 button right now. Okay. And okay, we're good to go. Great. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Today is December 20th. And it is a Tuesday and we are convening a public meeting of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. And because we are doing so remotely, I need to do a roll call. Commissioner O'Brien, good morning. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. And good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. I am here. Excellent. So we have a busy agenda again today. I want to thank my fellow commissioners. We concluded our public meeting, I think after the around the 9 p.m. hour yesterday, maybe past that. So the your I know you're you're ready to begin another good productive day, though. So today is convening a public meeting number 415. And before I turn to our general council, I'd like to make a few introductory remarks. Many of you will have heard them. But I'm repeating them because our applicants have changed today. And also we've supplemented some of the business and carefully. Today, as we begin our evaluation of these applications, we as commissioners are reminded of our principal responsibility. And that is to ensure the public confidence in the integrity of the gaming industry here in Massachusetts and the strict oversight of the gaming establishments and now sports wagering operators through rigorous regulation. We are reminded that the MGC's licensees will be held to the highest standards of compliance. And including an obligation to maintain their integrity. As we have said in the past, the award of a gaming license and the Commonwealth is a peerless privilege. And our laws require gaming licenses to be held to those highest standards on a continuing basis. The MGC mission commits us to creating a fair, transparent and participatory process that engenders the confidence of the public and participants. And that process is to benefit the Commonwealth. While minimizing potential realized, potential or excuse me, realized negative or unintended consequences. With that understanding, the MGC and all of its towers are created by statute. And let's follow the process required by the legislature. She had further light on that process. I turned to General Counsel Grossman. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners and all. Of course, we will return to an application of a current gaming licensee seeking a category one license, which will offer the opportunity for retail sports wagering at the gaming establishment, as well as the opportunity to partner with up to two MGC license category three online sports operators. The issuance of a retail sportsbook license at the casinos is relatively complex, because it spans chapter 23k of the general laws regulating casino operators, and Jennifer 23n covering sports wagering. It's this complexity, we must deal with now in this statutory scheme with which we must comply. Significantly, the timing of the full suitability investigation and determination are different under the two statutes. Chapter 23k required full suitability before licensure of the casino gaming operators. Chapter 23n offers a presumption of suitability to those licensees, although it is subject to further review, as described in the regulations. However, for the mobile operators who have not gone through suitability the way the casinos have chapter 23n directs a temporary license before full suitability. Currently, we're engaged in the public meeting process, which deals with the statutorily presumptive granting of casino sportsbook licenses under chapter 23n, and the temporary licensure of mobile sportsway during licenses under chapter 23n. Our proceeding today is notably not an adjudicatory hearing. If questions are raised as to suitability, such review would take place at a later time, after a thorough investigation that would include an informed determination of any individuals or entities which bear on an applicant's suitability and after a full consideration and a properly convened adjudicatory hearing. In the interim, an applicant may be deemed eligible to operate under a temporary license. And Madam Chair, with that, I believe you wish to conclude your opening. Yes, thanks, Attorney Grossman. I'm again going to repeat my gratitude and thank my fellow commissioners for your commitment to the MGC mission for your thoughtfulness and diligence today. And over the next several weeks, as we continue to evaluate these applications, your work is is notably herculean in its scope. I feel very fortunate to serve with you, particularly as we've worked tirelessly to implement this new law with the public's interest in the forefront. Our last several months and the months I had have been demanding and will continue to be demanding on our MGC team, which I know we all recognize as a team of excellence. We're very grateful for the contribution each of you. And I do note all those who have been participating in these meetings and who are working behind the scenes, each of our colleagues, you make us proud with respect to the work you do individually, and particularly as collaborating colleagues. We thank you for your dedication as public servants, personal sacrifices that you are making, and your commitment to the MGC mission. With that, let me give a brief overview of today's agenda. It's multifaceted. First, you'll hear again from Attorney Grossman, who will review the statutory and regulatory framework that will guide us as we evaluate the applications. Then American Wagering Inc., doing business as Caesars Entertainment Inc., will resume its presentation for category three, gathered license to using 205-CMR 218.06 subsection three as guidance. We commissioners, upon consideration of requested supplemental information, will then resume our assessment of the quality of the components of the supplemented application and decide whether to move forward on a determination of the matter with Attorney Grossman's guidance. Then Plainville Gaming Redevelopment, doing business as Plainridge Park Casino, PPC, is in its presentation for a category one license using, again, 205-CMR 218.06 subsection three as guidance. Again, commissioners, upon consideration of requested supplemental information, will then resume our assessment of the quality of the components of the supplemented application and decide whether to move forward on the determination of the matter with Attorney Grossman's guidance. And I should say, repeat, correct, I'm not to say that it was requested supplemental information. We'd be more accurate to say there is supplemental information. Subsequently, we anticipate Transports Interactive, or PSI's presentation of its application for a tethered category three license. That process is going to be one that has become familiar to us. After PSI's presentation, we'll hear from GLI, the IEB and RSM, relative to the technology, suitability and finance components of the application. That will lead us to a section by section analysis of the application, during which the applicant will answer our questions. Staff members and our legal team in addition to GLI, IEB and RSM will also be available to answer questions. And then to ensure that we have ample time to reflect, finalize any personal notes, memorializing our impressions, and follow up with an unanswered question, we may decide to break as needed after consideration of each section or number of sections. Then after any further questions for purpose of review of the category three application, I'll seek from the group comments and a sense as to whether we have a consensus regarding the quality of the applicant's response to that section. Did the applicant not meet expectations relevant to the standard of review outlined by General Counsel Roosevelt? Did the applicant meet expectations? Or did the applicant exceed expectations? Now, any time during this public meeting, as set forth in our