they're better equipped to check and then they're immediately taken off the floor so there's no gaming and no drinking That's the vast majority of people that get on The number that actually game is very, very small And just to reiterate Rich's point for example in our first week of operation we had 29 minors enter the gaming floor but only 10 of those minors were actually engaged in the game and no drinking Could you say that again? Sure, so in the first week of opening we had 29 minors enter the gaming floor but only 10 of those were engaged in the game and no drinking So that number is a subset of the previous picture Director Pryor Do you feel like with this hardwired ID reader that that will enhance your ability to detect false IDs? It'll do it drastically The handheld checkers that we use are not always that accurate If there's a question as to an ID we currently have to have a second security officer take the ID to a pit where there is a hardwired Baridox machine to confirm or deny that it's acceptable sometimes that takes three to six minutes with the new machine that we have it's actually we just take the ID stick it in the slot on top of the box and within seven seconds it'll tell you if it's a valid ID We have the equipment now we're just waiting for the podium Can you just describe to me where they're going to be stationed and how the crowd will flow through? The crowd isn't going to change but before people get onto the casino floor we're going to have these podiums just like the same thing that are in the pits you can see the single stanchions it's the same thing but we've added a new device that will take less than seven seconds plus we're also going to keep the passport checkers on Each individual will not be able to enter onto the gaming floor without passing through this device showing that they are not minors We use a Iowa Age to Purchase app on these devices also some of these IDs are very very sophisticated so the current machines we have at the doors are not as accurate as the Verodox machines themselves we already purchased all the Verodox machines we just need to actually make a large investment to put data we have power at every entrance but we need data there to use the Verodox machines in the next few weeks we've already showed them to Mr. Bannon and the rest of the group and in the interim the GU has been incredibly helpful in terms of helping us run down some of these fake IDs which as Rich said are very very good fake IDs that's a power of technology I think but it's also warranted with some of the larger crowds that you have as you can imagine the number of colleges in the area underage we reject at least 600 to 800 IDs a month Do you have information as to most of these individuals who got onto the floor that they did in fact have a false ID either fake or family members where they look alike Can you talk more about when and the circumstances of the three and a half hours a minor got onto the gaming floor I don't know what day that particular one was but they'll go to a table and the table games weren't being thorough as to check IDs when they sat down although they have the Verodox in the pits they were secure in the knowledge that anybody that sat down had already been checked at the doors we met with the table games the vice president told them that if anybody looks under 21 and 30 years old before you deal with the card make sure you check their IDs So we have changed our policies since opening because there was a presumption once somebody was on the floor that they had gone through security we've now told people you can't assume that so double and triple check the IDs unfortunately that's resulting in some customer complaints too because we have certain people who look young who are getting carded constantly and we need to ameliorate that is we've offered them a place where they can go and get a stamp so that once they have that stamp they won't be continuously carded We're also going to install the Verodox machines in every bar in every restaurant or bar that we own It has been a learning process an iterative process and we'll continue to adapt it as we see the trends But as my staff gets better also I mean ABC was great they gave us some very very thorough training and we provided all the offices with flashlights to look for watermarks and so forth so it is definitely trending down Well it sounds like you've taken appropriate measures to well you took the issue seriously and you're taking steps to to really reduce these numbers and we'd really like to see that happen so we're taking it very very seriously Moving on to our operating spend In terms of our spend we had a total spend of about I'm sorry for women, minority and veteran owned businesses we had a total amount spent of almost 10 million dollars 9.8 million On each category we were a percent or two below our goals and we're continuing to work out how we can first identify and then develop relationships with minority women and veteran owned businesses Also now that we're six months in we are focused on going back and looking at our procurement to determine whether any of the items that we previously sourced from Las Vegas contact or anything else whether we can do that locally instead As you can appreciate when we were opening we wanted to make sure that we had the quality of goods and we weren't really in a position to start testing things I think now we're in a better position to look at some of the smaller procurement items and see if we can source those locally So you're just missing your marks right your goals but you've changed a few things that you think might help Yes and we're also in the process of hiring a new procurement manager and so that is a focus of that hiring effort as well We are pleased to report that 23.3 million of our total procurement for the third quarter or 49.4% of our total spend did go to businesses in Massachusetts We're also focused on our spend in our person surrounding communities and we'll report those figures in our next quarterly report Jackie that seems like a very high number the 47 million I'm assuming that's one that's biddable spend but I'm also assuming in light of how close the opening of this kind of a rush of stuff that you needed that we may not see that figure every quarter We hope we won't see that figure every quarter but yes that was sort of getting the initial operating supplies and equipment into the building as well Thank you John could you remind me in terms of the total amount will we get a breakdown the rest is spent because right now 49.4% is in Massachusetts will we get a breakdown eventually as a regular part of our template to find if it went to for instance any spend in New Hampshire or elsewhere in the country I've seen that with our other licensees can we Well as you mentioned we're taking a look at how we're going to synchronize those across all of the licensees the parts that we need to meet with the licensees to figure out what is the best way to do this to make sure that all their systems work and we have to finalize for me as we commissioners to see what their priorities are and this is not to minimize that question is to minimize this as a great percentage but I think that we are interested to learn particularly if we can encourage a supplier or vendor to recapture some business that could be in Massachusetts it's really helpful to understand that there's going to be some vendors that just don't exist in Massachusetts so that's just a really helpful input and I think for you guys it's more important because you have surrounding community agreements where it's clear in the language that best efforts are going to be made to get certain targets which might differ a little bit from our other licensees I think to the chair's point about in fact there was one instance just recently where we had a vendor from Nevada who was supplying both us and our locations in Las Vegas and we've now located vendor here that will be supplying both to Las Vegas and us here so we're pretty soon pretty soon Las Vegas will be asking for the information that I just asked for so that's excellent thank you and also just a follow up as you're developing the template I understand you're working with Director Griffin in terms of the diversity this is really helpful thank you on the employment side we previously reported these numbers as of November 12th and we continue to exceed all of our goals other than a woman which is currently at 44% compared to our goal of 50% and we've also included a breakdown at the supervisor level, supervisors and above which largely resembles that of our entire employee base however in an effort to improve these numbers we've implemented additional training and leadership programs so that we can make sure that one we're recruiting more women and minorities although a minority number is pretty pleased with where we are on that so promoting them and making sure that they have the leadership and training to go into the higher level roles do you have this breakdown by department or by area? we do and what is the breakdown in terms of are women in a smaller number of departments or is it equal I mean are there efforts to make it more equally distributed it's actually pretty even across the board the one place we struggle a little bit Rich is in the security department and we are working on that and the great ally in terms of trying to recruit women as well as promote them and we have some wonderful leadership in the security department who I think has studied an example quite a lot in addition we've also formed this last quarter we've formed employee counselors these are counselors that are comprised of employees and they're specific to diversity women and LGBTQ plus employees and the idea is that they will advise the leadership of the company in these areas and hopefully designed to further the interest of other employees that have interest in these roles that's a really important step listening to your folks that are in that position and they can help you identify barriers or concerns and they become your best recruiters if they are if you listen to them and you value their input we do and they've also been great in terms of identifying organizations outside of