 ready, we'll get started. Sorry for my few minutes being late. We're good to go. Thanks Dave. Good morning. This is the convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and today is a public meeting. I want to do a roll call because we're holding this meeting virtually. Good morning Commissioner McBride. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. I called this meeting to order, it's public meeting number 468, and we have minutes. Commissioner Maynard or Commissioner Hill? I'm taking the baton from Commissioner Hill. Congratulations, thank you to Commissioner Hill for all his good work. We appreciate it and it's a great exercise and job, Commissioner Maynard, so thank you. Well, I hope everyone has a little bit of sympathy for me as I navigate the new role. Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approve the minutes from the January 18th, 2023 meeting that's included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for type graphical errors or other non-material matters. This is Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner O'Brien, second. Okay, any questions or edits on the minutes? All right, Commissioner O'Brien? I'm Commissioner Hill. I'm Commissioner Skinner. I'm Commissioner Maynard. I'm Bill Yes, 5-0. Thank you and thank you to legal. All right, now we're moving to administrative update and today we are going to hear our interim executive director give his first official administrative update and it's a big one. Yes, indeed. Thank you and good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. If I may, I just wanted to begin by publicly thanking you all, the commissioners for the trust you placed in me and appointing me to this position. It is certainly a great honor and one I don't take lightly. My mission, of course, is to do my part to ensure that during this interim period, this great institution maintains same high standards of quality work done with the utmost integrity that we've always demanded of ourselves. And so the first thing I've done is to reach out and connect myself directly with our greatest asset, which of course is our team members themselves. And as I mentioned in my interview, sound communication from all levels of the organization is essential in assuring that everyone feels connected to our mission. So I wanted to make sure that those lines were not disturbed during our change and leadership. In the past two weeks to that point, I visited each of the three casinos and spent considerable time meeting with our staff. It's been really helpful for me to understand what it is that people enjoy about their work here at the commission and here firsthand, the diversity of views as to what the key initiatives within the various divisions look like in the future. And I know I need not tell you, but I will anyway, how impressive and sharp our workforce is. I was certainly not surprised, but tremendously impressed to observe how focused and energized folks are about their work. And our work is both interesting and meaningful. And we will continue advancing the commission's mission, which of course we recall is to ensure that our decision-making and regulatory systems engender the confidence of the public and the participants. So we have a series of important issues before us at the moment, including just to name a few, the upcoming review of the application for the category two sports wagering license in Rainham, which we have of course commenced and we'll continue this coming Tuesday, the proposed development by Arancor, Boston Harbor East of Broadway. We're in the middle of a racing meeting at Plain Ridge Park Casino. We have ongoing work in establishing our first rate sports wagering division in many, many more great initiatives that I know you're all familiar with. And we'll be certainly more to come on all of that in the near future. But in the midst of it all, of course we experienced severe flooding in our Boston office. And I wanted to just take a few moments to update you on that issue and let you know what's going on. So I've asked Katrina Jagroof-Gomes and Derek Lennon to join me here today and Dave Muldrew is here as well. As these have all been key contributors in addressing this situation as a going concern. We're all here available to answer any questions you may have. But I'd like to just start by mentioning that we became aware of the flooding as our staff began to arrive for work in Boston this past Monday morning. It was quickly apparent that this was a serious issue. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that upon my arrival, how remarkable I observed the response of our own staff to be who were on site that morning. A number of people immediately jumped into action to help secure as much personal and office property as possible. And nobody was asked to do this. They just did it out of concern for the agency and for their fellow colleagues. And I think it was really, really great to see. The efforts were largely successful, I would say as the scope of the damage was relatively limited compared to the extent of the water flow we experienced in the office. We've come to learn that the source of the flood was a 12 inch joint that burst on the 17th floor of the building which is part of the condenser water loop. It's my understanding that the water reached as far down as the 10th floor. The building management has been very responsive in addressing this issue and communicating with our staff. We asked that staff who regularly works out of the Boston office work remotely this week. And I plan on asking folks to do the same next week as the remediation and repair efforts are well underway. And it'll be an important for us to allow the workers the space necessary to do their jobs so that we can ultimately return back to normal as soon as possible. The main damage to our office appears to generally be limited to the egress areas and legal department area of the 13th floor and the entryway area and the knock space on the 12th floor. There are over 30 pieces of equipment including fans and dehumidifiers in operation in the office. A consulting team over the past day or so conducted a moisture assessment of the space and developed a remediation plan which includes demoing and replacing certain ceiling panels, walls and flooring. And of course, generally cleaning the office, the affected areas of the office anyway, themselves. In order to accomplish this, there will also be movers who will be coming into the office to ensure that furniture and other belongings are moved so that the workers have access to the spaces that are required to perform the remediation and repair work. Much of this is actually underway and it's expected to continue throughout next week. It's hard to say of course, how long all of this will last exactly. So we'll have to continue to assess the situation on a weekly basis. The good news, if you will, is that there appears to only be limited damage to our technology equipment. And I thought I might ask Katrina to jump in on that. I think an important issue to understand and ask that Katrina offer any additional thoughts she may have and then turn to Derek and Dave if they'd like to jump in as well. So Katrina, if you wouldn't mind just talking a little bit about that. Sure, thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. I haven't spoken in one of these in quite a while so I'm a little out of practice. Fortunately, our servers and our switches and our main MDF on the 12th floor was not impacted. There was water damage in the space. It did affect some of our smaller physical end user equipment. Those are still drying in our lab at the moment. So those are undetermined as to the status as where they're at, whether they're functioning or not. There was a subsequent leak in the water pipe closet, totally separate from the leak that occurred on the 17th floor which did impact the lab, the knock and the hallway in that vicinity. So that's also being worked on simultaneously. The live stream equipment in the public meeting room was not impacted. I'm sure communications director Mills is very pleased with that. But the public meeting room space was impacted as well so there will be construction in that area as we move forward. But we're very pleased to report that there was minimal impact to the technology equipment. Thanks, Katrina. Derek, do you have anything you'd like to add? No, I think you and Katrina touched it very well. I know that Katrina and Dave have been in just about every day this week. So they have much better updates and they've been providing great information to us. Yeah, thanks, Derek. Dave, anything you'd like to add? Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Having been here as Derek just stated for the week so far, we're drying out. There are a lot of equipment here and we do have some damage. We've had an opportunity to meet with Harrison who's Rockhill Management and I'm the contact with the building for the team as we go through the process. They've had a number of remediation and teams coming in to really to continue doing that through diligence. So they're on top of it and as we are and certainly continuing to move forward. That's all I have to add at this point. Thanks, Dave. So commissioners, that the information we had for you, we're happy to answer any questions we plan on messaging our staff later just to advise as to what the present situation looks like and the outlook moving forward. But that's where we are with things at the moment. Commissioners, any questions? I see commissioner Skinner's in lots of fans, right? Commissioner Skinner. That's right. The noise level though is not quite what I expected. I think it's manageable as evidenced by a couple of others who are in the office today. All right. Well, thank you all. I appreciate that. I don't have anything further for you, Madam chair and commissioners at the moment. Happy to address any further questions, but that covers the ground I wanted to address this morning. So thank you. Excellent. Thank you. So we'll move on then to item number four and director and operations manager carpenter. Yes, madam chair commissioners, before we start with Mr. Carpenter, I would like to announce that this will be one of Mr. Carpenter's last meetings. Unfortunately for us, Mr. Carpenter will be leaving us for the state of North Carolina. I would like to commend Mr. Carpenter for all the hard work that he's put in for actually almost the last nine years. He's been a true asset to all this. And I will add a true friend to me as well and many others. He'll really be missed by myself and many others here in the commission. And I would like to say good job, Sterl and everything you've done. And I wish you the best of luck going forward. Thank you, Bruce. So before we go out there was a little bit of background noise, but maybe that's. That's now dissipated. And I had the chance of seeing Sterl earlier this morning. And Bruce, thank you for those kind words about. Sterl before he proceeds. I guess I would just like to echo Bruce's remarks. Well, Sterl, you caught the eye of another state. That's a huge compliment to you and something that I think makes all of us really proud here in Massachusetts. Other states are watching our progress and they noted what you were doing. And now you have a great opportunity. But as Bruce said, it's a loss for us. But I want to just express my personal thank you for the work that you have done to stand up the division and get us on the right track of the processes so that we understand this new industry. You've come with such experience. And I don't think I want to see you in person again, Sterl, at least officially, hopefully our paths will cross. But I just want to wish you well. Thank you. I'd like to say, Sterl, thank you. You've been invaluable to me since day one. When I first came through these doors at the mass gaming commission, you were the one of the very first people I met. And your knowledge of the casino world was invaluable to me in helping me become a better commissioner. And certainly what you have done for sports wagering for this agency over the last, well, let's say a year, has been invaluable to the entire agency. And again, the time and effort that you put in to make sure that sports wagering was up and running here in the Commonwealth is something that many people will never know. I know how much work you put into it, how much studying you did. It was like being in college. I know that there were a lot of late nights for you to ensure that the commission had the information that it needed to be able to make the decisions to make sports wagering a reality here in Massachusetts. I'm going to miss you. Our conversations not only professionally, but personally, I loved a lot of humor between us. I will miss that dearly, but I wish you the very, very best in your next endeavor. And I know you'll be great at it. So thank you for everything. Thank you. Michelle, Brian. Yeah, I had the chance to say this to you, person's drill. And I heard, which is my first response was that was a great opportunity for you. And I'm really happy for you. The second is basically what commissioner held to seven, which is a huge loss for us. And for me personally, you have been great at following up with me after meetings when I ask a question to say, I'm, you know, I'm not so far out of the ballpark and to tell me exactly where to go and what I need to know about it. And I told you this already that, you know, I know where to find you. So I'm sure this is not the last time we're going to be talking because I will be tracking you down with questions. And please let us know what you do well in North Carolina. So we can learn from it. I wish you luck with the move from New England down to North Carolina and I hope you will stay in touch with us and keep us posted. Thank you commissioner. Commissioner Skinner. Just wanted to add my sentiment as well. I agree with both. All of my fellow commissioners. The Senate. That's. You will be missed. Your. Sports wagering was invaluable to me. I always appreciated your willingness to take my phone call. After hours. To get me ready for the meeting. I just wanted to make sure that I understood the subject matter. Quite as well as you did. But you got me the information that I needed and I appreciate that. Congratulations to you. And I wish you the best of luck. Thank you commissioner Skinner. Oh, I think. Yeah, I think we're trying to figure out that background noise. I don't, I can't tell who it isn't muted. It's behind me and the cube or something. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. So, so, ironically I was in the Carolinas when I found out. And so I have good news. You can. Toss a lot of the winter clothing from, from here on your way down. I echo what everyone else says. You've been fantastic. You've taught me some obscure rules of some obscure games that I wasn't familiar with all in the duty in order to do what we're charged to do. And I appreciate you. A lot of people don't know this, but straw also has Kentucky roots like I do. So we, we share that. And I hope that, that you have a lot of joy and happiness in your new role. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Commissioner Maynard. I thank you all. If I could just, I'd like to thank the MGC for giving me the opportunity. To learn and grow in the gaming industry. Over the past eight years. So many great people have helped me to continue to learn and grow. And my knowledge. In the regulatory side of the business. I hope that I've done the same. And I hope that I've helped each and every one of you. And you've learned from me as much as I've learned from you. I will no longer be here. I hope that what I have done will continue on. Finally, this isn't goodbye. Like everyone said, but until we meet again or speak. You all. Can know that I am in North Carolina, but I'm just a phone call away. I wish everyone nothing but the best. This organization is great. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Now, now with that. Right. Now onto the. Task at hand, which is the house rules. So. Before you and the commissioners packet. On page 17. We start with fanatics and house rules. We have house rules for fanatics and draft kings on the docket today. So. Under 205 CMR 247. Subsection zero to four. Commission reviews of all changes. Proposed by a licensee to their house rules. The sports way during the operator shall not change or modify these house rules without the fire written approval of the commission. Failure of the operator to act in accordance with these house rules may result in disciplinary action. So what we have here is. Fanatics. And I will just give you the summary of which you had in. Had a great deal of changes, but I would have to say that 90% of these changes are pure grammatical. Or phrasing changes. As you. So. There was mostly. The changes in phrases. And then they got into specifics. With certain wagers to make sure. All of the changes that are going on in the sports. Were addressed. So a couple of the highlighted changes I'd like to put out there. Is that they discussed. How the mercy rule again is showing up in baseball. So that is new. How. Now in baseball. A pitcher no longer has to throw four pitches. They can just tell the umpire that they. Will issue the walk. And they wanted to make sure that these rules. Are reflected in these wagers. So that if somebody has a plate appearance. It is a plate appearance in a game. To. To make the bet. The wager ballot. So those were all of the changes here. And in closing of the. The generalizations. And before I open it up to questions. For the commissioners. I wanted to let you know that the division confirmed that all of these requirements. Have been met under 205 C.M. R. 247. Zero two. And that the sports wagering division. No reservations about moving forward and approving these changes submitted by. So if there's anybody. I'm out of chair. I leave it. Thank you. Thank you. Many. Any questions on. This fanatics request. Very helpful memorandum. Thanks. Okay. Should we vote on these separately? I think so. Madam chair. I actually was going to. Put them together unless anybody objects. All right. Are we okay with that? Do separate. I mean, do them together. Okay. Okay. I will move on to the second one. And the second one is. Submitted. Same, same way, but it's from. Crown. MGM gaming. Doing businesses draft Kings. So draft Kings. Submitted. Their. Changes. To their house rules. Again. Very similar. And this cadence will continue to go on as all of the operators. Review their house rules for corrections. 