agenda, the commission may determine that an executive session is required for us to fully review and evaluate certain information in the application. Should we vote to go into executive session with the guidance of our legal counsel at this time it is anticipated that the public session of this commission meeting would reconvene today at the conclusion of the second session. And after the review of the application will consider whether we wish to proceed with our determination process fully or in part or defer that decision entirely to another day. And so with that, I'll turn to item two on the agenda. I'll turn it over to you. Thanks again, Madam Chair. And as already noted, we're here today to continue the review previously begun so that the commission may evaluate the application received for a category three tethered sports wagering license submitted by American Wagering Inc, which operates the Caesars brand. And later we're scheduled to recommence the evaluation of the application submitted by Plainville Gaming Redevelopment LLC, which operates Plain Ridge Park Casino for a category one license. And then, as mentioned, PSI, which is the category three applicant associated with Plainville Gaming Redevelopment. Prior to recommencing the reviews, however, may be useful to reset the stage by walking through some of the legal provisions and principles that will inform the commission's decision making. With that, I'll highlight a few provisions of the Massachusetts Sports Wagering Act, which has been enacted as chapter 23 and of the general laws. And then a number of sections of the commission's recently adopted regulations. I'll begin with chapter 23 and and in the context of the review of the category three applicants, the first place to look at is section 63, which says that the commission may issue a category three license to any entity that offers sports wagering through a mobile application or other digital platform that meets the requirements of this chapter and the rules and regulations of the commission provided. However, the commission shall issue no more than seven category three licenses that are not connected to a category one or category two license. In the present matter, the applicant is connected to a category one licensee, specifically as it pertains to American wagering to win mass LLC, which was previously awarded a license by the commission. And of course, we've used the term tethered to describe that connection. That means that the seven license limit that we're familiar with in the law does not apply to this type of licensure that the commission will be evaluating today. Before we look at the commission's regulations that govern the licensing process for category three applicants, let's just revisit what a category three sports wagering operator license is. And that term is defined in chapter 23 and section three to mean a license issued by the commission that permits the operation of sports wagering from mobile application and other digital platforms approved by the commission. Just to place the present applications in context, it's important to recall that a category one license holder, such as win mass LLC or playingville gaming redevelopment is permitted to conduct sports wagering operations through not more than two individually branded mobile applications or other digital platforms approved by the commission provided that the mobile application shall be qualified for an issue to category three license. So the applicants before the commission today seek to operate one of those digital platforms that go along with win mass and playingville gaming and redevelopment if that license is to be awarded their category one license. So now we'll have a look at the commission's rules and regulations that have to be met by the applicants in order to be issued a license and the best place here to begin is with section 205 CMR 2018, which as you know is the section that sets out the application requirements standards and procedures. The process itself has of course already begun and we've looked at two of these applications on previous dates and then the third which will be a fresh review with all of them. The administrative sufficiency review is performed upon the commission's mission of the suitability proportions of the applications and then the commission convened a public meeting earlier in order to receive public feedback on the category three tethered applications and the category one applications respectively. Momentarily we'll walk through the factors and standards that the commission has set out for the award of such licenses. But prior to doing so there are a few other provisions and principles that are important to recall as well. First the regulations provide that the commission shall analyze factors and considerations set out in the regs but may not do so in any particular order or give any individual factor any particular weight. In fact it can assign a factor no weight at all if that is deemed appropriate. And next you'll recall that the regulations provide that the commission may require or permit an applicant to provide additional information or documents as the commission deemed appropriate in its review of the application. And in fact that is the case with two of the applicants that are before you here today. So if you as we continue to move through if you're evaluating the information that's been provided in an application or supplemented relative to a particular application in any factor you may determine that even further information is required and you may certainly require or direct an applicant to provide it. Similarly if during the course of this evaluation the applicants itself observed that there is additional information that was not already provided that may be of use to the commission. They may request an opportunity to do so. It's further noteworthy that as mentioned before the present review is being conducted as part of a regular public meeting under the open meeting law and not in adjudicatory proceeding. And this means a number of things part of which we discussed previously but also now including that the deliberations here must take place in public and that if necessary the executive session provisions of chapter 38 may be utilized. As it pertains to these matters section 21 a seven of chapter 30 a allows the commission to move into executive session to comply with or act under the authority of any general law. In the present matters there is a general law that gives the commission authority to move into executive session. And specifically that section 6 I of chapter 23 and which provides that applications for operator licenses shall be public records under section 10 of chapter 66 provided however the trade secrets competitively sensitive or other proprietary information provided in the course of an application for an operator license under this chapter. The disclosure of which would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage may be withheld from disclosure under the public records law. In some there is any if there is any specific information that the commission would like to discuss. But that the applicants have identified as falling within that provision. And the commission agrees it may move into executive session to discuss those specific pieces of information. And while the statutory provision in chapter 23 and relates to the public records law and not the open meeting law to require that this these pieces of subject information be discussed publicly would nullify the whole purpose of the provision which is designed to protect the disclosure of such information. Accordingly application of the executive session provision I reference just now is appropriate in this these instances. And finally before moving into the factors themselves it's important as always to recall that any findings the commission makes must be supported by substantial evidence. This