our organization that we can partner with get ideas from them on how best to appeal to a very diverse workforce again just thinking about the template for your use as we move ahead is you know specifically you have the 30 mile kind of guideline for where you wanted to focus your hiring so you know breaking those folks down by the towns and municipalities not 30 minutes 30 miles 30 minutes 30 miles same thing right no depending on time of day that's been your experience right I wanted to turn it over to Eric briefly to discuss a recent news article regarding changes that we're planning to implement to enhance our casino beverage service thank you Jackie good morning Madam Chair and commissioners good morning good to see you again first before that the affinity groups that you mentioned Commissioner Cameron are incredible ambassadors that couldn't agree more and everywhere that I've worked including now on-core they have served as really cool news for us as well as watch out officers for if we are not in the right areas and as Jackie said groups that we can go out to so we're going to grow on these so but the most recent news related to our communication to our bartending staff that we would like to install automated beverage dispensers in the back of the house so this is not consumer facing automated dispensers but in the back world if you order a drink on the gambling floor cocktail waitress or waiter would take the order and go in the back of the house and our bartender would be there and the thought now is after approval from the gaming commission we would install and operate these devices last Friday we told our back-of-the-house employees that we were going to operate these and following that a couple of the employees called the news outlets and Saturday and up until this morning we've been fielding media inquiries here are the facts that we have regarding that following the necessary approvals we will begin to utilize these dispensers in the back of the house and I think everybody here knows that the speed in which we can serve our guests increases in this case when four times what the current experience has been and our guests and customers have told us straight out that they've waited a significantly long time to be served whether it's an alcohol or an alcohol beverage when they're on the floor and we listen to our guests and the notifications do that unlike what has been reported there have been zero layoffs associated these machines aren't operational nor have we told any specific back-of-the-house bartender he or she has lost their job any displaced employee when these become operational will work with our team we will find other employment that they're qualified for within the company that's something we do for every job that if you're displaced because of a number of reasons we will work feverishly hard to find you work if you're qualified for that we told this employee group the exact same thing this morning we have no idea how many layoffs however news reports don't necessarily reflect what the current state of the state is and as you know when we hire someone in our court Boston Harbor they go through a two and a half three day orientation process we invest significantly in every employee regardless of the job and when someone leaves other than for cause it's a real loss to us from a resource standpoint a time investment standpoint and we really do a good job in hiring the types of employees we want to keep and in this case we're going to work very hard for any displaced bartender to try to find other work and as of today we have nine openings on our website for bartenders right now so if this were to go into effect this morning nine of those people would be filling those jobs so right now I can't tell you how many people may or may not be laid off because of this but I just didn't want the commission to think that 70 jobs are going to be lost on something that isn't important but you made a decision to automate this and you didn't have that information six months ago before those folks were hired that this technology, this automation was available and was maybe more efficient I mean the technology has been in use at other casinos and entertainment venues for a long time we opted to have employees back at the house to do that however, one of the biggest concerns from our guests was in this area and we tried to expedite their service and their experience and this is one way to do that I think this is the way that we've previously done it at other locations and we thought this would be an efficient way I don't think we were as prepared for the volume here as we've experienced elsewhere and the location the distance that our servers had to traverse in order to get the drinks back so I think when we looked at this not only from a guest perspective but also from an employee perspective a lot of our servers were complaining that it was taking too long for them to deliver drinks to guests thereby impacting their tips as well so I think we received input on both sides and much like some of the other changes we're making we're learning as we go so one recommendation I would make in this instance and as you can appreciate even from today's report how much we value understanding the numbers of employees at our licensees that when there is going to be this kind of a potential change that we can learn of it somewhat more so in advance rather than even doing a potential immediate inquiry we couldn't agree more on this on this side particularly we worry about all positions but we know the legislature was terribly committed to making sure these entry level positions are valued and given careful thoughts so in this instance we'll stay tuned I respect Commissioner Cameron's inquiry but we'll stay tuned because what I'm hearing is we don't know yet and we're hopeful that these valuable employees can be repurposed appropriately and they'll be happy right and we will post to it when we get more clarity on exactly the number of jobs that could be possible I'm sure I'm sorry No thank you I was just going to note that the system is existing at MGM they implemented it from the beginning and of course there's that's the distinction here but I know that's part of the experience and efficiencies that you are trying to reach as well and if I could just address one more item quickly with respect to the departure of Executive Director Bedrojan as he mentioned we've been through a lot and it was not all easy in fact most of it was not easy but we couldn't have opened on time without his leadership he's been a calming and thoughtful force and a passionate advocate for the commission as well as for the licensees so on behalf of Uncle Boston Harbor I'd like to thank him for his patience and his support and his assistance Thank you Record Noting Blushing Executive Director Thank you Any further questions for our encore guests Thank you and again happy new year Thank you So commissioners Joe Delaney will join us for the second part of our agenda Thank you commissioners Good morning So I'll be providing an update on the so-called on-court 90-day commitments we initially presented these items at the June 27th 2019 commission meeting just at the time of opening these were some of the items that were still outstanding as of opening that needed to be completed we gave you an update at the October 10th 2019 commission meeting where many of those items have been closed out and today you'll find in your packets a memo that outlines the remaining items to be completed at on-court so essentially and the vast majority of these items have been done I would say we're really down to some very nitty gritty kind of items here but essentially the items can be broken down into three main categories and the first one is the environmental impact report compliance items just as a little background when we wrote our section 61 findings we not only required compliance with the section 61 findings themselves but also with all of the underlying documents that were used to develop the findings so these included all of the environmental impact reports the final, the supplemental final the second supplemental final the notice of project change all of the secretary's decisions and all of the amended section 61 finding so there was as you know all of these documents totaled many thousands of pages and as I'm sure you can imagine cross-referencing and documenting all of these items is a huge amount of work and I think we really kind of underestimated how much work that really is so what we're doing we're confident that all of the items that were required to be done were done because we were so heavily involved during the construction of the project and all of the documentation that was provided as part of the section 61 findings and so on and so forth so what we're doing is we're just working with Encore now to review these sections and to document any changes to the project and how those changes were approved essentially what we're trying to do is tell the story of how did some things change that might have been in an earlier document that may not be in a later document let me just give you an example the city of Boston at the time all of the environmental documents were completed did not have a surrounding community agreement so in our documents we outlined a whole bunch of things that Encore had to do for the city of Boston but it was without the city of Boston's concurrence after everything was approved the city of Boston negotiated a surrounding community agreement and in doing so they changed some of the provisions of environmental impact so essentially what we're doing now is going through these things saying this happened, this is why it happened these are some of the changes that were made because of that happening that's one example and there are multiple things in here so the long and short of it is we're kind of chipping away at these things and trying to just slowly churn through them again, not a huge high priority thing I think this was a little bit of belt and suspenders approach when we wrote this thing but we have every confidence that everything has been done but we're just trying to close these things out as we can so it's still going to take a little