90% of these were just corrections. And. All of the pages were outlined in the memorandum. They removed a lot. They got into specifics, but mostly clarifying language. Again, with the initials. They were adding how their. Ragers. Are will be judged. And, and to do that. Again, also just as. Fanatics. They got into specifics. They have a new type of wager, which is. It's the same wager. They just call it differently. I believe it was called a monster prop. Or a monster parlay. So in, in doing so, they added those sections. And then just made sure that if one. Because of the rules, they're very specific. If one leg of their parlay is missing. The whole wager is bored. So there's no. Confusion to the patron on whether they have action or not on their waiters. So going through that, I would like to highlight. They put. Stat box. Stat box. So they added those sections and then just made sure that if one. Stat bomb. In a, in a certain section. And we, we also worked with draft Kings to make sure that they were licensed. Stat bomb is used by a vendor who is officially licensed in the state of Massachusetts. So there is no problems with that change in being specific. Regulations. So again, going through it. So all of the updates were either grammatical or just. Clarifying to make sure there was no confusion to any of the customers. So in doing so, the division confirms that all the requirements have been met under 205 CMR 247. And that the sports wager and no reservations about moving forward on these changes. All changes provided better clarity in the description of terms. Any questions. Again, excellent memo. Very helpful commissioners. Sounds like a, stroll, they, they don't have any questions for you only compliments, praise and gratitude today. So thank you. And, and always. Do we have a motion. We do, Madam chair. We do, madam chair, I move that the commission approve the amendments to the house rule submitted by category three sports, wager and operator fanatics as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today and further move that the commission approve the amendments to the house rule submitted by the category three sports, wager and operator draft Kings as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Thank you, commissioner Skinner. Okay. Any questions on that motion dealing with both entities requests? Okay. Commissioner, Brian. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Still, you have five zero vote and we thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay. Now, we're moving right on to chief Delaney and community affairs division. Good morning, Joe. Good morning. Thank you, madam chair and commissioners. Today we want to talk a little bit about some possible modifications to the community mitigation fund going forward. And I'm with me is Mary Thirlow and Lily Wallace, who we've, we've all been working hard on this on trying to identify some of the things that we think that, that we might be able to do a little bit better in the future. So I, I, I submitted a memo for you and I won't go through the entire memo. There's a lot of background on the program and so on, but there is a chart that's in the memo that shows what our expenditures have been on the community mitigation fund and just looking at the very last line of that, of that chart in 2023, we had $28 million available and we awarded 10.2 million dollars. So from that, I think it's quite clear that we have not been fully utilizing the funds that are available and, and part of our goal here is to try to improve the utilization of the fund so that we certainly come closer to spending the monies that we do have available. So as we're looking at this, we've identified a number of program challenges and I don't think anyone here is going to hear a whole lot new. We've been talking about this for a couple of years. But the first issue that we have continually is, is the applicant's ability to identify and quantify casino related impacts. You know, in, in, in many cases, you know, we've, we've told the folks to try to use our research agenda and, you know, other information that they have available. We said, you know, there are traffic studies. There are other things that are available for them to use in trying to identify these impacts. But, you know, they, they continually have difficulty sort of trying to identify and quantify those impacts. And this is certainly the single largest reason for denial of grants. So that is, that it's a huge challenge for our, our, our applicants. The second item is really community capacity is what we're calling it here. A lot of the communities that we deal with don't have dedicated staff for writing grants, you know, particularly out in Region B. We have a lot of smaller communities. Sometimes they will share a planner between communities or whatever it might be and don't really have a dedicated staff to, to really be working on grant applications. And when it's something that's, that's a competitive program, you know, a lot of the communities we've heard, they just don't want to spend the time on something that they're not really, you know, guaranteed that they're going to get. So that, that's a challenge. But we've also found not only in the small communities, but even in the large communities, certainly closer to Boston and including Boston as having huge challenges maintaining staff to, to write grants and administer grants and so on. So there is, there are concerns there with sort of the ability of the communities to, to do good grant applications. A third item is sort of the general program structure. This grant is not set up like any other grant that I've, that I've ever seen. You know, typically on a grant program, a grant, you know, will go out on the street and people will, will take out the package to and look at the grant. And there'll usually be an opportunity for questions and answers sometime before the grant applications are due. So usually there'll be a conference call with, with potential applicants who will ask their questions and so on. And then once applications are submitted from then on, it's typically, you know, radio silence, there is no more, there is no more discussion. There's no more anything. And then internally a review team will review the grant applications, will rate them, rank them, and then the awards will be made internally, you know, without any further contact. In our case, it's really kind of the opposite. We, we, we get applications and then we will do an initial review of them. And if we have questions or we need follow-ups, we send out a request for supplemental information, which then gets returned to us. And really, in almost every one of these requests for supplemental information, we're usually asking about the connection to the casino and having more information with it, so that really relates to the, to the first point. But I think what happens here is we are reviewing all of these applications and we come up with these letters, then we get the additional information and then we're reviewing the applications again. So internally, we're really doing almost two full reviews of these applications. And then sometimes we'll even have a follow-up phone call if there's still questions that need to be answered. You know, it's great that we're able to do that and have this sort of back and forth, but it really creates an awful lot of extra work for the review team and, you know, for staff here. So this, and also for our applicants who need to respond to these requests for supplemental information and so on. So that is, that's a little bit of a problem, I think just from, just from a, you know, a manpower standpoint of getting all of the work done timely. And then, of course, the review and approval process, you know, currently we have a review team and we review things on a consensus basis. We don't really have a formal scoring system, you know, because we have several different categories of grants and, you know, it's a little bit of comparing apples to oranges in some cases. Now, the fact that the program is not financially constrained right now, that has worked okay. And, you know, but there's, that's just a little bit different from the way a lot of other other programs are run. And then, of course, the approval process that we have now where all of the applications come before the commission for a presentation and a vote is also, you know, fairly time consuming between the preparing of the memo, doing two by twos and doing all of the various meetings in front of the commission, you know, this is, again, something that's a little bit out of the ordinary on typical grant programs. Usually something like this wouldn't necessarily rise to a commissioners level, or if it did, it would just be a sort of an affirmation of the recommendations that were made. So again, it's just a, that's just a, you know, sort of a workforce item as well. And then the last item that we were finding, especially this year was, we were getting a lot of applications for routine municipal expenditures. You know, these, this program was always designed to be doing something that was over and above what the community is regularly doing and, you know, to address that casino-related impact. This year we were getting a lot of requests for, you know, sort of replacing vehicles and those kinds of things. And that's really just a matter of, I think, of making it known that those kinds of things aren't eligible and maybe we need to be a little bit more specific in that area. But in looking at those challenges that we have, we've come up with some potential improvements to the program. And again, I don't think, you know, we've heard a lot of these things before. We've discussed them before, but, you know, haven't taken it any further than that. And, you know, the first item is a legislative change to sort of increase the eligibility. And we don't really know exactly what this would look like, but it could expand the eligibility to more communities. It could specifically say what types of projects might be eligible for funding and so on. This is, you know, if we did that, we certainly believed that that would lead to an increase in applications and in spending. But, you know, the, there's been a great reluctance on the part of the commission, as well as our advisory committees to want to reopen 23K and do something like this. You know, it's certainly something that we could consider, but also it's something that wouldn't happen overnight either. This would be a bit of a process to get those legislative changes. And we need to really know what those changes would look like. So a second option is revising the current guidelines to be a little bit more prescriptive. And so in the past couple of years ago in our community planning applications, we did just that. We reviewed some of our research and identified particular impacts of the casinos as they relate to amenities like restaurants and entertainment venues and things like that, saying that, you know, there are impacts to those types of things. So communities can, you know, rely on that and they don't have to go to the ends of the earth to sort of quantify what that impact is. And the thought here is that we could certainly do that in other areas. We could do it in the transportation area. We could do it, I think, in public safety, where again, we would go through all of the research that we have available to us and try to expand that eligibility through that effort. So just as an example, in the last study, I believe that Christopher Bruce did for us, he did a DUI study. And in that he concluded that indeed the casinos do contribute to DUIs in the communities. So if we say as a commission that that is an impact of the casino and that if a community, if their police department or whatever has some kind of program that they think would help reduce that, that would be eligible for funding. So what we would do is go through all of the research. In fact, we're doing this right now. I know Lily and Mary have been going through all of our research reports and we've been working with Mark and his staff to try to identify some of these things. So we think no matter what we do, we think that we should pursue this piece of this to saying, hey, let's try to get more things out there where we say to a community, if you do these kinds of things, those are eligible because these are the impacts of the casino. So I think regardless, we would like to pursue that. But then the third item is something that we've talked about with our local community mitigation advisory committees a little bit just in general principle, which is converting this program into a block grant program. Now the way block grant programs work is that a community, and this is primarily going to the federal community development block grant. We're using that as a little bit of a model here. So the idea behind that is, there's a formula that's created and a community will get a certain amount of money based on that formula. And then the community has to put together a work plan that shows what they're proposing to do within the framework of the guidelines of the program. So if we were to do something like that, well, and the LCMAC is really like this idea, they thought it would be really a great idea because it would give community some certainty around how much money they'd receive. It would provide the communities an incentive to apply for the money, knowing that it's been set aside for them. So for some of those smaller communities who are saying, well, we don't really want to apply because we're not really sure we're going to get the money and we don't want to spend the time, this gives them incentive to certainly apply for that money. And we also think that it would ease some of the administrative burden on our grantees, but also I think on staff as well. So what does that mean for the community mitigation fund program? We would have to develop an entirely new set of guidelines that clearly would identify what those casino related impacts are and what kinds of things that the communities could do to address those impacts. And we think that in the guidelines, we haven't fully fleshed this out yet, but we think in the guidelines, we would still have funding categories, probably a transportation category or a public safety category and a community planning category as we do now. And then of course, we would have to create a formula for distributing the funds. And we want that to be both equitable and relatively easy to implement. Some of the factors that we're thinking about in the formula would include sort of distance from the casino, further away from the casino, you get the smaller the impacts typically are. We also thought, we have this traffic studies that show the distribution of traffic so that we know certain communities are more impacted by say traffic than other communities are. So we were thinking about that as a possible factor in a formula. And then another thing we're thinking about, and we've talked to our licensees a little bit about this, we need to see if we can get this data from them, but looking at casino employee residency, we're in the casino employee's living in relation to the casino and that could also be a factor in how much money communities get. Some of the other things we would have to think about are also probably some, we'd need to carve out some money for programs. Like for instance, our workforce program, that money isn't going to a community, that's going to a consortium. So we would probably wanna pull that out and still do that as a competitive process, one in the East, one in the West. And then we have money that goes to DA's offices, we would probably wanna carve that out from this. So there are definitely things that we would have to consider. It's not just completely clean to say, let's make this thing a block grant. And then the other thing we might wanna look at is potential changes to eligibility. Over the years, the commission has sort of defined what the eligible communities are for the community mitigation fund. We may or may not wanna revisit that. We could say, hey, the communities who are eligible today are still eligible or we may wanna look at that. So what we are proposing, we are recommending that we further investigate this block grant approach. And because we think that addresses more of the issues than any of the other approaches. We think it will help increase utilization of the program, improve the quality of applications and help better address, identify casino related impacts, while also decreasing the level of