term is defined as such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept his adequate to support a conclusion. So when making a determination as to whether there is support in the application and the record to find that a specific factor has been satisfied or has not been satisfied. The commission will have to ensure that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion. There is one exception to this rule and that is an area in which a heightened standard is applied. That relates to the applicant's suitability. By the terms of section 215 of the commission's regulations any durable finding of suitability must be supported by clear and convincing evidence after having conducted an adjudicatory proceeding and not just substantial evidence which is a slightly lower standard. Our jurisprudence tells us that clear and convincing proof exists when the evidence induces in the mind of the fact finder in this case the gaming commission a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true and that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they're false or do not exist. For evidence to be clear and convincing it must be sufficient to convey a high degree of probability that the proposition to be proved is true and it must be strong and positive and full, clear and decisive. So those are the two standards of review if you will that will be in play during the respective evaluations you have today. Now allow me to lay out the factors included in section 218 and as we've done in the past as as you walk through these when we would get started you may choose to take the application factor by factor as we have done and begin drawing conclusions as to the quality of the information supporting each one. You'll of course recall that the commission included sub factors under each of these factors in the regulations prior to engaging in final deliberations relative to any individual applicant as we've done in the past that may be helpful to outline each of these sub factors though I'm not going to do that right now. The factors are included in section 218.06 subsection five. Each factor falls under the umbrella standard which the commission included which directs that in determining whether to award a sports wagering operator license. The commission will evaluate the application to determine whether a license award would benefit the common one. So that's the main standard that will have to be met in order to award a license in reaching that conclusion though the commission provided that it will consider the following factors which you'll recall that the application itself was designed to elicit responses in the following categories. Number one, the applicants experience and expertise related to sports wagering. Number two, the economic impact and other benefits to the commonwealth if the applicant is awarded a license. Number three, the applicants proposed measures related to responsible gaming. Number four, a description of the applicants willingness to foster racial, ethnic and gender diversity, equity and inclusion. Number five, the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation. Number six is the suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers and we'll come back to this one momentarily. And number seven is any other appropriate factor in the commission's discretion. So those are the factors that will be reviewed as part of this evaluation. You'll recall that there are a few additional factors that the commission included in the regulations relative to category three evaluations. Those considerations that are specific to untethered applicants and not to the tethered sort before you today. So I'd also just like to circle back to the suitability factor for a moment. As you know, the commission adopted section 215 of the regulations to govern suitability determinations and it included provisions allowing for two types of suitability findings. One is a durable finding of suitability, which is the so-called final suitability determination. And that is the decision that has to be made after an adjudicatory proceeding had been conducted. The second is a preliminary finding of suitability. You may choose to award that durable finding if you conclude that the applicant and each of its qualifiers has demonstrated their suitability by clear and convincing proof again after having undergone a probity investigation. Alternatively, you may award a preliminary finding of suitability to an applicant that has satisfied section 215.012 of the regulations, which is based on a certification submitted by the applicant and an investigatory report submitted by the IEB. If you find an applicant to be preliminarily suitable, that makes them eligible to request a temporary license under the process described in section 219 of the regulations. The entity would not receive a full license at that juncture. This process is intended to allow for the customary full background investigation and supplemental suitability determination to be conducted by the IEB and the commission respectively. A preliminary finding may be entered for any category of applicant, including a category one applicant. You'll recall that a category one license shall be issued to a casino licensee, but only if it meets the requirements of chapter 23N and 205CMR, meaning that there is substantial evidence supporting all of the conclusions that you have to reach. So those are the factors that the commission must consider in order to make a licensing decision. As you work your way through the evaluation, it may become clear, though, that a condition of licensure will be appropriate in a particular area. You may find that information relative to a particular factor is lacking. In that event, it does not mean that an applicant cannot be awarded a license. It may simply mean that the area may require to be supplemented with an appropriate condition. License conditions are described in section 220 of the regulations. You'll recall that there are a number of automatic conditions, like an obligation to obtain an operation certificate prior to commencing operations and that the operator must comply with chapter 23N and all commission regulations. But there's also a provision that allows the commission to impose any other conditions that it determines are appropriate to secure the objectives of chapter 23N and 205CMR. Once the commission has made its way through all of the enumerated factors, but before any final decision is made as to whether to award a license, the commission should then shore up with those final conditions will be in the event the commission is inclined to award the license. Once that's done, the commission may decide whether it will award the category three or category one license outright, whether it will determine the applicant is eligible to request the temporary license while a complete suitability assessment is performed or the commission may deny an application for failure to meet any requirements of the regulations or for having violated section 60 or nine of chapter 23N. To be clear, receipt of a category three license or category one license in the fashion the commission is reviewing today, whether temporary or full does not permit for the untethered mobile operation, just a tethered as one of the two category one mobile or digital operations. At this juncture, a written decision will be prepared and issued commemorating the commission's decision, keeping in mind the award of the license or temporary license does not mean that the licensee is the green light to commence operations. It simply means that they are eligible to work towards the award of an operation certificate, which is prerequisite to conducting sports wagering operations. That process is defined and described in section 251 of the regulations and requires submission and approval of such things as the internal controls, including the house rules and compliance