bit longer to do that the second main item is the greenhouse gas self-certification MEPA Game and Commission, MASDEP we all required this greenhouse gas self-certification Encore made a submission to MEPA shortly after the project opened but when we reviewed it it appears that some of the required backup documentation may have not been submitted to MEPA with that certification back in the fall we had started working with Encore's facilities department on trying to close this issue out but then there were some staff departures at facilities which hindered the completion of this work now please understand we're fully confident that Encore is complied with the greenhouse gas requirements for the project this is just simply a documentation requirement so we're going to continue to work again with Encore to ensure that all the required documentation has been submitted to MEPA the third item is the DCR connector as you probably remember the DCR connector provides pedestrian and bicycle connection from Encore over to the DCR park next door on the other side of the railroad tracks and the work on that project is substantially complete but there are some punch list items that need to be completed before the required agencies can sign off these primarily involve just some additional looming and seeding in the spring now with that said you probably don't want to do looming and seeding before the beginning of May so once that's done then some submissions made to the agencies it's still going to take a little while before that can be closed out again we're not talking anything serious here these are just things that kind of happen on some of these construction projects where things extend out a little bit further than we expect and with that I'll take any questions one point that I wanted to raise is that we're mindful that the folks at Encore had to open a facility they have a lot of day to day concerns that they have to attend to there are a lot of changes that they have to put in place to make sure that the facilities generating the revenues generating the employment are necessary so we're mindful of that we know that they have a good understanding of why documentation of all of these commitments is important but we're trying to find ways to work back and forth so whatever efforts that we can put forward to help them in this documentation that will work out in the end but I just want to commend them on being mindful of why it is important to do the final documentation but we do understand that there are some things that just have to take priority on a day to day basis especially as you have organizations that necessarily change just a quick question on the DCR connector so it's not usable I mean some of the things it's totally usable it's just kind of a final sign off is regarding some other issues that don't relate to the actual path no you can use that it was used on opening day and it's been open since opening day it's just there's hay bales and silt fences some of the things that are still up there that have to be in place until everything is fully stabilized and so on they did some work on it in the fall but there's still some left to do in the spring completely usable I have to thank you both for your vigilance on this we understand that things do take a practical turn but you have been very very methodical in your expectations around compliance and Jack is going yes very very methodical and so that's what I defer to you on making these important judgment calls can you just tell me on chapter 91 license is that something are we waiting for other state action from other entities or this chapter 91 license is just a separate one was issued for the DCR connector so until that work is done they can't do the final sign-off on that piece. Thank you for that update. So unless there are further questions that concludes our report. Thank you. I think we'll go and have Director Griffin come forward now and then we'll take maybe a 15 minute break before we move on to the last parts of our agenda for today. Thanks John. Thank you Jackie. Good morning Director. Good morning. I know. Still morning. There we go. Thank you. Still morning by a few minutes. So for the second year in a row last year we actually introduced the casino industry impact report. We sought to capture the annual impact of this industry, this new industry on career and business opportunities specifically for residents of the Commonwealth with a focus on diverse populations and so as we leave 2019 we're taking a look at 2018 and just for you know I know you know this but Lane Ridge Park had been operational for two years while two casinos were under construction during this year. MGM opened its doors in August of 2018 and on course construction continued. So we found that you know as you're doing this work sometimes you forget you're surrounded by the job opportunities, the construction and we found it really gratifying to look back and see what actually happened and what were the opportunities to people that live here. So highlights and we looked at both construction and operational jobs 73% of these opportunities went to Massachusetts residents in 2018. 12,000 individuals found work in 2018 as a result of casino construction and operations and if you look back to our report in 2017 it was about 7,000 so we look forward to seeing how this continues. Almost 9,000 Massachusetts residents were employed in 2018 compared with 473 Massachusetts residents in 2017. The casino industry paid more than 385 million in wages and more than in Massachusetts residents in 2018 received a significant portion of those wages. If you look at the industry's economic impact of business over 1.2 billion was spent with Massachusetts businesses in construction alone more than 72% of the contract dollars were awarded to Massachusetts businesses and nearly 55% of operating dollars went to Massachusetts businesses and diverse own vendors, the ownership minority veteran and women owned companies also significantly benefited and you will see those figures. So part of the work of the commission was to ensure that these opportunities benefited local businesses and gave opportunities to residents diverse ethnic and gender groups and we saw that that happened. Part of how that happened was the programming support. The commission gave over $1 million in funding through grants and other sponsorships to focus on connecting individuals with these opportunities through the community mitigation fund and other grants. So I think I will pause. I will say that I would like to thank Crystal Howard, my staff who played a significant role on this project and spearheaded the collection of the data and also like to thank our licensees who were very busy opening casinos and other things during this time period. With that, I will turn it over to the commission for any comments or questions. Director Griffin, it appears to me in reading this report that these are good numbers but you are more on a day to day basis. Do you feel like these are strong numbers? Do you see areas in which some of these numbers can improve? You are communicating that I suspect to the licensees? I think these numbers are very strong, very encouraging. There are always areas that we would like to see do better in the operational procurement area but I think overall looking at 2018 the numbers appeared very strong. It's also very nice to now see the comparison year to year. I love the format and reminded of the first report. This is now the second report. So it will be good to see how these trends I can clearly not so clearly but roughly get a sense of what was going on and clearly the difference between 2017 and 2018 where there was only plane bridge is the entry in force of MGM and I'm sure we'll see a singular impact if you will in the next one. Is there and I know that there's a lot of sources for the data but are there opportunities to get the next impact report perhaps a little bit sooner? It takes a lot of time collecting data and then combining it and making sure that it's both the right data and compiling the report. Commissioner I think it shouldn't take this much time. One of the efforts that we're working with is the reporting format and we're hopeful that if we're collecting some of the right information that we don't have to go back to the licensee for everything. So the licensees submitted independent data requests. We hope to make it a little bit easier for them. That's a good point. And it may also help efforts for the commission's report at some point if we can streamline it. Absolutely. That's a good one, right? Absolutely. This is the part where I was empathizing on how long it takes sometimes more than what we wish for but it's the nature of the quality assurance the data collection and the sources to just add this last but we will likely need to go back to the licensees one more time for the next year and and I'll just thank them in advance for providing that data in a speedy manner. So we'll be going back sooner rather than later. Right. The caveat of all of that if I may is what I referred to as quality assurance. The last thing we would want are conflicting numbers in different reports. So it's important to make sure that we take the time to corroborate and to reconcile where we need it. It's just that there's a lot that also happened this year that just passed that is not by definition not included here. Right. That's the genesis of my question. But I love the format and I think it's a great effort. I would echo that. I think, you know, it's great work I think obviously looking ahead to 2019 the construction piece is not going to be is profound. Right. And I think that everything you talked about in terms of the template you're working with director Zambon is going to allow you to pull this information together a little bit quicker. I think the only suggestion I would really didn't hit me until I was looking through the numbers is that there's also our licensees individual goals that are attached to this and I think that Commissioner Cameron asked the question do you think there's a good numbers? I think they're great numbers and it'd be interesting to kind of overlay that with how successful they are and obviously they