effort required to prepare, review and approve applications. So what we're asking for today is just a sense of the commission. I think we haven't listed for a vote, but I'm not sure we necessarily need one, but we'd like to get a sense of the commission on whether or not you would like us to move ahead with this proposal. What we are proposing is to, if you do approve this, is to create sort of a framework for this proposal that we will come back to the commission with towards the end of August. And then once we have that framework together, we would go out to our local community mitigation advisory committees to get some input. And also we are proposing, if you do approve this in early August, to convene a meeting of all of our current grantees, all of those grant managers and the folks who have participated in the program to run this notion by them. We've talked to our local community mitigation advisory committees, but we really wanna talk to the people who run these grant programs on a day-to-day basis to get their input and see what they think would be helpful. So that is essentially where we are. We have run this by legal and we got sort of an initial quick review from Carrie saying that, it looks like this block grant approach would fit within our current framework. Obviously, there'd be more work to do on that as we further develop this. And the last piece is we really do wanna have this, if we're gonna move ahead with this, we'd really like to have this ready for our next round of funding, which means we would have a lot of work to do between now and November, when we typically roll these out. So with that, I think that kind of sums up our memo and I guess at this point I'd open it up for any questions. There's questions for Joe on this proposal. He's not looking for a vote, he's looking for a green light of sorts today. Any questions for the proposal as written? Thanks, Commissioner O'Brien. So Joe, I hear what you're saying on the requests and I know the work that goes into it. I'm not really there yet on block grants and sort of taking the commission out substantially from the allocation of the grants. I like the idea of defining nexus for you guys a little bit more so you guys aren't spending time doing that. Obviously the legislative fix, I think we can work on language, obviously that's not gonna help you guys in the immediate future, right? I mean, that's somewhat beyond our control. I know we've been talking about getting more specific and more help. I did finally get, we don't get the global email, I finally did get the email for the grants coordinator in the AGES office, et cetera, to sort of help on the public safety, human trafficking thing that we talked about getting more specific and trying to get the word out more. I guess that's where I am right now is I hear you, I agree with you, the things need to be done. I like the ideas of doing as much as possible so that you guys can get some off your plate, but I'm not a huge fan of the block grants necessarily, nor am I a huge fan of taking the commission out of it. I'd rather look at ways to expedite what you guys do and our process so that you guys are taxed trying to get us up to speed. Any follow-up to Commissioner O'Brien's? Any independent, okay, Commissioner? Yep, thank you, Madam Chair. And I actually am for the block grants. I think after sitting through these now for a year or so, that we definitely need to do something different. And to my friend, Commissioner O'Brien, what I would like to see happen is maybe we can go down parallel paths, is I would like to see Joe and his crew move forward with a proposal for a block grant so that we can see what it would look like. And at the same time, have meetings with the communities who are receiving these grants to see what they think. I don't see what would be wrong with doing that and then coming back to us with a proposal. And legislatively, I'd like to sit down with everybody and maybe come up with some language that we could all agree on because clearly what's happened, the process that's happening now is flawed. I think at the beginning of the process, 10 years ago, it worked well, but the communities are finding it very difficult to tie these monies to anything happening at the casinos at this time, 10 years later. So I would like to see them move forward and come back to us with a proposal and with comments from community leaders and those involved through a public meeting and see what they have to say. And I don't think we're not making a yes or no vote today. I'd like to see what a block grant proposal would look like and I would like to see that move forward actually. Okay, let's see here from the other commissioners, commissioner Maynard and commissioner Skinner. I think that makes sense what commissioner Hill is proposing. One of the questions that I had in reading the memo, Jo, you noted that there needs to be some additional investigation and you don't have to answer this now because I know that you're gonna take this back and think very diligently about it, but what does that entail? I need to be more informed as to how the block grant works. I'd also like and I'm sure you are planning to do this Derek to weigh in as to that kind of a structure. I think he said also that there is no legal impediment, meaning that there's nothing in the statute that precludes the commission from moving in this direction. I would imagine we'd need to change our regulations at some point, but I am interested in seeing what a proposal looks like, not necessarily ready to commit to switching over, but I think it is worthwhile to explore it. And certainly all of the other steps that you've outlined or the recommendations that you've outlined to move toward a greater efficiency, I think also I'm on board with you further exploring those recommendations. So thank you, it was a really good memo, easy to follow. So thank you for that in your presentation. Commissioner Maynard. Well, first of all, thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I will say, Joe, you and your team do awesome work taking the 10,000 foot view, right? We've all traveled the state and seen what these dollars have done and whether it was a smart red light or a road project, I'm thinking of different ones but it's huge. I've been a proponent, I've been a public proponent of making it really easy because for the reasons you said, Joe, where there's some difficulties from some of the applicants knowing what to put in, how to put in, which box to go to. So I do think anything we can do to streamline is helpful. I do wanna see these dollars go out to the communities. But that said, and I'm not gonna put you on the spot here, I wanna make sure that you and your team are good with this, that it's not just a proposal that the commission has said and you're following up on. I wanna know, can it be implemented quickly? I want you to let us know kind of what you're looking at. Obviously, Commissioner Hill has had a lot of time working with you on this. So that's important to me, everything he said and I agree that I would like to see what the proposal looks like. But again, just wanna support the projects, make them easy, make sure that these dollars go out to communities and communities can make use of these dollars in the best way that they can. Great, I really, I think you're hearing, Joe, that needs to maybe be a little bit more clarification. You and I've had a chance to speak about your proposal. I support it. I had a really good conversation with Joe when I learned that we don't have to make this decision. The commissioners don't have to make these decisions and of course I'm familiar with more traditional grant programs too. So it was really good for me to hear that. With that said, block grants, I don't have a problem with that, I'd love to hear more, but I think that's an exciting proposal with respect to commission input. I think about the meetings that I've been involved with and I always say community mitigation is like my favorite presentation because it's always fun to give out money to really deserving communities. I understand the logic that it shouldn't be a commission vote and certainly no need for the two by twos and then the repeat, that's just so much work. But I do wonder if maybe as we think about everyone's remarks today, Commissioner O'Brien has commented maybe not taking the commission out altogether. And I think maybe we talked about this perhaps even where you said you bring to the commission's attention, the memorandum with the final decision with some kind of a regulatory provision that would allow the commission to weigh in, should they spot something that's of interest to them as commissioners who've been appointed by the elected officials under our governing body. Just something, I guess my thinking is it's like gonna be almost always an endorsement of that, but if that's too much process that's gonna cause a big bump then we should weigh in on that too. You know what I mean? But I think you talked about that, right? I think with respect to commissioners input, I wasn't suggesting one way or the other really I was just outlining that as one of the challenges that the program has that it does create an awful lot of work for everybody, for the commissioners, for staff, for our grantees and that is something that we could look at. It can be, obviously the commission can be as involved as it would like to be. So I think I wasn't suggesting that I guess if it came across that I was suggesting eliminating that input, that wasn't the intent. The intent was just saying that it is a challenge to the program that we may wanna look at. Yeah, and just so that you, I'll repeat Joe's little bit of our conversation. I've only been here where there's been big presentations and I actually thought that that was something that the community affairs program really wanted to do to the extent that that's not of interest to you. I think streamlining is so important because staying informed about the process and because there are, I think commissioner Skinner pointed out, there's financial implications and that's why maybe having Chief Lennon check it out is important. But I think maybe it's a memo, it could be a memo to the commission with how the money is going out and then commissioners can enjoy visits to see how the community mitigation funds are being used. Something like that could work and be much more streamlined. In terms of the block grants, I'm with commissioner Hill on that, but I think it sounds like folks just want a little bit more information. Commissioners, commissioner Maynard. Any other thoughts? I see a thumbs up. All right. Is that a little bit of guidance, Lily? And yeah. So let me just recap here then what the commissioner would like is for us to start moving forward in looking at the block grant approach and seeing and kind of creating a framework for it and what it's gonna look like and getting some input from our grantees and so on. And then coming back to the commission at some point to say, all right, to either get the green light to move ahead or not. Because I think what would have to happen is let's say we come back to the commission on the meeting on August 24th with sort of a framework. If, you know, I guess at that point we would need a really a decision, a go or no go on it, because we would have to either really, you know, work hard to get that program up and running or we would have to pivot to our current guidelines and revising those, which will still be a process that we have to go through. And that usually starts, you know, it's sort of August. So we'd be a little bit, maybe a little bit behind on that process. But I think what we would propose for this year if we aren't gonna move ahead with this is that we probably wouldn't, I think with a couple of additional categories we added last year, there probably wouldn't be any wholesale changes that we'd be proposing to make on our current guidelines, probably just some tweaks around the edges, like, you know, adding in some of these things from the research that we did, you know, on impacts and maybe being more prescriptive on, you know, some of the things that maybe aren't allowed under say the public safety grants or some of the categories where we're having some difficulties. So I think, you know, coming back at the end of August, it'll be fairly critical at that point to either get, you know, the go or no go on it. Or we could get the no go and keep developing it. You know, I mean, you know, develop our guidelines as they sort of currently are and keep working on this block grant, maybe not for this year, but for next year. If that's, you know, the way the commission wants to go, I guess we'll cross that or burn that bridge when we come to it, as my father used to say. I think we're allowed to burn bridges still. It's not a good idea though. Commissioner Maynard, are you leaning in? Is there any further guidance? Did Joe summarize okay or anything we wanna help with? Yeah, I just wanna say one thing. If Joe, Joe, Mary and Lily, if you wanna do this, I'm gonna support you doing. So at the end of the day, that's where I'm gonna fall just to take some of this mystery out of it. If you wanna do it, I'm gonna support you doing it. And I just wanna make sure that that's the way you wanna go and just wanna clarify what I said earlier. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think that's probably where I am too. But for those who are looking for just a little bit more information, it's how Joe's plan, is that working out? Does that work out for you all? Commissioner Maynard, did you wanna add in at all? No, I mean, I think Joe summarized it correctly. Part of my hesitation with the block grant obviously is there wasn't really detail in it. And so, and I did misconstrue, Joe, some of my apologies that it looked like these were requests for to sort of make these whole cloth changes. That's why I was looking for a little more detail. So I think that if we're gonna get more specifics going forward about how to do it. And as I said before, I'll reiterate, we do need to streamline it. It's a lot of work and back and forth. And the team does a lot of effort going back to applicants to fill holes, to try to get the money out where it's needed. And so the most that we can do to make it as clear as possible coming in the door and minimize that load on them, I think we need to do. Can I add one thing? My apologies, Joe, because I forgot this earlier. I know that you mentioned that the, I think he's framed it and perhaps you didn't really frame it this way that the commission is on the legislative language is worried about opening up 23K. I don't think the commission's worried about that. And I do know commissioner Hill, you and I spoke when you came on that we, there's, there's been a real burden for this division on the language that is in the statute. So. But yeah, I think, Madam Chair, my intent there was saying that historically that has been a concern. And it is still a concern of the LCMACs, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. And you hear that, but- We would hear from them like, don't do that. But there are, there are other vehicles to get a legislative change. And so commissioner Hill is aware of those other options and vehicles besides actually opening up the statute. So I guess I wouldn't eliminate that if that also to commissioner Maynard's point would be helpful for you in implementing your program. We can work on that. And again, it doesn't like commissioner Maynard said doesn't necessarily fix the problem tomorrow, but we could at least signal that we would like that change. Any other pressure skinner you're all set? Okay. Okay, well, I think we have our marching orders. Great work. Thank you. Okay. So we're going to turn right then to item number six. Thanks, Lily. Thanks, Mary. Item number six, Dr. Lightbaugh. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. So this is a new fresh look at the application form for a new racetrack. It's not a look at the renewal application. I'm joined today with Caitlin Moynihan, deputy general counsel and USDA and associate general counsel for the commission. I'm just going to do a high overview and then Judith can go through the item by item, the sections and go over it in more detail. The application asked for more detail about the track surface and all itself. It requires a traffic study. It requires the necessary approvals of 128A section 13A in 14 local approvals basically. It does allow for a waiver of qualifier status and liability coverage for horses. It talks about leasing of the property and then asks for how the track would handle dormant accounts for ADW accounts. So that's kind of a high overview of some of the major changes or clarifications. And now I'll turn it over to associate general counsel Young. Morning commissioners. Good morning. So I'm here today to just walk you through the application to hold or conduct a new racing meeting. As Dr. Lightbound said, this is an application for first time or new licensees. So this application wouldn't necessarily apply to someone who already holds a racing license. The commission last saw this document or I guess a version of it in 2022 when general counsel now interim executive director Grossman and Dr. Lightbound worked quite heavily on conducting and creating a new document. So this new draft for calendar year 2024 jumps off of that initial document and makes some changes that Dr. Lightbound set forward. So before I walk you through section by section and kind of point out those changes to you, I just kind of wanted to set the table. I'm sure as you're all aware racing and licensure as well as the application of new applicants is set forth within chapters 128A and 128C. Most significantly the application and the requirements of an application are set forth in chapters 128A section two, more generally laying out the things that are required within the application. But most significantly here 128A section two, subsection six allows the commission the discretion to ask any other questions that the commission would prescribe or add any of those questions into the racing application. So as Dr. Lightbound said, the addition of the question regarding a track some of the other information that we've required this time around of an applicant, including suitability. Those are things that the commission and its discretion within 23K section seven that grants the commission authority to administer and enforce the racing statutes as well as 128A section two allows the commission. So with that, I will go ahead and walk you through this application. It starts on page 37 within your packet. We've provided a red line to you that just kind of sets out the major changes between the 2023 draft of the application that you saw last year and this draft that we were calling the 2024 draft mainly because this application is due for applicants to submit to the commission by October 1st and then the commission must issue a decision by November 15th so that this person or applicant would race in the year following. So although it is still halfway through 2023 colloquially we refer to this application as the 2024. Any questions on that before we start walking through commissioners? Fantastic. All right, so on our first page within the meeting packets page 37 you will see some red line changes here and that is just anytime Microsoft Word detects the minutest of a change it will come forth in red line. So there are lots of lines on the left hand margin of your page but in reality on this page we've only updated the fact that it's asking for the calendar year similar to what we've just kind of set out we wanna start making it very clear to our applicants what year they'd like to apply in. I'd like to just call out to you on the bottom of page one, the notice that this was included in the regulation or excuse me in the application last year that the commission under its authority in chapter 128A may reject an application for lack of administrative completeness or in its discretion may grant leave to an applicant to provide supplemental or corrective information. We thought that that was important to include and we'll walk you through a few provisions that Dr. Lightbaum has set out as to why we think it's important to still have. So moving on to page two of the application, page 38 within your packet and section one, this section is background information that is heavily discussed within the statute seeking that information from the applicant so that the commission can easily identify applicants in case there is one or more. Their organizational structure, mailing address, business address, information for the applicant's lead attorney including their BDO or Board of Bar Overseers number, excuse me. But just to point out, although there are red line changes in this section, it's mostly just that we've added more space that someone can type into. However, there's been no substantive changes made to section one. So with that, I can carry on to section two unless anyone would like to ask myself for Dr. Lightbaum questions. Okay. All right, moving on to section two, this gets into project summary and financing and how the applicant intends to finance the project or the proposed project that they're putting forth for the commission. This asks them to submit any sort of information that they have regarding the racetrack, clubhouse, grandstand, the amenities and attractions that'll ultimately be what this project will entail and kind of the drawing factor for it. So in this section, in addition to some grammatical cleanups in the parking space question and letter D, we've gone into section 2.3 and asked for more information in regard to the size of the track as well as what kind of ground surface the track would contain or what races would be raced upon. In working with Dr. Lightbaum, I've learned a great deal about racing in that there are different kinds of tracks and different types of ground structure. And so I think it's important for the commissioners to have that information as they evaluate an application. Dr. Lightbaum, would you like to add any more commentary to that question or to that section? No, just that we thought that it was valuable for the commissioners to have that information on the application. Commissioners, moving on to page 41 of your packet, I would also point out to you exhibit or I'm sorry, question 2.6, which asks for an exhibit of the same number requiring a traffic study that is performed for the proposed project. In the calendar year 2023 application, that question was originally worded as any traffic study performed for the proposed project, meaning that the applicant was allowed to submit it if they had it. We've now turned that question into a requirement. I think last year we all heard a great deal of public comment asking for more research into the impacts of the surrounding community. And we think that this question would begin to illustrate that conversation and the applicant's intentionality in regard to where the racing application or racing location would be. So with that, I'd like to move you into section three, the schedule of proposed races if there are no questions on section two. Okay, so into section three, this is the schedule of proposed races when racing will take place. All right, my computer is freezing, bear with me. So this section is almost identical to the 2023 racing application, although you can imagine that we've updated the calendar year. We've also had a dropdown added in which case the applicant can say yes or no to whether or not they intend to hold or conduct racing meetings in the same year for which they applied. And additionally, if the answer is no to that question, a detailed explanation is required of the applicant to explain the timeline and infrastructure required as to when they'll be able to commence live racing at their location. Any questions on that? Moving into section four, section four sets out the non-commissioned approvals that are both mentioned within 128A and the approvals that a raceling applicant would likely need to receive from the federal government and other local entities in where the track is located. So we have updated this question or I'm sorry, this section to explicitly inform applicants that they must obtain all necessary approvals, specifically those listed in accordance in 13A and section 14 prior to submitting their application. It further states that these applications will be rejected unless these approvals are received. To draw you back to the first page of the application, we do call out that applicants can submit something for corrective purposes. So say for example, an applicant did have proof of a vote, but ultimately maybe forgot where it wasn't included. We would allow them to submit a corrective action, but ultimately this section has been updated to allow or to require that all approvals are submitted and complete prior to someone submitting their application. Mr. Brown, are you leaving in? I am, yeah, so I'm glad to see this. I think we absolutely needed to do this. The one point that I'm wondering if we need to further clarify is, does it have to be final approval in terms of, I can envision a scenario similar to what we had last year where you have a vote, but it's still within the window where the citizenry can come with the petition to then force a referendum. So is it final approval? I mean, how do we want to word this so that someone is not coming to us the day after the vote? They got a vote on September 27th. They put it in and yet now we have something in front of us, but they're still within that window where you can have the portion of registered voters demand a referendum. I think that's an excellent point, Commissioner. So I think what we could do is we could wordsmith this. So it's much more clear to an applicant that final approval would also include any sort of, and I'm thinking on my feet here, but any sort of post-petition process or referendum that would take place in a town, in which case the vote or local approval was, I don't want to use the word ratified, but confirmed. Or alternatively, this could be something that we clarified within our horse racing regulation framework that'll come before the commission in a few weeks or both. But I do think that we could tighten up that language if desired. Oh, Caitlin, I see you. No, I think it's a really good point, Commissioner O'Brien, and the issue with figuring out how to address it is that the statute does not include a timeframe for that sort of override process that would go on in the town. So what I think the commission would need to do is say something along the lines of votes must be, the required local approval must have been granted 30, 60 days prior to the application deadline, which would then I think give the community sufficient time for the override process, because again, there's not sort of a statutory timeline for the override process. Isn't there a time in another statute though? It's not, it's not, it's comparable, but it doesn't directly apply. Okay. I can go back and look at it, but if we use the term final approval, because right now I guess what I'm looking at is, has obtained all necessary approvals. I'm not seeing final in there anywhere. I think we'll just need to be, I totally understand the point. I think we just need to be really clear because I think an applicant could come in and say, we have final approval. We have no reason to believe there's gonna be an override process, but that override process could still happen. So we kind of need to set it almost our own deadline for the override process. I think it needs to be both. I almost think the word final needs to be in there to make the point at first blush when someone's looking at the application so they know what we're looking for. But then if we bootstrap with another calendar that further defines our expectations, then it can take into account sort of the statutory clock in terms of that referendum that could happen. We can, I think we can definitely work on that. Sorry, I didn't mean to jump in, Judy. I know you had it. The timing is just a little wonky on there. It's a very, I mean, it's an interesting consideration and we've been here before. So this is definitely our attempt to hopefully not land there again, but I will do some research on my end and see what we can do between the statute and regulation and this draft application as well. Madam Chair? Yes. So I just want to clarify application as well. So when we say all approvals, does that include local approvals in regards to planning board, infrastructure, things of that sort? I mean, I know the answer is like, if they've been in the license first in order to move forward with their project, but if I read that, I would think that would include those things as well. So does it? So I would say that lower within section four, question 4.4 asks the applicant to submit a schedule of all other hospitality, federal, land use, permits, licenses and approvals of the applicant. We would want to see all of that. But I can go, I mean, in drafting this Commissioner Hill, I can go a step further and call out a specific question for any other initial, I don't want to say host community because that's a term of art that we've kind of made within the commission, but something that has explicit call out for where the racing track would be located and sort of those approvals made by the town or select board, is that necessarily what you're speaking about? I am, I'm just reading it and I don't see where it says local. I think that that's in what is now 4.4 or the local type of approvals that refers to federal or other approvals required for the applicant to construct and operate its facility. The word local doesn't appear in there, but I think that's what that's getting at. And that question kind of imputes an understanding that they won't necessarily have all of those permits. But the question, I believe you're discussing actively in 4.1 is specifically related to the 13A approval and then the one, and then on the next page, it talks about the section 14 approval. So those are two that have to be done. And then the others, I think there's an understanding that they might come a little bit happy. Can you give more examples for each of those categories, please? It would be helpful to me, I don't know commissioners if you've got it all clear, but for each category, because I am like the 13A and the 14A, the commissioner of Brian's point, we were kind of popped because we learned that the local approval was required before it can move forward. I wanna make sure that we don't over hamper the applicant, but we also don't wanna be in the position we were in before. So I guess I'm just trying to get clarity around the categories. I should have looked at the statute last night and I didn't. No problem. So starting first from section four, question 4.1, that asks for approval in accordance with section 13A of 128, that is local approval. So a specific town coming together and approving where that racing project, racing meeting would occur. And then question jumping down a bit to question 4.3, that question is in regard to section 14, which is the county approval for where the specific county where the racing location would be. And then going further to commissioner Hills question, and what is the red line 4.4? So the last question prior to section five, that question sets out other state, we can certainly add the word local to that question, state, local, federal, permits, licenses or approvals. So in that case, perhaps somebody would need to go and receive approval before the map or before MEPA. If somebody intended to have a hotel or any sort of place of common cartilage, they would need to likely have some kind of approval. If a person intended to serve alcoholic beverages, perhaps they would need to start that sort of approval as well, but sort of any other license or permitting required to operate a facility such as this, we would wanna see those, that information come forward in this question as an exhibit or exhibit 4.5 more specifically. Is that helpful, Madam Chair? I can think back last year, I think there was a conservation issue, right? So that would fall into that category. Correct. That's really helpful. Thank you. My question. Any additional questions? I have one. I'm sorry, Judy, you're doing so great, by the way. Thanks. There's a under section 4.4, it says please know, it says the commission and it may have been struck, but no word has been put in front of reject. Is that gonna change to a shall? Or is it gonna stay a may? You know what, let me, that may have been an accidental deletion. Let me check the final version very quickly. I can jump to it. That is a big notation, which seven. Okay, so that looks to be an accidental deletion, Commissioner, in the final clean copy, the note reads, please note, the commission may reject an application for lack of completeness or impose a license condition requiring that the applicant acquire all needed approvals outlined in section 4.5 before they are permitted to operate. So just to be clear, that may exist just for question 4.5 and the previous questions in this section requiring local approval and proof of county approval, those are required. And we've set out under each question that they are mandatory. Got it. And I would just add my voice into this that I'm fine with the schedule language. And really what I'm trying to avoid the elephant in the room here is that I do not wanna be dragged out to a community that may or may not want something before we ever get this and have to sit and really put the commission in between the community and the applicant. I wanna avoid that. I don't ever wanna do that again. Any additional questions or thoughts on the section commissioners? It is largely, I would say, the meat and potatoes of this application and pertains to really important stuff. So. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Hill. I just wanna, and you clarified it, but if I'm reading the language and I think Todd read it to us, is the last sentence in 4.4, for any such approvals that have not yet been obtained, the applicant's progress toward and plans for acquiring them. I think that addresses what I was wondering about for the local things, because you're not gonna have all those permits in hand when you're filling out this application because you wouldn't go forward if you didn't get approval from us first. So that addresses what I think my concern was. So thank you. Thank you, Todd. There's one detail that Commissioner O'Brien, I'd love to explore with you. I want it because I don't understand the local referendum process well enough or an appeal process. When you say final, we should probably take a moment to really know what that means because final Commissioner O'Brien might be different than what we're thinking here. I just don't know what final means. Yeah, I don't know if that's the word, whether it's binding, whether it's final. I think that was Judy's point of wanting to Lord Smith to make sure that what we're saying is accurate, that our intention is getting across, but within the terms of art of the votes and the referendum. Because I think what we experienced was that the referendum did have a final deadline. It was 60 days down or something. Is that what you were talking about that, Caitlin? But is there something else that could happen after that? That was really my question. Or if they lost that referendum or is that the end of it? You see what I mean? Yeah, the 13A process has a couple of different steps to it. So there's the initial, if it's a town with a select board, approval, the town then has the ability to basically have a referendum and a vote, which all takes time to set up. And then I can't remember if there's sort of a secondary process after that, there may be. So we just need to take a good look at how we would set that up timing-wise and make clear that it's final, final. Like you've gone through the whole process and you're done. There's no more ability for the town to change the decision. Okay, thanks. Because we want to give someone a degree of certainty. So thanks. Yeah, I can, I will commit myself to re-memorizing 13A. I knew it very well last year. And then I think I kind of turned a blind eye, but I will get back on it, commissioner. Well, I'll just say, I thought this was a really, really well done memo and the whole packet came together so nicely. So thank you, Dr. Lightbaum, to you, Judy and Caitlin, thanks. For me, it was really helpful. Anything else, commissioners? Michelle, Brian, you all said, okay, good. Okay. So moving next into section five, that sets out qualifiers and suitability. This section is largely similar to what was presented last year, asking for information pertaining to the suitability of an applicant and requests that they provide a certain amount of information regarding all qualifiers. I would say that the largest question that or change that we've made is to section 5.1. It's been slightly reformatted, excuse me, as Dr. Lightbaum indicated, so that a qualifier could possibly be waived or seek waiver from the commission. So that is down on page 44, your packets at the top of application page eight. So we've simply kind of added language, in which case the applicant can seek waiver for any person on the above list that sets out the qualifier list of that question, who lacks the ability to control the activities of the applicant or who has no significant responsibility or substantial ability to exercise influence over the applicant's operations. This language is standard, I would say, and taken or borrowed to allow it from 116, as well as, I think off the top of my head, I think it's 212.03 of the sports wagering regulations. So kind of bringing all of these areas into the same level and standard. Oh, sick, I think. Moving down into section 5.19, as Dr. Lightbaum previously indicated, this section has been extended to also ask that the applicant demonstrate or submit all the types of insurance that they intend to carry. And we've asked that it include animal insurance. Any questions on this one or comments that you'd like to contribute, Dr. Lightbaum? So I did ask, you know, right now, the only libraries we have is at Plain Ridge, and I did ask them to look into their insurance and see, I'm not sure if race tracks, liability insurance currently covers animals. The horse is generally an individual owner of a horse would take out insurance on a horse if they wanted, but the tracks, liability insurance may very well cover it. So I did ask them to look into that and see what the industry standard is. All right, so commissioners, otherwise the section is identical to what was put forth last year. And then I would just note the call outs underneath each question. We attempt to kind of inform and provide the entity or applicant completing this form with enough notice that they would be aware that if they were awarded a license, they would be required to maintain their suitability. This is very similar to what we provide on the sports wagering side and also our gaming side. Any questions on section five commissioners? Moving on to section six. The section is in regard to public interest and the commission's consideration of, sorry, my computer is freezing again. The interest of members of the public in the racing competition honestly managed enough good quality. This kind of sets forth those enumerated characteristics within 128A section three I. Pretty important provision of the racing statutes in which case the commission is asking the applicant to set forth a large amount of collateral information in regard to their racing project, track, any sort of agreements that they've made with horsemen's associations, that sort of thing. I would say that the main change here is in within an italicized note. We've just kind of improved some of the grammar, but otherwise the section is also not seeing any really substantive changes. Questions commissioners all set. All right. Okay. Section seven, we ask in regards to facilities and equipment in regard to the land that the racetrack is proposed to be located on. We'd like to know how the applicant intends to control it. Do they own the land outright? Is it a lease and easement or other sort of interest? Really how they plan to procure the equipment that they don't currently possess or any sort of information that the applicant intends to provide for security, the care and protection of patrons, the animals on the property, employees, contractors, a lot of collateral information we're asking for in section seven. The main change that we've made in section seven is to section or question, excuse me, 7.3. We've added a dropdown for the person completing this application to submit as an exhibit, a statement explaining their ownership. So this question asks if a person intends to hold a racing meeting on land owned by the Commonwealth and in which case, if the question is yes, we've asked them to submit a statement explaining that ownership. Moving down into section, I'm sorry, question 7.6. We've expanded that question to include the leasing of premises to third parties and asking if the applicant intends to have any sort of portion of their premises leased out to a third party for simulcasting, excuse me, a sports book, restaurants, any sort of collateral entertainment that may take place on the property. Any questions in regard to section seven commissioners? Looks good. Okay, section eight, wagering and simulcasting. As Dr. Leipan indicated, section or question 8.1 has been expanded to have the applicant explain or describe the process in which they'll utilize for handling abandoned or dormant patron accounts and also the call out for the condition underneath that the commission could condition any license or award to an applicant providing a complete proposal for ADW wagering in accordance with 205-CMR 6.20. I will also note that our upcoming regulatory framework will likely be added to this section and question for applicants to kind of understand the requirements listed under that regulation as well. If there's no questions, I'll move into section nine. So section nine lays out the conditions and provisions that are required to be acknowledged and attested to by the applicant prior to their submission of their application. The attestations include that they will maintain the amounts deducted from paramutual wagering. They will of course comply with all federal and state and local laws. So there's local commission on here. Just gotta move it up. Local laws, rules and regulations, necessary ordinances and they agree to that the construction of the premises covered by this application will be subject to inspection by employees of the commission. So this section has not been updated. It is near identical to the language that was included in the application last year. I would say that the main changes are on the affidavit and signing pages. We've just extended those fields and grammatically changed a few mentions of the word such and officer in certain places. But otherwise, this portion of the application is unchanged largely. Any questions, commissioners? Comments? I'll set commissioners. Any other comments or questions? That's now the... Put your affidavit. So I think at this point, we would take the application and likely post it online. Dr. Leibhahn, is that correct and seek commerce? Yes. We put it out for a couple of weeks, Trudy. Yes, I think that's accurate. And then we would bring it back before the commissioners. I mean, this was done last year. We brought it back before the commissioners after receiving public comments. Commissioners were able to kind of hear those comments and then vote to finalize and improve the application. So I'm seeing that the next... Would the version that we saw today be posted or would you edit it to reflect today's discussion? I think that we would try to edit it to reflect today's discussion. So notably, I think I would need to do some research on my end and regarding final approval or what the best, I wanna say term of art or what the best categorization of what final approval could mean in regards to 13A specifically. And also some questions within 4.4 and 4.5. But then from there, I think we could go ahead and post it online. What we would do is show the red line so that interested parties could see the changes between 2023 and 2024 very clearly. But then we would also post, excuse me, not park, a clean copy of the application and draft format. So interested parties and stakeholders could see it and all its glory finalized or semi-finalized, I guess. Any comments, questions, commissioners? Great work. Hey, thank you very much. Kudos to Dr. Leipan and the legal team on this one. I appreciate the help. So Judy did a wonderful job. She took this document and made it around. So a wonderful work on her behalf. Thank you, Dr. Leipan for that. Thanks, commissioners, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks so much. Commissioners, it's 11.45. Mayor, excuse me. I'm sorry, I'm assuming there's no vote necessary here. It's marked up for a vote. So I wanted to just call your attention to that on the racing application. I think what we just heard though was that they're going to put it out for public comment and then bring it back. So they'll edit consistent with our comments today, then it's going to go out for public comment. So I think the vote might be a little premature today. Okay. Is that fine? I'd be reserved the right to vote. Commissioners, I think we, are you comfortable with that? Commissioner Skinner, at this point? I am. I think what Commissioner O'Brien said makes sense if it's not final yet, we shouldn't vote to approve it as such. So my apologies. Oh, no, no problem. Thank you. All right. Now we're moving on to racing items 6B before we talk about possible break. Yeah. So, before you get started, I'd love also an update on the weekend. I think a couple of commissioners got there at least. So. It was a wonderful weekend. Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Hill both were able to attend and got some pictures taken in the winter circle with the winners of the two big races. So that was exciting. We really appreciate them being able to come. I know other commissioners would have loved to be there, but they had important family gatherings. So we appreciate that. Steve O'Toole was able to attend with his accident he was able to come. So has a long road ahead of him, but it was good to see him. And it was a great day. Our test barn tested double their normal amount. On those big races, we do extra testing. And so I wanna give a shout out to the veterinarians and the vet assistants who did a lot of extra work that day. On the licensing, we probably issued about 40 extra licenses through that racing that were connected to the race. So some of them come in a few days before, a lot of them come in that day. And so again, a good shout out to our licensing team and then our judges who are involved in that process as well as the state police unit that works with them on doing the background checks and everything on everybody. And you'll remember last year, we had to postpone it one day to do the extreme heat we had. So it was wonderful this year to be able to have it on the day that it was scheduled. And it was pretty warm. And I'm sure the commissioners will concur with, but it was a great day for racing. And the crowd was the biggest I've seen probably since 2019. So it was great to see a big crowd out there as well. Commissioner Maynard, I know that it was you who was at there, not Commissioner Hild. Was that hot? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh no, that's no problem. Commissioner Hild's daughter was getting married. So he was not able to make it. So very exciting. But Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Skinner, pretty exciting races, huh? I had a lot of fun. It was, I appreciate Dr. Lottbellen taking us around. And Commissioner Skinner and I also went over to the casino side. And I think we had a lot of fun that day. Yeah, good day. We took, the highlight was getting to congratulate the winners. Nice. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, good. Well, maybe we'll see those pictures, but it was good weather and very exciting. So I know you have some business for us now, but we're going to note that. Thank you. So using the delegation authority from 2013, I approved a new starter patrol judge, John McLaughlin, the body. You probably all know him from working on the casino side at Pine Ridge, but he's been involved in racing forever. And he helps Steve out a lot on the racing. So the regular patrol judge who was unable to make it because of the bad range we had and Steve O'Toole is the backup and obviously he was not available. So we had to make that quick decision. And then on the veterinary side, neither of the two association veterinarians that Pine Ridge has now were able to do two days. So I approved Dr. McGee and Dr. McNitt to sub on those days. As well as you know, a lot of the jobs in racing are real-time jobs. They have to be done during when we're race and you can't just put the paperwork aside till tomorrow or whatever. So it's important that we had to have all these positions filled in order to be able to race those days. Any questions? Okay, I'll set. Thank you for managing that Dr. Lightbound. I'll set for Dr. Lightbound. Any further there? Thanks, Commissioner Hill. I appreciate it. Like Kusher O'Brien, you're all set. All right, thanks Alex. Thank you very much. Just sorry I couldn't make it this year, Alex. No, no problem. If I'd been in state, I would have. Next year, right? Yeah, I'm happy to hear Steve is up and about. That's great. I'll have a side or six coming up in the fall end of September, October, which is another great time to come out. I'm sure all my handicapping was missed because I wasn't able to attend. We did miss you all. I thought it was all based on the names, Commissioner Hill. Set your secret. All right, so it's 1151, commissioners. Is it, would you like to have a five minute break or 10 minute break or shall we continue on? We're ahead of. I need a break. I need about 15 to get something to eat and stretch my hand. Okay. Does that work for everybody else? All right, so let's do some math. We'll return around 12.05, 12.10, 12.10, 12.10 is perfect. 12.10. All right, thank you everyone. Big, I think we can take it down. Oh, good to go. Thank you so much. Okay, so this is the convening of the master's of this game commission and because we are holding this virtually, I'll do our roll call after a short break. Commissioner, Brian. I am here. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. Commissioner Mayer. I'm here. All right, we'll get started. And we had a diverse agenda. So now we're turning to item number seven and we're going to turn right over to our colleagues over at A&K and Dave Mackey and Paul Comaners. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. So this item on the agenda relates to the open meeting law complaint that was filed back on July 10th related to the selection of the interim executive director, Mr. Grossman. And it doesn't concern the nature of the meeting on July 10th at all. Obviously that was public and the interviews were conducted in public and deliberations were conducted in public and the public had full access to that. This complaint related to the notice, the meeting agenda for this public meeting that was issued two days, two business days previous to the meeting. And the complaint reflected the position that in that meeting notice, we should have disclosed the names of the two finalists for the position instead of just identifying them as two candidates without giving the name. So what happened with respect to that was when the commission scheduled that meeting they honestly, commission staff ran the agenda, the posting by me, I didn't have any concern about not identifying the candidates on that agenda, recognizing that at the public meeting they would be fully vetted publicly. So didn't advise that they be disclosed on the meeting agenda. The meeting agenda was filed without the names, hence resulting in the complaint from Patrick at openmeetinglawenforcer.com that we should have disclosed the names on the posting and not just at the meeting. So we have a response to Patrick Higgins open meeting law complaint. And honestly, I thought my colleague, Mr. Comerge, could put the proposed response up on the screen share. I'm bringing it up now, all right. And this is what we propose to say to Mr. Higgins writing in response to his complaint, the commission met today delegated its response to the complaint to me. And then really the, you know, where our position on it is in that second paragraph and in particular halfway down to the second paragraph, it reflects that the commission via staff requested advice from outside council regarding the posting for the meeting and whether candidates' names should be disclosed. I advised that it was permissible to withhold the names until the public meeting. The commission followed that advice and posted an agenda consistent with that advice on July 6th. In fact, in retrospect, I wish we had disclosed the names because we were avoided responding to this complaint. You know, to the extent there was a violation here was completely cured within two business days because obviously the candidates were bedded publicly. But in any case, this is how we intend to respond. And I'm happy to answer questions about it. Dave, I'm sorry, I wonder if Paul, I guess I should just direct this to you. Could you make your screen a little bigger? I guess it appears to be a different version than what I am looking at. So I just need to... Yeah. And on that... The updated version. That's correct, Commissioner Skinner. So, and I regret that there was that confusion. I was the person who provided the advice on what the posting should say, but for a variety of circumstances, I was not involved in the drafting or review of the proposed response that I think was circulated in advance of the meeting. So that's why we're sharing this by screen. It's not the one that the commissioners that initially received. I think they were beginning of last week. So I was concerned, honestly, that the first version of it, when I did see it after you all had reflected somehow that the commission as a body had gotten together and decided the posting should look like this. And that really is not accurate. So that's why I've redone this. So, Dave, this is Commissioner Bryan. So were we supposed to put the names out there? As I understand it, I could have Mr. Comner's way. And there are two AGO opinions that deal with the issue. One, for a variety of circumstances, we don't need to get into. Concluded, it was not a violation to have them in. I think there's a later opinion from the AGO that says that they should be in the meeting posting. And, again, I take responsibility for not advising. So just going forward, if we're in this circumstance again, we would put the names of the candidates. Is that correct? Yes, and to be clear, so to the extent that the commission has future hiring needs, and they involve the screening committee that we've talked about in connection, for example, with the director slot, those we can keep private, assuming the commission determines to establish a screening committee and go through that process. But once the at least two finalists are identified for interview and then subsequent deliberation at a public meeting, not only does that meeting have to be in public, but the notice of the meeting reflecting that it's gonna happen has to contain presumably two names or additional names of whoever the finalists are. I will add one slight refinement to that, which is that is true to the extent that those names are known at the time of posting the agenda. If the screening body were to meet the day before the main meeting was to, the meeting of the full commission was to take place, there would not be a requirement to post the names 48 hours in advance because you wouldn't have them. So you could comply with the 48 hour notice requirement by simply saying candidates one and two without violating of OML if you don't know who the names are until after that. Yes, I think it would probably be a best practice to note that the candidates will be identified at a separate meeting and when that meeting will be. Yeah, thanks. So if this looks acceptable to the commission, I'd sign this and send it back to Mr. Higgins. And we hope that would conclude the matter. And Dave, the letter is needed under the open meeting law. That's part of the process, correct? Correct. And it's copied to the AG, the complaint goes to the AGO and this is copied to the attorney general's office. Got it. Thank you. I have a quick question. Would it hurt given the complaint in this just to put the names in the response letter? I mean, I know they're public, I know it's out there, but respond to the general. Certainly be no harm in doing that. We could put it where it says both candidates were internal candidates. We could say both candidates identify them both were internal candidates. That's not an issue. Excellent suggestion. And with that, I'm okay with the letter as it's written. As am I, Madam Chair. Thank you. And it looks like we probably need to do a vote on this. Commissioner Hill, do you have any questions for Attorney Mackie or Attorney Kilmer's? I do not. Thank you. And so thank you for following up on this, Dave and Paul. Commissioners, do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the open meeting law complaint response as reviewed and discussed here today and subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments or questions? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. And thank you. Thank you for the good work. Okay. And Dave, I think that you're staying on for item number eight, but we're gonna turn first to commissioners O'Brien and Commissioner Skinner in connection with the permanent executive director hiring. Certainly, I believe the most recent version of the posting was forwarded to Grace this morning for distribution to the other three of you that haven't had the chance to see it yet. I don't know if you have that in front of you or not. Yeah, I don't. Nope, I'm sending it right now. Oh, I didn't know if you had even forwarded it. I just haven't checked my email, Grace. My apologies. No, I suggested that she wait so we actually call it because if for some reason we didn't reach it, I didn't wanna be violating anything. So we figured we'd wait till we actually reached the item number before we hit send. Are you gonna put it in front of us for consideration or? I'll let you. Yeah, so because I did some editing on this, I gave it to Dave Muldrew who also talked to Derek. So they had a chance to take a look at it, put their thoughts in and then we gave it to Commissioner Skinner. She had a chance to look at it yesterday and had some thoughts that she put in. So the version you have in front of you is the most recent version that summarizes the comments that Grace tracked that we all made in the last meeting when the first draft came in front of us plus the revisions that I said, those of us that I just mentioned made. So it's up for discussion now but obviously a vote at a later date since you guys are getting it right now. Ideally the very next time we meet, we could vote and put it up. So this is to talk about the posting process and ideally queue it up so that it can be finalized and posted the next time we meet. The one area I would draw the attention to that Commissioner Skinner and I talked about is on the second page under required skills and qualifications, there's a yellow highlight. Madam Chair. I don't have it yet. Yeah, we don't have it. And I was wondering, can you share it? Yeah, I'm on my iPad meeting. So I'd be happy to share it. I did send it to you, so I'm sure it'll come in. I just got it any second. But I'm happy to pull it up if you all would like. I think that would be helpful, Grace. Yeah, and I think because you're just getting it today, that's why we thought broad strokes today for distribution and process and then any final tweaking in a vote on the next date. Well, let's see what it looks like. So the one area, again, if you go to page two, there's a yellow highlight that I can explain why that's highlighted and why that was an area that we wanted to bring to your attention. Would you like me to start at the top? Do you have everyone a chance to read? I asked how everybody wants to do it. I don't really want to put everybody in the spot to read it live, but we can certainly do that if that's the preference. I can tell you broad strokes, how I rewrote it, which was to take the comments we had made, Grace, that you had memorialized to update the introductory section. The effort was to incorporate all the industries that the commission has tasked with overseeing. So then any applicant would be alerted to not only the fact of it, but the statutory references. We talk about the fact that they answer to a commission, which is a five full-time member body so that they're aware of that since that can be somewhat unique. The general duties and responsibilities were updated taking out some language that was either irrelevant or obsolete now, either never happened or was from a time when the agency launched and it was more launching and vetting applications as opposed to enforcement. And the last sections broke up the qualifications into the required scales and qualifications that we want to distinguish from preferred, which is the last section. And that highlighted yellow is, whether we wanted to require an advanced degree or professional degree with a JD MBA preferred and then write that you could have an equivalent for the advanced degree. There are circumstances where someone's career is so extensive, they have the equivalent of that. Or did we want to take all of that, the advanced degree and put it in a preferred skills and qualification section? That was the one area that we were still talking over this morning. And so we thought best to highlight and not commit. But I would like to see the all workplace equivalent. Yeah. And the question I had too is, do we then to keep it where it is as required, but also acknowledge someone may have such substantial experience that it is tantamount to an advanced degree? And I didn't ask Dave, I hate to put you on the spot, but this is something that Commissioner Skinner and I talked about this morning. So I didn't specifically put to you whether that creates any issues. My experience when I did this was an employment based immigration law and there were companies that actually would take resumes and tell you whether or not the person's work experience was equivalent to a degree or not. We don't have that. So the screening committee would be in the position really of making that call. So just wanna make sure we're not running into any risky territory by using that phrase. Well, my thinking is, and I can't see everybody, so I'm sorry to jump in. I think it's really important for us to have some language like that because our commitment to, under our statement of purpose on equity and inclusion because we've learned that sometimes this kind of requirements can be barriers to a diverse hiring. So to your question, whether it should be under required or preferred, you put in there JD or MBA preferred anyway, but you're saying a professional degree or more place equivalent. Correct, right. So the original draft posting had professional degree JD or MBA preferred. The highlighted or workplace equivalent is what we added. So what you really, the question would be, we are expecting, not even, we are expecting a college degree. Correct. With respect to an additional degree, we're expecting it or workplace equivalent of that kind of professional degree work. Right. Does it have to? Well, you're saying JD or MBA, obviously, they can't have practice law without a degree. No, so the, that's the, it's saying professional degree in general, the preference is the JD MBA or you can have the workplace. So I guess there's also just a word placement choice. Do we want to say professional degree or workplace equivalent and then in parents end it with JD or MBA preferred? That might be clearer, right? Right, it might be, yeah. I'm also thinking about the MPP and the MPAs and the other programs around too. Yeah. But I do like the addition. Let me show Brian, I'll show Skinner. I think it's a great addition. Yeah. Jordan with an MPA would be an equal alternative to those two? From your perspective. I know a lot of people who would argue that it is, especially the MPP and the MPA given the MBA programs too. I think it's fine. I think the workplace equivalent covers it. I think the preference covers it. I mean, obviously the MPP or MPA came in. I don't think this line would stop that person from being on the same par as the JD and the MBA. Are we going to try to go through it now? Commissioner, Brian, Commissioner Skinner, are we going, what's your next step? So, I mean, I went through it section by section in terms of trying to draw the analogies to the original draft that we had talked about the last date. I wasn't planning on going through line by line. At this point, I thought for expediency sake, doing the broad strokes, having us each look at it and then coming back for the final vote at the next meeting would be the most efficient way of doing it. But everyone, if everyone has another preference, we can certainly go through line by line. Commissioners, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Maynard. I don't think we need to go line by line. If we can just move it, you know, move it slowly. And if we have any issues, we can bring it up. But this is the second time we've seen it with the changes that were talked about already. I'm reading it as we're speaking. As am I. It's just clerical, but we need to decide whether we want the periods at the end of the bullet points or not because we go back and forth on it. But that's just clerical, I understand. Yep. Just along the lines of the formatting issues, I think someone suggested we number the bullets. So that's up for consideration as well as that. What made the difference for folks? Is the idea that it would be more important than hire the number or just number one? No, just for easy identification, if we're referencing, I mean, I think that was part of the problem. We were referencing the bullets or Karen was as she was walking us through this and we were having a hard time keeping up without the numbers. Yeah, that makes sense. I think for editing purposes, numbers make sense. I think for posting purposes, that's a distraction. So I probably should have numbered it for this conversation, but I think for posting, I think the bullets themselves are better. And I did want to add, I want to flag one ad that Commissioner Skinner made that I thought was important, which is when you get down to preferred skills and qualifications, I had put in knowledge or experience with mass open meeting public records. She also added in the conflict of interest law, which I thought was a good ad. So I just wanted to draw your attention to that. Commissioners. It looks fine to me, Madam Chair. An excellent job by our fellow commissioners. Yeah, can we take down the screen and just grace so that we can see everybody, please. Thanks. And a special thanks to Grace who tried to keep it in real time notes. So that's how I was able to kick off. So. Commissioner Maynard, you're still reading. I don't want to hurry you. I just can't tell because. I'm still reading. I'm sorry. That's fine. No, no, keep reading. I just couldn't tell. I'm so sorry. Probably should have distributed right before lunch and then taken a slightly longer lunch break. I was too hungry. I wasn't thinking clearly. I'm just trying to make sure and I'm sure it's in here, but I wanted to make sure that it was clear about the management expected from the team. I see it in there. I just. So the first bullet for required skills and qualifications, this is at least 10 years of relevant experience and management demonstrated competence in the management of a large and varied staff. Do you want it somewhere else or emphasized in another way or? I think that's fine. I was just trying to make sure that it was clear because I think something I didn't know until I joined the commission, right? Was was just how. I assume the ED would be very integrated into the process with the commissioners and with senior staff, but really the EDs, you know, they're running all the trains on all the tracks. So that's, I think that captures it. I think that captures it. So do you need more time or I'm just looking, Commissioner Skinner, you've had the chance to any second thoughts and now that you've all set. I'm all set. I would, I'm sorry, Chair. I would like to say, you know, I appreciate your comments relative to diversity and the addition of the language or workplace equivalent. I completely support that to the extent that the absence of a professional degree is a barrier to someone who's otherwise qualified here. Absolutely. We cast a wider net with the language in. Yeah. Thanks, Commissioner Skinner. Okay. And Commissioner Hill, you said you're all set. All right. Do I have a motion then? I'll ask them on behalf of Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Skinner for that. So was it marked up for a vote today? Are we good to go with a vote on the stand? No, we put it in out of an abundance of caution. We did. Look at that. Excellent. Grace. Way to go, Grace. Let me get down to it. Look at that. All right. I will move. Madam Chair, I moved that the commissioner approved the job description for executive director as reviewed and discussed and edited here today subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. I can. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. That vote, yes. Excellent. There we go. Now we can talk about the next steps. And this is where Attorney Mackie comes back in to help us on process. Good afternoon, again. Shall I start out, Madam Chair, with a review of the. Yeah, I think so. I mean, the open meeting law has a lot of little nuances that we don't have to deal with very frequently. So this is really helpful. And Commissioner O'Brien, I don't know. Or Commissioner Skinner, I don't know if other people have spoken with Attorney Mackie, but we might as well take advantage of all of the knowledge we can get from ANK on this. Okay. So I know that the commission has some familiarity with the options here based on the selection process that they went through to select the interim executive director. And a threshold issue here is whether the commission wants to establish under the open meeting law what's known as the preliminary screening committee. The benefits to doing that are that the open meeting law recognizes that if a preliminary screening committee is established, that preliminary screening committee can meet in executive session and do an initial review of the applications and in fact, also interview the applicants if it wishes to do that. And then ultimately select applicants for a final and public meeting of the commission where the commission could also interview and deliberate. The primary legislative purpose behind this exception in the open meeting law is I think the legislature's recognition of the fact that if everybody who submits a resume for a position is then subject to being publicly outed because they're looking for a new job, that that might substantially diminish the applicant pool for the position. And so in recognition of that, the legislature has given public bodies reign to do at least this initial screening in private. There are some requirements associated with doing the screening committee. It can't have more than in this case, two members of the public body on the screening committee, but the screening committee can also include, other people, other executives of the commission, staff members, even members of the public who weren't connected with the gaming commission. The screening committee has to initially meet in public and then the chair of that committee would declare that having this screening process happen in public would in fact have a detrimental effect in attracting the widest number of qualified applicants possibly in the screening committee to go into executive session. The activity at the screening committee level really has to be limited to considering applications. And then if need be interviewing some of the applicants, the AG's office is a pine that if the screening committee meets and wants to go through example, what the criteria for the position should be or what questions should be asked, then that part of the screening committee deliberations has to take place in public before it goes into executive session. And then as with commission meetings, notes have to be prepared of what happens in the screening committee in executive session. And finally to follow up on our discussion half an hour ago when the committee, when the commission I should say, notices the public meeting of the commission to interview and deliberate in public on who the next executive director is gonna be that notice in typical circumstances has to include the names of the two or I guess conceivably more finalists for the position. So it seems to me sort of a threshold issue for the commission here would be does the screening committee make sense? And then if so determine what the members of the screening committee would be and then have the screening committee is really an independent body take it from there. I guess I'd also just add that I do recognize the utility of the screening committee do in fact think that the commission would get the broadest pool of applicants from the widest range of locales circumstances by taking advantage of the screen committee process. So just to remind too, there's that part of the process if the commission decides, yep, we are going to adopt the screening committee model could the commission still decide? I think this was a question before I just am bringing it back, decide on whether on how to get those resumes or is that in other words to an executive. The commission could do that work it would need to deliberate in public on how it wanted to do that. But certainly the commission could do that part of it whether you wanted to retain a search firm how widely you wanted advert. You could certainly address those issues. It would be in a public session and obviously the... Or delegate it. They could also delegate it to the selection committee. Okay, and I think my record that I am taking myself out of the mix for the selection committee which can be no more than two, if that's okay. So that's just where we were. I don't know if there's anything else that got brought up commissioners that you remember. But now we have the job description. So where do you wanna start? Selection committee, if you wanna start with how you get the resumes or thoughts or somewhere else? The only other thing I think that I had asked about was if we go the selection screening committee route that what that body can be. Like it doesn't have to be just two commissioners that it can pull in Dave Muldrew from HR for example and or a former commissioner or former ED or something if he or she was willing and we wanted that person to participate. Is there a limit on either the size or who could participate in that Dave outside of members of the commission itself? No, I've never seen that. I don't think so obviously from a practical perspective you'd probably wanna not have dozens of people on it, but I don't think there's anything. No, but if you had three or four where you had someone who either had the position or was a commissioner or something. Yeah, no, I think that would be entirely consistent with the way the legislature set this up. It just, the only criteria is it can't be more than it can't include a quorum of the commission. Commissioners, do you wanna first talk about how you get the resumes? Or would you rather talk about the selection committee? If there's going to be one, I guess maybe we should also talk about, I think Dave you alluded that maybe it wouldn't be optimal, but it could also be and it could be all done and we open. Commissioner Hill. That was gonna be my question. If you're receiving all these resumes, if there's a selection committee using example, I'm not on that committee. I'm never gonna be able to see who applied for this job until the final committee recommendations come before the commission. Is that an accurate statement? I think so. My concern would be that if the resumes were circulated widely, it might create concern that more than the sub quorum membership of the screening committee had some input in the process. So. Can I ask a clarifier, Dave? Commissioner Hill, would the commission be able to see those that do not advance? So would that just be a matter of not public record for the commission or the public? I think the commission could at some point at the conclusion of the screening committee's process, the commission could review the resumes of the applicants because at that point, obviously the full commission would have an opportunity to weigh in on the work of the screening committee. I wanna think about whether that would somehow threaten the purpose for the screening committee in the first place. In other words, whether if these resumes were circulated widely to the commission, whether that would somehow make the public records, then we might be able to weigh in on that. But they wouldn't be able to weigh in on them. Like, oh, you should have considered that person. No, because then you're creating a deliberation of a quorum. If you have the two members of the body and then outside, I'm sorry, two members of the screening committee and then a non-screening member of the commission weighing in on what the screening commission's doing, then you've got a quorum of the commission. Madam Chair, I'll start the discussion, I guess. Thank you. So I don't have an objection to creating this selection process. I will be blunt and tell you that I'm disappointed that I wouldn't be able to see everybody who had applied because I may have a difference of opinion, you know, than my fellow commissioners and the committee, but so be it. I think having a commission probably is the best way to streamline this and to make it quicker, the process in order to get us an executive director sooner rather than later. Somebody's got to dispute that, come on now. No, so I have another question actually, which is I know that you expressed sort of a dissatisfaction with sort of, for lack of better term, headhunter groups. I think when I was talking to Dave Muldrew about the job posting earlier, he had commented very often they would have the capacity to draw wider nets, particularly when it came to diversity. So I'm wondering what are the other avenues and maybe there's nobody here who really answers this. I know when we did this, Madam Chair, I can't remember who it was for. Jill Griffin was still here and we talked about outreach methods that we were going to use to get the posting out there for a wide net that went above and beyond just putting up in the traditional circles that we do for other job posting. So is there other mechanisms where you get headhunter groups purely for dissemination but where the repository that gets the resume and response back? And I don't know if that's a Dave Muldrew question or? Well, also Madam Chair. Yes, please. Okay. With a headhunter, we would have to go through, we had tried to do this in IT as someone, we'd have to go through a bidding process with the state and it is a contract that has to be rebuted. The benefit of it, everyone that they service will have to enter in their applications and system. But if they are a diversity agency, that's their focus. That's who they're gonna be looking for in this industry, minority candidates, diverse candidates. So that would be one way of making sure that avenue was covered. So I envision a multi-tiered approach for this position when I say casting a wide net will probably be a number of strategies to make sure that we're being inclusive and have an opportunity to get the most talent. So if we were to use an agency, it would be for that reason. If it could be done. It might be worth exploring, Dave, whether there are already these types of vendors on statewide contracts with the common ground. We could check that. And that would eliminate the formal procurement process. I wonder if Derek knows or not, you just re, you just appeared, I think that's it. We did look into this, so we looked into this, I think in 2019 or 2018, prior to appointing Karen as our full-time executive director. And there were a few firms under the management consultant contracts that did qualify and did meet the headhunter category. I think there were only three or four, which is why we decided we probably wouldn't go that route. That wasn't their expertise as we started looking into it. If we were going to use a headhunter, we would want to actually go out and procure one. We never got to that stage because we appointed Karen. And the other thing that Dave talks about is, and he actually brought this to my attention, you don't pay a headhunter until they're successful, but it's typically between 20 and 25% of the annual salary. So we would exceed the incidental $10,000 threshold with this position. But the commission also has the authority to say, which we've done before, for targeted procurements. And if we wanted to bring in a diverse headhunter and say this is an area where we're gonna help with our diversity spend, we could say that we're only gonna open this up to a select number of firms. And we could do some market research on who is out there that handles senior executives and is a diverse firm and offer it just to those groups to participate in this. And then those groups would be the ones that would eventually get the payment if one of their candidates that they brought in were successful. So I know I threw a bunch of ifs and qualifiers out there, but the commission could do this. And we've done this in the past in public by saying, we're going to do a targeted procurement here. We've done some market research. Here are the diverse firms that are available to do it. And this is who we're gonna open it up to to reach out on our behalf. So first a question of clarification, Derek. Is there a way, is this done where we go forward with the screening committee that consists of members of the commission where the resumes come directly to us and we're also engaging that firm at the same time? Okay. And I know they did that actually. I was contacted for my position by a headhunter. It wasn't a diverse headhunter, but I know that I was connected from my position by a headhunter. It wasn't something that I saw out on an open public posting, but then when I looked, it was open to a public posting as well. Right, okay. Thanks. The commissioners, what are you thinking on that? So it could be what you're sort of saying, Derek, it's a hybrid approach. You do parallel tracks so that we get the most bang or buck. Yes, I understand. I do think there's been quite a bit of work done, Derek, right, on, and Dave, through our HR department on Entrupty's work to get, to cast that wider net and be really intentional since we adopted that statement of purpose on our recruitment to ensure a diverse pool. So we've got some good infrastructure internally, but the headhunter executive search firm would just add that additional benefit. Because of the uniqueness of this position and the talent that's required through the job description, that's where sometimes these folks, even though you have a high rate of pay, they will find that person who's working elsewhere. Because this would be outside of Massachusetts, of course, across the country, right? Correct. That is correct. We're so new, we don't have that type of role here in Massachusetts. So it would probably be in East Coast nationwide. Commissioner Maynard, I think you're leaning in. Thanks. Just a couple of observations. I would want it to be as described by Commissioner Bryan really in yourself as a non-pair, as a hybrid approach. I don't want to be there in front as a commission when we're looking at these. That said, and my initial thought was, all the different groups that exist within the Commonwealth that can be utilized and will obviously be able to get a whole little posting. But again, that's very Massachusetts specific, right? And so I'm comfortable with the hybrid approach that really targets, as Derek said, and focuses on bringing some gender balance and minority candidates. We can also do as the treasurer has done in her practice which is if the initial pool, whoever's on this committee, if the initial pool is not what it needs to be, the posting goes back out for two weeks. That's a practice in the trade group's office to try to get some diversity into the balance. So that's where I stand on that. What is your experience in terms of timing, Derek and Dave? Do you have that? Because could we make that part of the ask that we have a time frame in mind? Yeah, absolutely can. And we actually did that with the IT positions. We brought in proven track record. We brought in ability to keep a candidate in the success rate of keeping a candidate over a number of years, quick glance of placement. So we can add any of those into our criteria with the search firms. And then we'll get pushed back one way or the other. But we did do that with the IT positions because we've been having such a hard time getting people in and our teams are a little bit burnt out. So we put quickness to fill positions as one of the criteria. And we worked very closely with them in regards to our vetting process that is very comprehensive as it should be to make sure that we don't lose candidates based on sourcing them. But it may take a period of time before they can come on board. And so making sure that they are, that they are committed to us and their candidate is committed to us. So that was also discussed and that's a, in my mind, that's a critical criteria. So commissioners, do you wanna have the commission direct Derek, Dave and whoever they think are the right team members to pursue this? Or do you want to delegate that to a screening committee if the screening committee is advised? Do we have them do some first steps here and come back to us? Other ideas? Well, I mean, we could probably, in terms of vendor selection, the five of us could still do that. That doesn't seem to be something that would have to be restricted to a screening committee and we could keep it moving. So I like the hybrid approach and I like the idea of five of us being involved in terms of who those vendors may be. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Mayer. I agree. I think of parallel working, the two groups makes a lot of sense. Certainly the screening committee is going to need whatever output comes out of that will be that process that the headhunter is doing for us. So it makes a minute sense. Commissioner Mayer, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Hill. That would be fine with me. I agree. And that works for me if I haven't said that clearly. All right, so do we have a clear ask to you, Dave, Maldrew and Derek? Is it? John, Dave and I will find some time and probably Beneswa sourcing some diverse firms that have a proven track record for this. Contact them, see if they're interested and then bring back relatively quickly to Todd and the commissioners, a recommendation of some potential firms to look at. We can put that together with HR and get an executive summary for you folks to review on each one. Great. Okay. Making a priority. Excellent. What's our next meeting, Grace? Our next meeting is the 17th of August. Right now, we have that August 17th. You may have something to report by then, right? Possibly, right? I know people may have vacations and everything too in between, so. All right, that sounds good. Good. Okay, so that's two things done. Now in terms of screening committee, do you want to sit on that today or do you want to move ahead on that issue? I'm wondering, Madam Chair, if it might make sense for us to talk about item nine because we're going to be diving into the same process potentially for full-time position for the IV director. And so maybe talking about that and then knowing that there might be steering committees that can max out it too on each of those permanent hires that are coming forward might. Sure, with one caveat. Yeah, with one caveat, I think that we did discuss that with respect to permanent on the IEB position. That one. There's another process, right? It's a little bit of a different discussion, okay. But I think it might inform this one so that we know whether we really want to take action today or come back on the 17th and finalize the constitution of the screening committee for the ED. Okay, but I'm happy to do that. If everybody else is okay with that, we'll just hold on eight B and I'll just turn to nine A. As we have noted earlier this month, Director Lillio has decided to retire from state service after a long and successful tenure here at the MGC and will be celebrating her contributions later in August as we stated on the record in the looking. Both forward to it, but it's also bittersweet. Our interim executive director, Tom Grossman recently met with me at one of our first meetings and he expressed as a priority, the designation of an interim IEB director given Director Lillio's plans. And he asked if I would consider bringing to the commission the nomination of our very capable Chief Enforcement Council, Heather Hall. And so I followed up with a meeting with Attorney Mackie and Commissioner Arlene O'Brien to learn more about the proper processes and light again of the open meeting law and its nuances. And I'll turn to Commissioner O'Brien shortly so she can add in. But for today, we thought that we would notice to all of the commission our intent to bring forth that nomination at our next public meeting for a proper vote. And then at a later date, we thought it would make sense to turn again to A&K for assistance in assessing the process of the appointment of the permanent IEB director. And while there's a connection a little bit, potentially that's not resolved in today's discussion, nor did we anticipate resolving it at the next meeting, although that could change, I'll have Arlene weigh in. I did wanna say that I've had a chance to speak with Councillor Hall and she would be prepared to assume the interim position should the commission so vote. And she recognizes that director Lilios has been a great mentor, tough shoes to fill, but that director Lilios will be leaving the IEB with strong division leadership and teams. And Heather has also understands there are process considerations with regard to the permanent position and that the commission would take, as I just mentioned those steps up there, very near future. So that's where we are on process and we would mark it up at the next public meeting. We would have normally done this in the agenda study meeting, but we didn't have another agenda study meeting until I think August 2nd. Can I show Brian? Sure, so I wholeheartedly agree with the nomination that we're suggesting for you, for Heather, when Loretta indicated to me that she intended to retire in the summer, no disrespect to Heather, but I did try to talk Loretta out of it. And when it was clear that was sort of her calendar and her intentions, the next thing I asked was succession plan and who did she think and without hesitation. Heather's name came up, I have every reason to agree with that. I did ask Heather myself too to make sure we weren't gonna be putting her in a situation where she was gonna have to politely decline. And she took her video and put it up for us and assuming that's a good sign that she hasn't changed her mind. So when the chair suggested that we do that, we talked about how to best bring it to the five of us so that all five of us could participate in the situation. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say all five of us probably agree with this nomination in this process, but I wanted to give my endorsement to it. And it is a slightly different process potentially. I think maybe Anke can explain to the other commissioners between now and the next meeting what processes apply and could apply also to this position that may be slightly different than the full-time ED, but I think Heather's willingness to take this on is great. And I would absolutely endorse putting it on for a vote at the next meeting. Commissioner Hill. Up sweetened to the point, I agree. Thank you. Anything else? So we'll put that on the agenda for the next meeting. At this time, we anticipate that to be August 17th. So thanks again, Grace. Anything else on that? So I think Commissioner O'Brien, you were connecting the dots, but maybe they aren't so connectable, but I don't want to jump into anything before we have more guidance. Right, so I think what I was thinking of and maybe because I've had the benefit of another conversation with yourself and Attorney Mackie about process and some of the other positions that this agency has to fill, the quorum that we have being three means any selection committee, if that were to be formed, max is each commissioner or two. I think probably all of us would love to participate in the selection committee for the ED and the IB director if there were to be a search. The question is, if there is a search publicly and externally like there would be for the ED, you'd have four of us and potentially four slots on two different selection committees. If that doesn't go that route, then you've got four of us potentially raising our hands to participate in the ED search. That's the only bit that I thought might play into the constitution of the screening committee for the ED. It's still a little bit up in the air in terms of whether there would be any screening committee and external posting for the IB director, but that was what I was thinking of. Adam Kear? Yes, I'm sure. I would love to be on the ED committee, but I have no problem being on the IB one as well. So take me out of consideration for the executive director and put me in consideration for IB and I think they'll make it a little easier. I do want to pause here. I do want, because this is the connection that I was afraid that was going to be made. The permanent, the selection process for the permanent IB director could be slightly different and not involved. Understood, okay. Right, that's why I'm wondering if maybe a final decision on the screening constitution for the ED be made at the 17th. If maybe we can make a little more clarity on the IB process. Right, and I say that only because we have attorney Mackie here and I know no more than that and have not formed an opinion on it. He just has said that we have, there are different options for that selection process. But we would want to work it out properly. Right, let's see. Commissioner Maynard? I just want to comment that I've thought about this over the last few days. And I think that Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Hill all bring a lot of strengths to a search committee. And I just wanted on the record that I think that however it shakes it out, it's going to be to benefit the MGC into the Commonwealth. There's no bad options here. And I think that I would be willing to support any of my colleagues in this position. So I just wanted that on the record. Commissioner Skinner, anything? No, nothing to add. I'm just, yeah, nothing to add at this point. All right, so we will roll over onto the next meeting, the issue around the screening committee because I'm not hearing anyone. Commissioner, I think you probably agree with me that anyone thinks that going the full public option is the right option. It is through that screening committee process, we understand, right to you. Okay, so we can narrow it on the agenda, Grace, when we put it together, that it would be on probably you will want to get that selection committee voted upon and selected for the permanent executive director. And in terms of the nomination of our Councillor Hall, we'll put that on. So the only thing I need to ask now, and I know it's a little bit of process, but this is how we do our business. Kind of in public here, do we also mark up the selection process for permanent on the same day we nominate for interim? Yes. Are you talking about IB or are you talking about? Yeah, for the IB, yeah. Yeah, I mean, it might just make everything cleaner if we make our choices that way. I think it probably, we can move on, I think, on everything ideally on the 17th. Okay. All right. So I guess we're not making, taking any votes right now. Is that fair? All right. So we're through eight and nine A, but I think Commissioner Hill, you might have a brief commissioner's update. Just very quickly, the House and the Senate have different versions of their supplemental budget, which had the language in it for the extension of summer casting. The Senate yesterday voted to only extend it out a year as it does normally, whereas we know the House had proposed to five years. So the bill now will go to a conference committee, we hope, at some point. So it's gonna be a little bit longer before we see what happens in the sub-budget, but my understanding is that we should have something done by the 31st, whether that's a freestanding bill or something, so that summer casting will continue after the 31st, but that all happened yesterday. So the deadline is July 31st. We're right at that point again. As we normally are. Yep. What's the racing schedule for next week? I'm not sure. I don't know, but there can't be a gap. So today is Thursday. We'll wanna keep close track of that. And I certainly will be doing that with Grace. Yeah, excellent, because they may need a little reminder. And I do know we have that letter that reminds our legislature of the jobs that would be at stake if there is a gap. Yeah, I was wondering, is that already been sent out or is that one that we sent out the last time we hit this close date? We sent it out a little bit ago. We did. When they were talking about the sub budget. Okay. I see Alex coming back on. Okay, yeah, because I know this happened one year where they did have to move some races. Oh, and that was a little bit about, it was a mistake. That was the last time we did this close date. That would be me coming back on you. Could I make a recommendation that we do just re-craft that letter again, sort of as again a reminder as the date rapidly approaches that if action isn't taken, these jobs will be at stake. And Dr. Leipman, I know you have that letter in your head. Yeah, I'm just talking on because we do race, you know, Tuesday, the first. The first. So if it's not renewed by then, we'll be, you know, the horses come from all over the place. They leave early. Right. So besides the simulcasting, obviously, at the three locations, but we would have horses and our trainers and drivers coming in on Tuesday. And does the letter remind them of that too? The fact that even a Tuesday date would require them to sort of know by the weekend? Oh, sorry. Yeah, if they know the day before. Day before. Obviously, the sooner the better, but, you know, if they knew the day before, it would be a mess trying to call, you know, people send out an email blast at midnight saying, you know, we don't know if we're racing tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon or not. So, yeah. That happened once, but the legislature's been very responsive, but it is on a Monday, which, you know, it's the weekend that I worried about, right? Commissioner Hill is a Friday, Monday thing. So I think if we could get that letter and I think it's commissioners, we would just, if it's necessary, have it go out, what, Friday afternoon or Monday morning? Which do you want? And the sooner the better. The day. Yeah, exactly. The sooner the better. I was thinking today. Yeah, me too. I'm almost worried that today they might forget. So maybe first thing tomorrow morning. Because of the weekend, you know. Yeah. Today, tomorrow and Monday. Oh, that's true. I think I felt that, as I said yesterday. Yeah. So Madam Chair, certainly the letter would be appropriate, but I think it also would be appropriate maybe for the executive director to call over and talk to the offices of the speaker and the president to just remind them as well. Yeah. So the letter would certainly end up in their mailboxes too, along with the speaker and the Senate president. I think a phone call would help out as well. I think there's been personal visits on the 12th hour to Commissioner Hill in the past, so. Yes, there are. Yes, so. All right, well, good. I'm not creeped up on me. My apologies when I heard the 31st. All right, thanks, Commissioner Hill. Is there anything else? I think at this point, that's all I want to present. Okay, excellent. All right. Anything else, commissioners for updates? Commission recently at a conference and spoke. Is that an invitation for me, Madam Chair? I said you were at a conference. I don't know if you wanted to just. Yeah, I was at the, I was at the Nickel G's conference in Denver and it was extremely illuminating. And I will say that Commissioner Hill is, they're a big fan of Commissioner Hill given his prior work. It was a good panel that I spoke on. It was with some colleagues from the industry regarding technology. And I was able to talk about our privacy reg that we put out that's still under comment. Of course, not giving any final comments given that we still have to finalize it. But it was very helpful. I learned a lot. I hope that we were able to share a lot. And the biggest thing I came away with, which you talk about a lot, Madam Chair, is the popularity of our RG program and game sense. And we are really known for that. And, and respected for that. And so, to all those teams that make sure that we are known as the safest place to play responsible. That's really nice. That's good. Great takeaway. Okay. So our business isn't quite done on commissioners. It's just about 125. And we do have anticipated litigation updates. I do have to read language into the record. That's required by the up and meeting law if we're going to move into executive session. So, and I'll do one for each matter. And with respect to the FBT effort reality case, commission would anticipate that it would meet in executive session, accordance with general laws chapter 30A section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to FBT effort reality, LLC versus mass gaming commission. As discussing at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the mitigating position of a commission. So, is there a commissioners want to move on that? Madam chair, I move that we go into executive session for the reasons and on the matter just stated by the chair. I'll do a second. Second. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Mr. Skinner. Aye. Mr. Maynard. Aye. Nightboat. Yes. So, 5-0 on that. Then we have the gatenary case and the commission again would anticipate that it would meet in executive session in accordance with GL chapter 30A section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to gatenary versus when mass G that's discussion at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigation position of the commission. Your motion to that. Madam chair, I move that the commission meet in executive session in accordance with general law chapter 30A section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to gatenary versus when mass LLC as discussions at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigation position of the commission. Second. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. Nightboat. Yes. 5-0. And then the last one, Ferris at L. Commissioner would anticipate that it would meet in executive session in accordance with general law chapter 30A section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to Ferris at L versus when resorts limited at L as discussion at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigation position of the commission. Madam chair, I move that the commission meet in executive session in accordance with general laws to, excuse me, chapter 30A section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to Ferris at all versus when resorts limited at all as discussed at an open meeting as, excuse me, as discussion at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigation position of the commission. So it happens when you try to read to quickly. Second. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. And Commissioner Maynard. Aye. Okay. Thank you. Oh, and I vote yes, so 5-0. So with that, we're gonna go to an executive session. We do not anticipate correct commissioners that we will return to the public session. So those joining publicly will be closing this session and then we will move Grace to an executive session. Yes. You all have a link in your calendar for the executive session, which you can join as soon as this wraps. Okay. Commissioner Hill, all set. Okay. Thanks everyone. And thank you to all the great work. Nice meeting.