with any conditions that the commission may choose to impose. With that, Madam Chair and commissioners, I'll pause, happy to address any questions, but otherwise, I will turn things back to you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Attorney Grossman. Any questions? Again, we reiterate this statutory and regulatory framework, particularly as it's important, as I mentioned, because the stakeholders change each meeting. But particularly today is complex because we are shifting the category three request to perhaps category one request and then back to the beginning of a new applicants presentation for a category three desert. So thank you for outlining that regulatory and statutory framework. So again, on process bear with me, we're turning to item three on our agenda now and we'll continue with our application review conducted at the Gaining Commission's public meeting number 411 on December 14th submitted by American Wadering for doing business as Caesars Entertainment Inc. I have learned from legal that to make sure that we were accurate in where we where we last stood is that the commission did reach a consensus that the applicant met expectations with respect to sections B, C, there was discussion around some potential conditioning on working with the lottery with respect to section C and section F. The applicant by a consensus exceeded expectations with respect to section D and the applicant did not meet expectations with respect to sections E and G because the commission requested a comprehensive schedule of violations or penalties as well as we needed to have the supplemental application on the parent company as an entity qualifier which was a request that was made internally because of an inadvertent error on our part. So it is my understanding. Certainly we've seen the submission maybe with respect to the the first outstanding item. I'd like to have Director Lillios address the second item to see if that if there's satisfaction on that. And then commissioners please ask any questions you may have with respect before we proceed. Director Lillios. Hi, good morning. Thanks, Chair. Good morning commissioners. And you are correct, Chair, that the BED from the ultimate parent company was not submitted because of an inadvertent omission on our part. It has now been submitted. And I know that our licensing chief, Cara O'Brien, has had the opportunity to review it. And I think she's on this meeting and I'd like to ask her if she can just inform you, Cara, if you are there. Okay, so I'm not she may not have gotten the invite. I did speak with her last night and this morning the submission is substantially complete. We do are still working with all of the applicants on some minor matters but substantially that document, the BED is complete. So no material omissions. Okay, and that's standard, right? As you say, that's correct. Questions for Director Lillios and if Cara needs to come back to update us anything further. She's welcome to. Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, Loretta, can you just be more specific when you say substantially complete? What's missing? I'll have to get Cara on. I think I didn't give her the invite to the meeting. Loretta, I'll take care of that while you're. Thank you. Okay, and while we're waiting for that, I'll just let's consider our process going forward. That I thought that after after this we would give the applicant a chance to address the settlements that it's made. And then we would then revisit the application, even though we reached a consensus on those sections, we could revisit them or we could agree to to just sustain what we decided earlier. And then we would proceed with whether we are comfortable to proceed with this position. So does that make sense, commissioners? So we'll just wait to make sure that we're comfortable with Director Lilios's report. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, Cara. I'm sorry that we were catching you off guard. Thank you. No, not at all. So I just as Director Lilios indicated, we're pleased with the submission of the documents for the ultimate parent company. The I think Cara, the question Commissioner O'Brien had a question. I reported that there were no material deficiencies, no substantial deficiencies and that we're still working with all of the applicants on some matters. And Commissioner O'Brien asked for some additional detail like what were the immaterial deficiencies. Right. So the phrase that Director Lilios used was that it was substantially complete. And my question was what is missing? Apologies. I'm just getting a I'm getting some feedback, but I think I've fixed the issue now. So ultimately, the deficiencies that we're looking at are items that look to be complete, but just out of an abundance of caution, we are going to have the applicants confirm that there are no other items that would fall within a particular category. So they've provided a number of documents, but if, for instance, they did not directly provide a response saying that there were no responses to a particular item, that we have that just on the record. Can you tell me how many instances of that where they didn't affirmatively say NA? So it's not necessarily say they didn't say NA. It would maybe, for instance, they did not provide a docket number instead of where something that would be, we think it would perhaps be helpful to our investigations, but we have enough information to go forward and make sure that the IED has what they need in order to do their investigations. And so there's only really two items that we're looking at in terms of that nature. And then in the course of your review, is there anything? And this isn't on you. This is the process. I don't really feel comfortable moving on suitability where I haven't even seen the supplemental materials. So do you have a sense of when you would be in a position to provide any written supplemental materials to review in connection similar to what you've already given us? Can I ask for a point of clarification? Director Lillios, would what we've been receiving from the other applicants that happened to didn't have this issue of this inadvertent commission? Is there anything missing in our report that you would have included now? No, because right now the IED is not performing a review of the entity qualifiers except for a financial review that RSM is performing. And because the ultimate parent company is a public company, RSM was able to rely on the publicly filed SEC documents, which is the same process that RSM used for WID resorts, for Penn Entertainment, and for MGM resorts international. So they were all treated the same way. And really this sort of extra attention that Carrie and her team are paying to the submissions now before the full packet is transmitted to the IED for investigation, we have really worked out this process where they are putting sort of a belt and suspenders approach in on the front end. The expectation there is that it will minimize the times that the IED then has to reach out for clarification or supplemental information. There will always be times the IED needs supplemental information, but we're really asking the licensing division to put a lot of work in on the front end before the packets are transmitted for the full investigation. But right now the commission is not lacking any missing any category of information in the report that it didn't get or that it got with the other applicants. Category one or category three. OK, well. So I hope that helps. So are there any new individual qualifiers as a result of getting any of the information from the ultimate parent company? They're all right. Sorry. Yeah, thanks, Carol. We did capture the individual qualifiers from the ultimate parent in that initial scoping. They really. So no new no new individuals then based on the submission about the ultimate parent company. That's right. Thank