still have challenges and others with respect to their goals but you know demonstrating that not only are the financial numbers strong but their efforts to meet their established goals have been met with considerable success so you should think of that going forward. Also thinking construction to a degree will be a piece of it because they do need to reinvest in their facilities and again will be gradual numbers you know in the years to come that will be reported on improvements that they make to changers they make to the soil and so on but this is great work. Thank you. It's great maybe going forward and we get more of the operational too thinking about doing year over year chart comparisons for visual would be helpful too. That would be helpful. And I think moving forward we can perhaps work with our research team I think some of what you're collecting they would benefit. Yeah and then of course the logical next step in the analysis as we get into year over year is trying to ascertain things like is a particular department in terms of women are there some kind of reasons turnover for example that bends one way versus another or cross licensees or maybe best practices can be shared or try to get to ways to enhance the goals or rather or meet or exceed those goals not dissimilar to what we did with the access and opportunity committee where as we get data and begin to notice trends were relevant to inquire in more detail and understand. Thank you. And just again this is such critically important information the time in this matters you mentioned one piece in response to Commissioner Cameron's where you'd like to perhaps see improvement in the operational numbers of course do jump out at us I'm not sure if you because this is 2018 if we actually have those real numbers for 2019 because of our own work here work it might be interesting to see we could at least get an update with respect to 2019 and beyond the regional if we have that if it's going to be a heavy lift for our licensees I don't think we should but if we have that it would be interesting to see what 2019 reveals because that could inform you on some proactive steps to really start supporting expansion there if it's state static if it's expand that would be great news but I think the suspicions are you going to see that that's still a challenge and so it would just be help to complete that portion of the story if that isn't about an area that you identified as probably one where we could straight and then I say we your work when we saw this with respect to the women in the form of it's because of your work and continuing reporting and those nudging the nudging that you do keeps everyone accountable and it produces results that the licensees are so proud of and our licensees really focus and do great work in this area I do think that which is not measured you know the saying so I think reporting and measuring we want to help them get that great work out it's through you thank you any further questions for Jill alright I think that I would ask that we take a 15 minute break it is now 12.06 so let's say 12.25 12.20 that sounds fine so we're not really doing lunch I'm just confirming how angry are we going to get commissioner it's a very hard question to answer do we want more more of a lunch break could we do 30 minutes 30 minutes that's all I need for we are ahead of our schedule in any case can we negotiate so it's 12.06 we return at 12.35 that's our original schedule okay excellent thank you so much thank you good afternoon we are reconvening our public meeting number 285 and we are turning now to item number 7 on our agenda start the discussion this sub part a is seeking ratification action we took at our public meeting held last week on our agenda setting meeting as you know executive director gave the commission a notice of his plan departure December 19 and of course tomorrow is his last day he gave notice to us December 19 of his intended resignation and so then we had a couple of weeks during the holidays to reflect on that it occurred at least to me that we needed to announce an intention to appoint an interim executive director so that this last week Ed would have a partner to work with and with that said we did say that we wanted it formally ratified and also subject to discussion about our formal meeting here today so Director Wells has been working with Ed over the last week and if we have any if you would like to discuss the merits of the appointment I welcome that now and then we would look for a vote ultimately I would just like to say I think it's certainly and appropriate for us to have Director Wells serve as the interim executive director she did it once before she did a very good job she's been the number two in the agency and I appreciate her willingness to step forward and say yes I'll do this again and still have my other job as well so I do appreciate that and I'm certainly supportive of this interim position I wasn't here on Wednesday but I would echo those sentiments and just add that I also just think we're mindful of the fact that she will be doing two jobs and that to the extent anything needs to be moved around to support her in both I think we just need to be aware of that I would echo both those comments as well she stepped in extremely admirably during the transition from our first executive director and again just being mindful of what her department has but I know she's got a talented team underneath her that can help pick up the slacks yeah and those were the nature of the comments back in the agenda setting meaning when this happened that you were not present commissioners and there was clearly a consensus of three that she's up to the task and she will need the support of her staff to bring it but also were needed the support of commissioners where we have done that in the past early on assumed some ad hoc responsibilities again were needed this has always been a team effort and that's what we'll continue with one I think what we would want to do now is move on ratification I do want to follow up with a discussion around because I'm hearing the consensus that I assume there will be a ratification I would like to follow up that we do need to address compensation because she is going to be stepping up to a new position we have done some preliminary work on looking at best practices and looking at whether there's any kind of potential rules around interim executive directors and I also thought that in fact there is a ratification it would be fitting to allow Ms. Wells to actually have a say in the compensation discussion so if we could address just ratification today and then over the next two weeks perhaps Derek could work with Enrique to continue looking into agencies with similar positions have done in the past just for guidance and then we could be updated in our two weeks from now because I do think we have to set that in public and you've gone through this before as difficult as it may be it is a matter for a public discussion and a vote so the preliminary first step today would be the ratification but we didn't want I wanted to mention compensation so you knew that and I realized so Madam Chair I move the commission designate Karen Wells Director of Investigations and Enforcement Bureau as the interim executive director until a permanent executive director is selected by the commission second can you throw the discussion all those in favor opposed 5-0 thank you thank you very much I would like to say that we have an incredible staff or a very high functioning staff so the reason I was able to be successful in the last time was the interim executive director the staff really stepped up and the commissioners were also very helpful so I expect that same thing this time around because we have some really good people that really do good work and really get along with each other and that's the kind of environment that the commission took into and I think executive director Brejozian feels comfortable with that I will be able to sleep tonight so moving on now to item B as I reported in our most recent agenda study meeting I have asked Commissioner Zuma to assist me in the selection process for a new executive director and when I say that assist me it's really handing over the process as an assignment but I think that Enrique and I have had a few discussions after learning more about our obligations on the open meeting lot through our attorneys our outside council the executive director position of the commission is a key one we know that we are serving as the administrative head of the agency and I believe you agree with me Commissioner Zuma that we want this process to be as open and as inclusive of all of us here at the table as possible consistent with the requirements of the open meeting lot and so it is our goal that the commission will remain informed of progress and all of us will participate in key decision making points throughout the process so you know if we think about incremental decision points we can be involved in that way on form the process along the way there are three significant components that we've identified first and that's determining whether we conduct the search internally or retain an executive search firm the second would be preparing a job description and candidate profile comprehensively and accurately reflects the needs of the commission at this juncture and this could be conducting conducted using strictly internal resources through the retention or through the retention of an executive search firm or some combination of both and then of course it's undertaking the search and conducting interviews and the final decision making which we can go through at our next meeting in terms of that type of process making sure that we're fully in compliance with our obligations of the open meeting lot at this time I'd like to turn over the discussion commissioners. Yeah thank you thank you Madam Chair relative to how we go about doing the search whether retaining an outside firm or doing it purely with our internal resources I'd like to point out a couple of things in the past we've done it both ways for different reasons and in the timeline that we were and with equally I would argue positive results I would