you. I'll set commissioner. All right. So that and then. Tony Grodzman, I think that we have also they have submitted when we received the response to what I understand it's really a section G3 deficiency that we identified and they were they complied and submitted. Did everybody have a chance to see that? If not, we can pause. OK, I'm not hearing any objection. So with that, if commissioners, if you agree, we'll we'll hear from the applicant to just update us on on their supplement and we'll proceed with questions for the applicant. And I do reserve the right for us to ask questions on what we looked at earlier. If there's if there's any desire for further clarification, I don't think the applicant will mind that. OK, thank you. Good morning. Good morning, chair, commissioners, staff. Jeff Hendricks, assistant general counsel for seizures, entertainment. It's a pleasure to be in front of you again today. Thank you all for the opportunity to appear again in front of you and on behalf of each of the applicants, AWY, William Hill, the US and seizures, entertainment Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to supplement the previously provided application materials. I'll give a brief summary of what we provided. And of course, we have to answer any questions. And then at the conclusion, ideally, of addressing any questions, we respectfully request your approval of a temporary category through your license to be issued to American Wadring Inc. Chair, I believe you kind of walked through the various items that we provided since we last appeared in front of the commission. However, just to kind of run through those. We thought we see that entertainment filed a BED on behalf of the ultimate parent company, Caesars Entertainment Inc. That was the application that was just described. I would I would note throughout this process, we are happy to continue to provide supplemental information on any of those exhibits. We endeavored to provide a fulsome review of the company and answer each of those exhibits in sufficient detail. But if there's anything that would require additional information, we're, of course, available to do so. Additionally, we filed an updated exhibit E3F01 on behalf of AWI, which is essentially the fine schedule that we have been discussing where we provide a summary of not just those fines that exceed $50,000, but also provided all fines applicable to AWI, including warning letters that did not result in a fine. To the extent any of that would be useful to discuss, I'd be happy to walk through those specific actions. I would state in summary that we attempted to address each of those completely and timely with the respective regulator and any fines associated with those matters were paid promptly. Additionally, we updated exhibit G3 regarding financial stability to reference the additional information provided on behalf of the ultimate parent company and the additional fine schedules. So hopefully that supplement kind of fully addresses the inclusion of the new material. With that, I believe that summarizes the additional materials that we provided based on conversations with the commission in the last meeting. And I would be happy to pause and answer any questions. If not, as I mentioned earlier, we would respectfully request an issue of temporary license to American Waging Regiment. So before I want to I want to just ask Mr. Hendricks, remind me if there is anything in this violation schedule that is not is something that would put you at a commercial disadvantage if it were discussed in public before I asked commissioners for any questions. And if there are, we'd want we'd want to to get guidance before we ask any questions. And then the second thing, just as a clarification, this came up yesterday. We're hearing a lot of different terms of it's a settlement agreement. It's a fine. It's a penalty. Your record makes it clear that there's a variety of those terms used. And so you said the word fine. And I just wanted to say that, in fact, there are some that look like what we actually settlements, OK, et cetera. There's a bunch of different terms that are used in the industry. Chair, I would agree this the style of the kind of administrative proceeding can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It could be a settlement agreement or a fine or a disciplinary action or some other term of art. And then the resolution to that administrative action can also vary in its description for jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So I think kind of in summary, we've been calling this a fine schedule for this meeting, but that this exhibit endeavors to encompass all of those sorts of matters. Yes. And in relation to the specifics of a disciplinary action, I would request that there is a matter that kind of details with specifically how we address a process within our team. Or an update to some sort of control structure that we could discuss that in an executive session, though, I'm happy to address kind of all of your questions publicly to the extent I can. And if we enter an area that I think might require executive session, I would request it at that point. That's an acceptable way to proceed. So your first the first one that you know, I'm sorry. Then it relates to something about your team. I think I get that if there's a specific process that we implemented or like a disciplinary action involving a team number, we would request that we could discuss that in an executive session. Or if there's a control structure improvement that might lend itself to competitive disadvantage, we would ask to speak to that in executive session. Though I am happy to walk through all of it publicly to the extent we can initially. And if there's a matter that's just particularly sensitive, I might ask for private session to discuss it at that point. If that approach would work for the commission. Thank you. First, do you want Mr. Hendricks to walk through each item or are you comfortable asking questions about, you know, particular? Or do you have no questions at all? I don't have questions for the applicant, but I do have a question for Director Lillio's, just in terms of whether the IEB has had an opportunity to review the supplemented documentation provided by the applicant and whether the finding of the suitability in the executive summary changes if it remains, what is your response to the supplemented documentation? So just to make sure we're on the same page about the preliminary report, there is no finding from the IEB and no recommendation on preliminary suitability from the IEB. In terms of the list of disciplinary actions that was submitted, they go back to 2019, similar to what I said yesterday about another applicant in this highly regulated industry. It is no surprise that we would see a list of disciplinary actions, especially for an operator that is active in multiple jurisdictions. That is no surprise. When we assess, you know, suitability based on looking at disciplinary history, we do look at a number of things. And I have looked at the list that they sent, you know, but we have not independently investigated that list. That is something that we would do in the full suitability review. We do things like speak to both the applicant licensee and the regulator review records from the regulator. A look at whether there is repetitive violations of the same nature that have gone unaddressed. Look at whether the app licensee is identifying the problems on its own and self reporting them, or if the regulator is identifying them looking at whether something is intentional or inadvertent. So, you know, really at this point, I'm not able to make that assessment as well as we are learning about this. What is a new industry for us? But the fact that there is, you know, list of actions dating back to 2019, that in and of itself is no surprise. I do note in the self reports that it appears that the matters were, you know, fines were paid promptly. We do look for that as well. So I hope that I hope that's helpful to orient you to what the IEP has been able to tell about this list and what we would be deferring for the full suitability review, which would come at a later time. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's for sure. Commissioner Skinner, are you done with your question? Please go ahead, Commissioner. So I'm trying to ask this any without being specific. But over the since 2019, I've noticed a few times, not just one or two regarding people who have been self excluded, having issues with the company. I don't want to get into specifics in case that's a question for executive session. But it seemed to come up a few times. So I just wanted to know. Protocols have now been put into place. Employees are being trained. What's happening? Yeah, absolutely. So we continue to refine all of the process surrounding responsible gaming in general, since they kind of a launch of this of the sports winning product in the last few years. So I'll address that in a few different ways. So one one of our main focuses is to ensure that we have a completely accurate and robust database includes each excluded person in each jurisdiction in which we operate. To do so, we have to find that process so that to the extent possible, we directly upload that information from our regulatory partners directly into our database to prevent human error. In some instances, you might have seen disparate actions that resulted from human error transfer of information. To every extent possible, we have eliminated those sorts of points of friction so that all of those processes are automated. And then we go back through and double check the information to verify that our databases are accurate. We do that double check in a variety of ways as well. We have an assessment from an internal audit team on an annual basis to look through our databases. That's key to me to make sure that we have every excluded person in each of our jurisdiction properly flagged. In addition, our compliance team does random reviews of the uploads. Make sure the process is working and that the final product is flowing through to the database. So a lot of focus on the front end, continual training with all of our team members to respect and adhere to all of our responsible gaming controls to not provide services responsible to team members or not team members to patrons who might be dealing with responsible gaming issue. And then as we discussed in our presentation, a variety of programs to ensure that all of our guests have access to help, whether that be through the company with a self exclusion that they could determine through our application or to reach out to an independent agency that provide responsible gaming assistance to the guest. So we focus in a variety of areas to continually improve those controls. And I guess I would say looking at the breadth of jurisdictions in which we operate. Unfortunately, there are some matters that will kind of make their way to a schedule like this. We do endeavor in every single state to limit that to every extent possible and to continually refine our responsible gaming procedures. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Is the follow up, please, to Director Lilios on IEB's role in assessing preliminary suitability. And, you know, there are some things that are becoming apparent to me as we as we review these applications day after day. And, you know, I don't think I fully grasped the limitations that we're up against relative to, again, IEB's role. Loretta indicated that it's not IEB who's making the preliminary determination of suitability or even making a recommendation on which the commission can rely on. And I understand that it is the commission's responsibility to make a determination of suitability. However, I would expect that we would get some recommendation from IEB based on the documentation that has been presented, in particular, the information relative to the applicant, the VEG and the individual qualifiers. I feel as though the commission as a body is being substituted to make these important determinations and assessments around suitability, we're being substituted for IEB. And I don't know that that is I don't know that that is the right thing to do. And I get that that's what our regulations call for, essentially. We as a body voted on these regulations. But I just I, you know, I I mean, I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with being put in a position to assess suitability, even on a preliminary basis when we don't have the expertise. Yes, we are hearing from RSM on the financial components. But we're not hearing really. We're getting a sort of a summary of the information provided in the application. And I don't think that's quite enough for me. I would like to hear more from IEB going forward on each of these applications on their recommendation. And I'm just one commissioner. I understand that. But I think there's that's a crucial piece for me is what IEB thinks about these applicants. I'd like to pause for one minute, Director Lillias. Before you respond, I think it's important for our attorney Rosemont to revisit the statutory structure, our regulatory framework, and then perhaps the executive director Wells and director Lillias can lay in on Commissioner Skinner's level of discomfort. So before you do that, Madam Chair, just so we don't forget, I do have a couple of questions for seizures going forward, specifically on their matter. Yeah, I do. And let me finish. And before we get to pulling in general counsel on the ED, I do want to point out that this has been a matter that was really I think Commissioner Skinner and I raised early on. There is a reg that talks about it that they will then talk about. I do think it bears discussing today as we go forward, flagging our responsibility, in my view, to flag issues that we see in this self-reporting, because it is tremendously reliant upon self-disclosure and other jurisdictions. And so I have the same discomfort that is being mentioned by Commissioner Skinner. I do think that there are ways that we can ask IEB to continue to go forward when matters are flagged. And I would hope and expect that if they see something on its face, they would alert us to that fact, which is not the same as making a recommendation on suitability. But I also think we as commissioners and as a body have an obligation to flag any area that we see in these preliminary reports and go from there. And it's going to be case by case and it's going to be applicant by applicant. And I wanted to say that before we get into a revisiting and a rediscussion about what our rec says and where we are right now. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. I want to point out that I appreciate when one commissioner points out another commissioner's position, I always want to make sure that when we do that, that doesn't in any way imply that the other commissioners do not have the same concerns. There's no there's no ownership over the ownership of integrity here. We all know that that's our responsibility. So I appreciate that. And I think it's absolutely good for you to flag your concerns. I do think because of the nature of this law, 23 N versus 23 K, a good reminder helpful. And that's why I did turn Councillor Grossman, that in no way diminishes either of your stress concerns, nor does it in any way imply that Commissioner Maynard or Commissioner Hill or myself don't share your concerns. I just want to make sure we understand that. So again, to Councillor Grossman, if we could just go over how the statute meets and the regulation and then and I think we have on the record where I think I may have asked, perhaps it was on Councillor Hall, you know, are there any concerns that come up? And I think that's a fair thing. Like Director Lillio will address that that in a minute, if there is something that they saw without making a recommendation. I think that she she will find that for us. But let's revisit that after we hear the statutory. Yeah, because, Madam Chair, that that is going to be important, because when I have a report, I understand that. If you I just I got to finish my sentence. We're out of order. You're out of order. My apologies. I need to read. I want to hear from our lawyer. Then go right ahead. Go right ahead. Keep that thought. Thank you so much. Go ahead, Todd. Thank you. Well, I first start by just stating that the process we have been following and is outlined in the regulations is in complete conformance with the law and Chapter 23 and that said, the Commission does have to find, as we talked about, by substantial evidence that each of the factors are satisfied to the satisfaction of the commissioners, at least the majority of the commissioners and the law starts in Section 6 of Chapter 23 and talking about suitability and it's different from Chapter 23 K in the context of Chapter 23 and the statute directs that the Commission commenced an investigation into the suitability of the applicant and that's a shell. So an investigation to the suitability of the applicant does have to be commenced. But unlike Chapter 23 K, the burden is not on the applicant, at least in the initial phase, to establish its suitability by clear and convincing evidence. Instead, the law comes at it from a different direction and says that the Commission may deny an application if the standards are not satisfied or if there are certain other issues detected in the suitability. Based upon the statute, you'll recall the Commission constructed Section 215 of the regulations, which established two separate forms of suitability. And this was done in recognition of the idea that a complete and thorough suitability review and investigation absolutely does have to be conducted, but that there should also be a mechanism by which a preliminary review could be conducted in a threshold finding made. And under that second mechanism, which we have referred to as the preliminary finding of suitability, the IEB was not directed to conduct a full background investigation or make any recommendations. And so the reports you've been seeing are from the IEB are in complete conformance with the law. Of course, the preliminary finding provision, which is the one that we've been looking at for a little bit now, directs essentially the two things happen. One is that the applicant itself certify that to the best of its knowledge and belief that it is suitable to hold the license. And secondly, that the IEB conducts a background investigation, but it says the investigation may be limited to a review of that certification to any other self-disclosed licensing history and compliance and other jurisdictions and an open source check relative to the applicant. So that's what the Commission directed the IEB to do when it comes to preliminary suitability investigations. Of course, that being said, as we've discussed, I think, if the Commission awards a preliminary finding of suitability, that just means that if awarded the temporary license, the IEB will then conduct a full and thorough complete background investigation after which an adjudicatory proceeding would be conducted and a supplemental suitability review essentially has to be performed by the Commission at a hearing in which case, if the applicant, then temporary licensee does not meet the clear and convincing standard, they would be deemed unsuitable and have, of course, issues with their license. But that's that's the way the regulation was set up. By contrast, if an applicant has established by clear and convincing evidence, its suitability after an adjudicatory proceeding and for practical purposes, the only applicants that possibly could have satisfied that standard at this juncture would have been the category one applicants who have all already undergone the full and thorough background investigation and had an adjudicatory proceeding to review their suitability conducted by the Commission. They are the only ones who would have qualified on their face for a durable finding of suitability. And of course, the Commission will call that it has awarded a two durable findings of suitability already to two of the category one licensees or what are now licensees. So that's the distinction in the law. And I'm not sure if that clarifies anything. What I would just say, though, is that it's certainly appropriate to inquire into any issues that may arise relative to suitability or otherwise that a commissioner would like answers to, because ultimately you will be called upon to vote as to whether you find there is substantial evidence to support each of the factors, including the suitability factor. And if you feel like there is an issue that prevents you from being able to reach that point, then it is certainly appropriate to inquire. But I would just conclude by saying that everything that has been done in this case and in all other cases is in complete conformance with the law and the regulations. I turn to Executive Director Wells. Yeah, I just wanted to. Once I just addition, I'd like your feedback, but I also I believe this came up when we were thinking about the reg is that because of this structure, we were somewhat concerned about the amount of time. And I think there was a cap on the time in our reg for IEB to complete its work. One of the issues for the executive director is to think about what resources could be needed in order to accomplish the work. We understand that IEB will have a lot of work to do. The commission could even insist on more resources being placed for IEB to get that work done so that it doesn't stretch out to that up to three year period on suitability. But the law is different between 23 and 22 K. And so now I just wanted to turn to you. I just wanted to remind everybody that there's there's there are ways that we can impact this structure that we've right now are living under. Director Wells, and then I'm going to turn back to Commissioner Skinner before we turn to Director Lillios, please. Director Wells. Yes, I just support what general general counsel Grossman has been saying. I think that the crux of the issue here is the difference between 23 K and 23 N. And that's something that it's it's hard to sort of grasp because there appears to be this expectation of a full investigation and suitability determination on the front end and 23 N. That's not what the law says. The law talks about giving a temporary license and doing suitability on the back end. My understanding when you did the reg and the reg did say that that the commission makes the decision and it sold discretion. This is a matter of eligibility for a temporary license. And so the commission front, you're eligible to have a temporary license. There are these there are these things. And then when evaluating a license, you can you can look at these factors, whether you want to give a license. But the IEB's role at this juncture under 23 N, not 23 K, right now for this under the regulation, they are just really a reporting function. They're they're compiling and recording the data that was submitted in the application and what they have been able to glean from from open source searches. So it's just a very different construct. And I understand, obviously, the frustration because there's some gravity to anything related to suitability. But the the law and what the legislature passed is just extremely different in the timing on these evaluations. So I don't know if there's any other. Well, if you could also elaborate on because you were very key in the development of the application and the notion of relative suitability. Yes, but yeah. And that was that was I think that's critical because you're looking at Section G of the application and