also note that even if we went with in the event that we decide to go and try to get a search firm to assist in any way of the process there will be important resources internally that will of course work with any firm that came from the outside clearly our HR manager and Derek will have good insights and input into what we've done in the past and the processes that we undertake for everybody to comply with our own established processes one of the things that I would note as well is there's perhaps a little bit of pros and cons into how we go about doing this it is conceivable that if we take on an executive search firm this could take a little longer in terms of doing a procurement and I can get into that in a few minutes because we also looked at existing state contracts but we would of course be the beneficiaries of an independent outside perspective I think as you were mentioning Chair there is we find ourselves in the life cycle of the agency that's slightly different there's a lot to look forward in terms of more of a steady state operation and regulatory process and that may signify us really thinking as to whether that changes or not the strengths that we will be looking for in executive director or the attribute trap so I suppose the first decision would be to engage or to think about engaging an outside firm I'll come back to the point I made I was beginning to make earlier which is Derek looked at the existing firms the state contract for professional services and you where you think is needed here but he went into the websites of 71 firms 73 vendors from contract PRF 61 management consultants program coordinators and planner services which covers any area that would do either valuation of managers, training of managers or executive surgeon for managers and I'll let you summarize or follow up on this but the vast majority of those firms look to do a lot more of consulting professional services something that if we were interested in engaging somebody to help us on what I would term the front end of the search getting some kind of input internally or some kind of research as to what we might need helping us write a job description or what not and select targeted associations or publications et cetera there's any number of firms within that contract that can help us do that conversely there are there's very few of those previously selected firms that could help in what is really the term of executive search or head hunting as he's colloquially known there are two firms that appear to do that and the emphasis seem to be more on either public safety or IT and I don't want to necessarily mix them up so there were three one was solely public safety the other one was another one had a background in health and human services and the third was more along the IT driven industries it wasn't straight IT but it was they looked at managers who were going to implement major IT reforms in the agency and organization so those were the only three out of the 73 that did anything regarding executive searches or hiring now to be fair this has only been a website consultation we have not spoken to any one of those firms at this juncture to ask or verify whether their emphasis is one other or or even ascertain whether they would be interested or have done this before elsewhere or in Massachusetts which could be done or could point us towards if we wanted to go with the outside help of a firm for us to consider doing a solicitation you know issuing an RFP putting together if that's what we wanted putting together the scope of work that we would want to engage and in the meantime also be at a minimum posting or drafting what we might think is the enhancements or revisions to the job description that we might need etc just to interject right now on that process we have received advice that if we decided to go with the outside firm that we require a competitive bidding process that that would be something that the parts could be done with all of the commission which would be through a vote of an appointment of a procurement management team which could include one commissioner and my recommendation would be on that and then choosing other members internally to support this is to develop the RFP which then we would vote on the RFP so for instance commissioner Cameron you would see whether the specifications focus on what you particularly value for what the executive firm would do so we would have input even that juncture and vote on the RFP which would then issue so there would be two steps where we would have a say and then ultimately the final two the selection of the firm they would come back like we've seen that with the recommendation but what we haven't done in the past is actually vote on the RFP itself it becomes a public record so we would be seeing it right before it becomes a public record but we would have input that juncture if that I just wanted to I'm just trying to remember those pieces where we would all have touches at multiple critical different times we could discuss at an open meeting either revisions edits to the job description so that clearly is in the realm of possibilities are we just updating now or are we discussing the merits of either way yeah I think we should discuss merits of either way I think we've had limited limited or mixed results in the past when we've hired executive search firms that's my recollection I think what is really important is that we can't forget is all of the publications and organizations that are out there that are gaming related I think that would be important to go with I think that's where most of the folks in this industry go to there are professional organizations IAGR, IMGL as well as some of the publications I actually think that's an important piece that could bring bring value to the process yeah I would just add to that obviously it's been noted we've been through this twice before the first time we used a search firm I think it was helpful I think that the stage of the agency's life we might not have the bandwidth to necessarily undertake the search ourselves just in terms of staff and everything else that was piled on our to-do list the second time around we used we did not use the search firm the capabilities of our HR department so as we think of this I would also admire to our HR staff to come up with a plan of what they would do to try to get us to this publication just so we can compare both approaches and what the search firm again I think the second first time around we had a great group of candidates the search firm added value because they really went out beat the bushes and maybe marketed candidates extremely effectively to people that may not have been touched by seeing the job post and conversely the second time around using our internal team I think the 10 or 12 candidates that we actually had one-on-one interviews all came from the gang or some type of regulatory act so I think both options have their benefits so if I could add I've given this some thought and perhaps maybe I mean being a newcomer so we're not really tied to the past I have thought about the juncture at which we are at and it is a different place in time than when we were looking for an executive director which allows us an opportunity to pause if we use strictly internal resources we might be able to gain some efficiencies and certainly cost savings my hope will be whatever whatever vehicle we choose that when we are developing a job description and candidate profile we have really done a thorough review internally all the way from commissioners down through all levels of employment to say what would you value what is this a time for some culture shifts is this a time for mission re-examination what strengths would you want in the executive director now it may be status quo so don't presume my inquiry to be anything to say affirmatively needs to change my concern about using strictly internal resources is that folks may be less candid if they are reporting to folks who they work with having even if we use a hybrid where we used a consultant or somebody who has really the capacity to assess an organization's needs out of juncture for leadership that they do that to help us make sure when we post that job description we will get the candidates we want and that includes internal candidates and that's my second reason if we have any internal candidates it will be extremely important to maintain confidentiality and if we use internal resources strictly we will not be able to necessarily keep that confidential we also will lose the expertise we get from an outside perspective when we an outside perspective you know we're great as a group but boy and now that couple of brains can be really helpful so I would advocate at the very least of a hybrid approach I would prefer to use an expert in this and I just happened to come off from a very successful search for the Icedana Board of Trustees and the head of school has shifted we have more restraints because it was very long but it was very much still an open process because schools have to ultimately interview publicly etc and we had a very different experience with our executive search firm so I guess I would just say in light of confidentiality issues around the opportunity to have somebody help us assess I recommend some and we also have a very small we don't have much bandwidth Shifty is sitting here and Natasha is in Springfield and so the bandwidth that's required to to go for a position of this caliber it's a big position it is a big position I think the director knows that it's a big position and so I think we should make sure to treat it as such and also make sure of course that we're careful around these sources too in terms of timelines I'm one for putting in a contract deliverables and timelines and keeping them in many ways we can control that even perhaps more than our own return resources those are my pros and cons the pro of having it done internally would be that a troop D has awareness of our mission in our culture it would cost less it might cost internally because we'd be stretching internal resources and we would have perhaps more control over timeline unless we have a series of vacations or something then it would be less control just real quick I want to pick up a great point that you made which is where we find ourselves the time of this search is compared to the previous two and it's been referenced the good people we have and the good work that they do and we've talked in not only about it at this meeting but previous meetings in terms the iteration of the life in this commission and you talked about you know as we develop the latest version of the job description is to take an opportunity to sit down with our employees informally in this department service groups to get their feedback they have a different interaction with the executive director than we do they also have a sense of kind of now that we've opened three casinos kind of where some of the challenges might lie ahead and they might have suggestions as to what they might live for in the past maybe they had a chance to meet the team but I think it would be good to get their input into the job description you know the basics are going to be there but some nuances that again they might be able to offer as we look at where we are in a steady state of business what skills do they think might be helpful to the overall organization I think that feedback to your point I would agree with that that input from staff is critical and I think we have developed a culture here where people aren't afraid to speak up I don't think folks will be afraid to share their opinions because it's opinions about what you think is important to the organization so I don't have a sense that people would be hesitant to share that information and the other pieces I do believe our HR they are very capable of keeping matters confidential so I do I'm not as concerned about those two aspects and I do understand the value I guess I just haven't had as positive an experience with a search firm just really especially one that did not know the gaming world it is pretty small the group and the other piece I think is important is we are well respected as regulators around the world for many of the different things that we've done and I think that is an attractive piece very different when we're new when no one knew anything about us or what we were going to do if I could continue on that the contrast I guess of where we are in the life cycle I'm thinking of initially because we were already new and there was clearly a bandwidth of concern but there was also a an element of we really needed gaming experience there have been five new commissioners with expertise in other areas of gaming a lot of them very relevant public policy and investigations but there was this notion of really the gaming regulatory background that we valued at the time and we knew that was going to be almost by definition out of state and hence it really sounded and turned out to be a nationwide type of approach those two elements were less of a concern when we came the second time around we did by then had already acquired significant gaming experience in regulatory matters from New Jersey and other areas and we had also we were also staffed with internal resources that really allowed us I do think that the point you make is the central one chair and that is whether we think whether we value more or whether we put a premium let me put it that way on somebody at this juncture to come in and offer an outside perspective one that could have a facilitated type of approach towards what's most what are the priorities let's say to look for an individual and how they reflect on the organization versus trying to look at ourselves in the mirror and try to do that I think it's a judgment call ultimately and I think that's what the difference relies on I am particularly budget conscious I should admit when it comes to any decisions that we make but I think that should not be the driver when it comes to this particular matter having a limited time of professional service a couple of people, one or however many end up dedicating to this may end up being a bit of a wash to what we might gain but ultimately it's whether we really place a premium on having somebody from outside to give us feedback is my opinion I think for me personally that was helpful because one of my questions was why the decision not to use a search firm the second time around and does the same circumstance exist now and then I just think personally individually I'll sit down with Tripti I'd like to know just walk me through what happened the last time because I think unless I have an understanding of the mechanism the last time I'm not really going to have an opinion on it in terms of whether it's to your point I'm not like you but I'm close second probably thinking about the cost of it and the value add to it I'm not as convinced of being as concerned about confidentiality I feel like that's something that can be addressed and I don't think would dissuade anyone because even with using someone from the outside in terms of the possibility of just inside talk that exists I'm not so sure it obviates that but I would I think before I go any further in terms of what I'm thinking I want to know more what exactly was the last the last one and then also if I could just finish I think did you were you the one the point person with the search firm the first time just talk to you about your experience also probably one-on-one in terms of what you felt like your interactions were with the firm and how that works too that probably is my jumping up point and just to be clear that how Bruce did it the first time would be the structure that I'd be recommending if we do inclusive would ultimately be quite different because you didn't use the tool that's available to the executive session for preliminary screening committee so you could at least have two commissioners be part of the the interviews first round and I would recommend that you know I have asked on reJ to to help on that front I would ask another commissioner if you decided that was the way you would go to see if that you know somebody else would be willing to do the first round interviews of course we all know that the finalist would have to be interviewed in public and typically in that kind of preliminary screening committee you do use your executive search firm expertise those experts would be sitting there and helping you guide I mean I have had this this would be I have been engaged in executive search searches a few times throughout my career and I have not ever just used internal resources so it seems I'm quite in a different position than you because it's so important to make sure that internal candidates feel comfortable outside candidates feel it's fair and objective and so it is for such a big position you know it's a big it is a big position it's a well compensated position too so I also do think we have a high profile in terms of the existence of the vacancy that some other entities may not have so that kind of comes into my thinking too in which way though because of that do you think that corporate or reach out may not exist but does it mean some other industries I don't know but that's something it sounds like commissioner you would want to come back and try to make this decision at a later commission meeting yes because I have not done any sort of search at that level and for me it is really getting an understanding of how was it done the last time and should we do it differently and why so would you want to then postpone this position I think we postpone and then we get some input I think it's a great input to get because I've done a little bit of footwork just because of where I'm sitting and learned I still don't know all the details of what's happened in the past I did say in the event that we had reached a consensus I was going to ask for an internal report timeline and a work plan on how it would be conducted and one thing I think that I would truly very much welcome would be to understand if you were going to do like commissioner Cameron suggest if we did internally how would you secure from our staff all the way through information that's really helpful I would use a consultant to do focus groups in a way that everybody feels safe and sound to be able to express what they think is important and again the outcome could be just where we are now that's the hybrid model you mean well that would be the consultant would be executive search firm if we don't want to do that for the end we could consider but I do think as much as the ultimate choice in the fact that we might have a high profile and we can get candidates what's probably what I'm suggesting has a chance to everybody pause, anybody get on board for a big change right now with that said you were at different junctures then and so we need more input and we can Derek Tripp you can explain what happened in the past you can describe the timeline that it took the resources it took for you internally what the executive search firm how you found that we can get some input but if you could stick to having this for next big meeting oh Derek yeah just one consideration to address a few things because I know Fruity will tell you it can get done no matter what the low bandwidth within the HR department is a concern we are under staff we didn't fill our backfill that left we've had 33% turn over in the last year as far as filling vacant positions and we will have the racing season opening up at the same time non boarding off boarding at that point so whatever decision we make we just need to let everyone know what the priorities are so if this is going to be the priority then we have to let other people know about the backfill the vacancies hold off or if we go the other route then Fruity will be there for process more like she was the last time around because Bruce and Janis did a lot of the focus groups and then we did the back end on the side but knowing that that's another resource that isn't there right now Janis is in here who handled a lot of focus groups Catherine was a big player in that part too she isn't a fine frame basis if I can only perhaps clarify a little bit more but it seems like it's understood the notion of a hybrid model really is retaining any firm executive search or purely management consultants for example to help in any part of the process however expansive or limited we would want to do it it occurs to me that the time to do that would be at a minimum initially to do those focus groups, conversations that might benefit a lot more from that independent perspective where ultimately the decision making really is where we all at the tail end become a lot more involved another thing that I would also point out that is hopefully a given but really part of very much the way that the last one went about and that is to at least attempt to have two finalists come and be interviewed by the full commission which I know can dissuade some candidates but it's been done before, we did not benefit from that the very first time around I understand there was a finalist that at the very end just withdrew his her consideration for that very reason and it's easy to be in front of a camera with the transcript that talking about yourself but I think that is an assumption that we should really strive to accomplish here and as you pointed out Chair we did not avail ourselves of that screening opportunity in the past which may or may not add rather help in this finalist conversation but that's yet another option that we could that's available so we'll postpone this decision do some more due diligence get further information you can maybe circle back to folks for your specific questions and the rest of us can get clarification to think about the next steps and making sure that the process is a good one and we appreciate everyone's patience as we go through this process it is my hope always to be as efficient as we can to keep these processes moving along so that folks the program is in what they can expect especially as we we may have there will be continuing work challenges that we want to make sure we're stable and ready for thank you moving on to the next item then Commissioner Cameron do you want to just give a little update on the IAC? I do thank you so as we mentioned earlier at a couple of meetings we are hosting the international gaming regulators conference which this year will be a joint conference to include the international masters of gaming law as well we were recruited to host for iagra and shortly after that IMGL said Boston is a great location can we do a joint conference which was done about four years ago so that has happened this conference will be the week of September 20th through the 25th of 2020 so next fall the end of September we will be hosting and that is the Boston Mary at Copley Place there was a bid process and that was the most attractive bid to the groups the two groups, combined groups who are putting these two conferences together combined conference one day will be a joint day with all of the participants the early end of the conference will focus with iagra the later end the later end rather will be more of the IMGL we are fortunate to have our interim executive director Karen Wells she was elected to the iagra board at the last conference there are only two Americans on this board in this capacity so it really is an honor for director Wells as well as our commission to have her selected to serve on the board in this capacity so both organizations will really strive to bring together you know the international gaming regulators from around the world legal advisors and key stakeholders so it really is an opportunity through speakers through discussion to talk about emerging issues share information about regulatory policy I find that so interesting to really learn how the rest of the world is regulated and certainly the latest research which I think will have an ability to contribute in that field and industry developments and trends so both committees now are working on the substance of the conference you know there's still some decisions about dinners and what not where they'll be held but for the most part we have a site we know we're hosting and the group is working the name of this this year's conference will be disrupting the regulator and really what that means is a focus on disruption and sparking regulatory innovation you know efficiencies effectiveness global regulations so that's kind of a I think it's well used today right disruption but that that is really what the focus will be this year as we speak there is a call for speakers this is a new fairly new piece to the conference I think as with many conferences we've all been involved with over the years you're kind of oh so and so would be great so and so would be good on this panel and this call for speakers was really really effective we had a high quality of speakers in Jamaica because others saw the opportunity and saw the that may not have been contacted that may not have been on anyone's radar screen so it was a different group and a really substantive group so that piece is happening now that's the piece I really wanted to talk about because I think people here people in Massachusetts and others that we've worked with could really contribute and so I've spoken to director Driscoll about getting this up on our website so that people can easily find this call for speakers and just to note some of the topics of interest we just mentioned regulatory disruption some case studies some lessons enhancing risk-based supervision player protection regulating emergent technologies certainly responsible gaming innovation some international standards and kind of mutual recognition leading investigations and interviewing approaches there's just so many topics and the conference planners are always looking for new topics these are just suggestions and I think this is an opportunity that people should be aware of which is why I wanted to mention it today you know it's the ability to have an impact and really influence policy makers regulatory leaders, stakeholders in the industry it is an opportunity so again that link will be up on our website and there's a submission form with the topic and the kinds of things you'd like to talk about and whether or not you're interested in a panel discussion or keynote presentation there are a couple of different opportunities but that is the piece that I think that's the end of February they would like those submissions so I guess I'm asking all of you to think about your areas of expertise where we could add tremendous value to this group of speakers by some of the people we've worked with some of our own people who have done tremendous work so I just encourage people to take a look and I've been doing it already I know Director Wells will get more involved with this now that she in her spare time now that she is a board member do you have anything else to add to that Director? I think that Boston as a venue for this conference it's going to be fantastic I know Janice is going to be working on some of the activities and be an opportunity also some economic development for the area bringing a lot of people in and they'll be able to use restaurants events very diverse groups how many of the folks have they usually had? I'm giving September 20th through the 25th and those five days are both conferences so there will be some people that will come for the first end and participate in the joint day there will be others but there are a lot of folks that belong to both organizations so if I could just mention one of the there are a number of topics that you mentioned already and alluded to that if we were to relate them to Massachusetts which would be a perfect location there's a great story to tell there although I've never been to the Ayagra conference and look forward to going to this year the conferences that I've attended that make use of panels with a bit of a multi-discipline or background are in my opinion hugely effective and they generate what a bit of interest it occurs to me that you know a regulator, researcher advocate an even licensee around the topics of research responsible gaming and economic development specifically to the Massachusetts history or a recent story would be very relevant and I would hope that they would be very well considered to be which is why I am encouraging all of us to think about how do we let people know hey this I think you'd be great but this is the format go ahead and imply to be a speaker and we will have input as to what the panels will look like and how we can I can think of already a number of people in the public health trust fund responsible gaming and game sense world really that have presented before and some of these conferences that I alluded to would be very happy to collaborate in something of this visibility so but it's a good occasion to mention you mentioned it's the end of February for this submission seems a bit early for me but I have a conference call tomorrow and I'll ask that question is that a hard and fast deadline for speakers but yes that's what they're advertising right now they need to plan as well you know it might be an interesting opportunity for our three licensees to come forward and talk about the Massachusetts regulatory climate we have companies that obviously operate many jurisdictions domestically and globally give them a chance to talk about what their impact has been and why they chose to enter the fray to compete for a license in Massachusetts they're going to be here a little focused on their success still lots of opportunities that's it thank you I will, thank you it's a really nice opportunity for us to spotlight the commonwealth and the city of Boston has an exciting venue for these kinds of conferences it will be easy it's a September day Boston and September can be spectacular great and a really exciting topic I think before I move for any kind of a motion to adjourn I want to, I have two matters under other business that I didn't reasonably anticipate one is to thank Jacqueline and Mary Ann and Jamie and Shara and Austin because this is our first commission meeting in this new year and it went timely and everyone has been able to do their job because of you so thank you Jacqueline, thank you and second I didn't reasonably anticipate this this next bit of business because who can reasonably anticipate the departure of an executive director who has been here for four years shepherding all of you this wonderful staff and shepherding the successful launching of two massive resort destination casinos so this is the time we would like to do that and recognize Executive Director Projosh and we deferred earlier thank you for your patience Alrighty, who would like to begin? I'll start so it's been terrific for me for the last four years for the commission I believe we had strong leadership, we had compassionate leadership we really cared about employees that's something you don't always see in a leadership position and that was something I took note of and even before Executive Director Projosh was there was no position available we just were starting this commission and Ed was over at the Attorney General's Office as the first assistant and he couldn't have been more helpful to us and I'll always remember that because we were scrambling, right there were lots of people we had to make sure our regulations were what we thought they should be there were just so many issues right out of the box and Ed was really terrific in helping he sat in and did interviews with us he'd give us a heads up watched your meeting today got to be careful about this or that I mean making sure we had a strong relationship with the Attorney General's Office which was important to all of us so the front end was really important and then to watch this organization grow over the last four years under Ed's leadership I think is something noteworthy and I want to thank you and certainly we will miss you thank you yeah no same same feeling I think looking back at your tenure the way you started to to outline it earlier in the meeting today it's really bookended by very important milestones it includes significant developments for this agency very important decisions that we had to make and rely on your leadership to help us help us do that I remember as well when the interview that we did publicly that you mentioned was a traffic and which is key because this is a very unique structure that we have here reporting to five people but having to manage in between meetings a number of things not just with those five people but critically with the rest of the agency and that's a really it occurred to me that it's a traffic up in one of those Boston intersections that are going all over the place you know what's the one in Somerville that no one listens to but as Commissioner Cameron was saying important to recognize that you got to give leeway to people and to directors another to do their job stay out of the way where you lead to and then come in and try to implement you know the oftentimes competing directives of five people that you report to in a way that is balanced and ultimately which is a successful outcome so I think it's a challenge that we'll continue to live with regardless in that position it's perhaps easy to say well I would do something slightly different of what he's doing but I think what is often is all the things that nobody sees that are either avoided or addressed timely or somehow eventually successfully addressed and keeping us on time that people don't always see that are really important and valuable and for that we will miss you I wasn't going to use the word traffic cop I was thinking more herder of cats but now you're going to use traffic cop I'm thinking of the iconic cop who danced while there was directing traffic now I want to thank for his last few years at the helm in his leadership and Commissioner Cameron pointed something out when you're working with the team you're working some long nights prior to opening that you're there with everybody and I think that was critically important you've been great to work with you have kept all of us informed and made time for all five of your bosses keeping us in the loop stepping in when you needed to I'm actually wearing colorful socks in your honor but I won't flash those on television I think the thing that is really impressed me is that even though we are a regulator our regulators have never been reluctant to pick up the phone and reach out to you personally and it has helped bring a lot of problems to our awareness helped solve a lot of problems but the comfort level that they established with you to understand what your role was but at the same time know that you know they had a very capable listener on the other end of the phone I think has really made a number of could have been explosions just turned out to be some minor bumps in the road and I think that's a credit to how you approach the job and your own personality so I wish you good luck certainly have enjoyed working with you and know you still might become a familiar face to us so this is the third time I've been in a going away party where you and I have been together it's usually me leaving so this is the first time that I'm saying goodbye to you in this capacity but you were one of the first people I spoke to after I got appointed one of the few people that I knew already when I got here and was consistent with what everyone said about how you treat people etc. I've always found you to be very respectful and open and candid and it was very helpful to me to know that that relationship was the same and continued and that you could be very honest with me and I could be honest with you I found you to be accessible on everything honest about everything up to date on everything I'll save any other war stories for after probably more appropriate but I also have a feeling given how often we've crossed paths that this is not the last time that we'll be sitting in this dynamic so I'm not actually going to say goodbye to you so much as to say I will see you soon because I'm sure that I will not only in the job that you're taking but probably in years to come at other state agencies so I wish you well and I'm sure that we will see you soon so it's funny when I was thinking that my first time I would have encountered Ed was here and that is true in person however we did try to meet each other in our former positions and to have coffee he was first assistant at the attorney general's office I was general counsel of the treasury there was work that we really had to do together on debt management and it just made sense that we meet we would go back and forth and we would not connect and I finally said to Ed look I think we're getting on the elevator together and I don't know who you are so we never met on the elevator or for coffee because he left too soon up in the AG's office so I knew that I would be now not having to worry about getting to know him on the elevator so my path didn't actually cross, we escaped meeting Ed of course has an impeccable reputation with all the external folks, our licensees and Meyer all that he has brought to them in terms of coming here and setting up their businesses here they have all been in touch with me to let me know I reached out of course to let them know of your resignation and of course the interim appointment of Director Wells and not surprising to a person they got back with such complimentary words and I've had the benefit of sending out messages to folks here so you know how I feel you know Ed is his strength is to with few words, few questions keep things rolling but what I have observed and I have said it now several times it's what I admire most as a leadership quality of Ed is that he has such unwavering confidence in all of you and the staff and he's a smart man because he knows his success has been because of the team but we're also smart up here and we know that it takes a great leader to get the very best we thank you for that Ed and I know that we'll probably be saying what would Ed do over the next few weeks and Karen I suspect you have his phone number handy so with that I would unless we have some more words I would like to awkwardly welcome Ed to the front because we want to make sure we capture Austin will capture us somehow this is where I like being chair because I get to make these presentations I could delegate it away but I'm not going to this is the fun part of the job I think he's going to have a fancy new office to hang this in and we're going to come check it out better be in a prominent spot or the basic I'm hoping I can read this okay it says on this ninth day of January 2020 the Massachusetts Gaming Commission proudly presents this distinguished service award to Edward our Bedrosian junior in grateful appreciation of his distinguished service to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and the common of Massachusetts Ed's leadership over the past four years as executive director has been instrumental in guiding complex regulatory preparations to ensure the successful opening of the MGM Springfield and Clark Boston the Commission appreciates all he has done for commissioners MGC staff and MGC's many stakeholders the MGC would like to thank Ed for consistently encouraging staff to meet and exceed demanding professional responsibilities and extends its sincere gratitude for his leadership professionalism and his many years of dedicated service to the common leadership there's a microphone here so I would like to start by formally adopting the comments I made in the morning for the record I'm not going to say much beyond them they will exist in perpetuity but again I look out over all of you that's all I can always say it's been a privilege and an honor but it was it was my privilege to work with you but it was my privilege to watch you work you know the folks here we had some interesting trying times that no one ever could have predicted and yet you all state the course in the commission state the course also I mean there was a lot of reason especially early on when there was not necessarily a divide between but there was a lot of work happening at staff that the commission just had to trust was being done for particular reasons whether it was a licensing reason or not and they gave staff that confidence and that's a big ask and I appreciate that and you all stepped up and deserved it and so I really appreciate that and no matter I think what I do in life and I hope to have other successes I will look back on this particular time and think of all of you and be very proud so thank you so there will be cake I have a motion to adjourn this meeting so moved all those in favor those opposed would that be an opposition from anyone thank you everyone 5-0