at the time the application was developed, we were looking at the potential of maybe 30 applicants coming in for these untethered licenses. And so when we were looking at the development of the application, we thought that it was a good recommendation to the commission that you may want to take into consideration relative suitability. So I'll give you an example. If you had 30 applicants for for these untethered licenses, you may find them all. They may all be suitable. They may all be suitable in other jurisdictions. They may be able to do a reasonably good job and how they're presenting their product, et cetera. But there may be half the applicants had a ton of the compliance violations. And there may be issues and litigation and there may be other applicants that really did not have that same kind of history and you may have wanted to weigh that and we still want to give you that opportunity. And that's how you can use that Section G when we do the untethered evaluation process. So that's why the thinking behind putting that in the application and just basically you need a threshold that you can go forward and be eligible and then you could use it for a relative suitability when we do an evaluation in a competitive process that helpful, Kathy. And it's a good reminder for me, Commissioner Skinner, your question and then we'll turn to Director Williams to come to address it with its directed effort. Of course, I want to say that I don't take issue with anything that Council Roseman has said. I think I started my discussion just saying that that's what we voted for in the regulations as a body. I'm saying now that I'm not satisfied with that where we have an IED report that gives a conclusion and it's really just a recitation of facts based on the self-disclosure, based on the open source information review, based on what the applicant has reported in terms of pending investigations, etc. It is really just a recitation of all of that and a conclusion which reads the IED submits this report regarding review for preliminary suitability to assist the Commission in determining whether to deem the applicant eligible to request a temporary Category 3 sports wagering license. I don't want to stand in the shoes of IED. I am looking for a recommendation on suitability, even at the preliminary stage for temporary licensure from IED. And so my question to Director Lilios is what additional information, what additional time does IED need in order to, I guess, convert, for lack of a better word, the conclusion that appears at the end of your report, more of a recommendation? Commissioner Skinner, I think that we've heard from Council progressmen that that is not under our regulation and it's not an expectation of Director Lilios and as Director Lilios mentioned, we can always I'm sorry, Commissioner Skinner. I think what I would like now is Commissioner Skinner is raising something that I do think I'd like perhaps to take a break so that I can sort it out, Commissioner Skinner. Perhaps you can speak with Councilor Grossman and I'll take a break so that we can give our applicant who's patiently waiting by the wayside the chance to take a simple bit of a break to it's 11.16. Why don't we convene at 11.30? Because Commissioner Skinner, I think that perhaps Councilor Grossman can come up with some suggestions rather than putting Director Lilios on the spot. Well, in respect to Madam Chair, I think that we as a body can also chime in on this. I don't I do think there's a level of discretion that's involved here in the resolution in what she's talking about, that is not simply up to executive director Wells and Councilor Grossman. I'll do respect to them. And it is not my intention to put to a break and I can have a break. Please think I'm going to have a break. Thank you so much. Let me turn it 11.30. Eileen, are the winds are blowing down your way? Not too bad. No, not yet. I'm waiting. I'm bracing for later in the week. It sounds like it's like 32ish around here, but it feels like it's in the 20s. Does it really? We always get the wind off the ocean. I was going to say it wasn't that bad. My son was super late. I drove him to school. It wasn't too bad. That was about 7.30. So everybody, I'm just right now dealing with a technical issue because my computer is on restart. They're trying to upgrade right now. So bear with me. We're trying to get that taken down. What grade is your son in again? And you don't have to answer that. That's private. Yeah, I'll text you. I'll text you. OK. 7.30, boy, God bless you. So they've done a whole thing. A lot of towns are doing this now where there's research about when you hit a certain age in your teens, like how much sleep you get and that your pattern needs to sleep later. And, you know, so they're they're shifting start times of schools. But because of the bus contracts, yeah, they then have to change all of them, elementary, middle and high school. They can't just move high school. So to get everybody in, some schools have to go earlier to accommodate high school going later. Gotcha. So the whole thing was kind of turned on its head. When I when I have to go in for my treatment stuff, I usually go in around six o'clock in the morning. Oh, wow. And it's amazing to me. We have two technical schools in my area and they're picking those kids up at six and six 15 in the morning to get them to school by like 7.30 or 7. I'm like, this is ridiculous. Yeah. And if they like me, they were up till midnight doing their homework. Well, so that was that was the joke was, you know, as one of the teachers said, you know, look, let's be realistic. They're teenagers. So if you let them start later, it's not like they're going to bed at the same time, right? They're going to be like, oh, I get to sleep in an hour. And so they just stay up an hour later. He's like, it's not like they're showing it's a high school. He's like, it's not like they're showing up to school better rested. You know, he said, I understand the theory. But but it's wreaking havoc on sports fields because when they start later, right, then everybody has to, you know, it messes up practice times and field access and gym access and all sorts of stuff. Right before I left the legislature, we had done a report on school busing because we were having issues getting buses for special it was special ed bus drivers because we couldn't get people from point A to point B. And I learned more about busing than I ever wanted or ever thought I would learn. And right now we are so low on bus drivers, especially since covid. Yep. That when I heard you say about sports, they've had to change games because they can't get bus drivers to get the kids of the sports anymore. Yeah, they had to do that even for like normally have like tracks. You know, usually there's no cuts, right? It's like, come, go ahead, you know, give it a go, whatever. They couldn't get the buses to get everybody around. So they had to take, you know, the younger kids and be like, all right, you're going to be a group A group B and you get to go to half the away meets and B goes to the other half because we just can't get you all there. And then some parents were like, well, I'll drive my kids. So can they go to everything? And they're like, well, no, because then you have an equity issue because then the people can't buy their kid. And insurance insurance insurance. Yeah, yeah, it's it's a whole. So the other night I can't even God, we've had so many nights right in a row now. One of the teams that we played the other night, I was walking out to my car and I'm looking for the bus for the other team to go home. And I kept seeing the girls and they're like, all walking to the parking lot. I'm like, where are they all going? They actually have they know they bought vans. Oh, so they're now bringing their own, you know, I don't think they could get a track team, but they certainly could get a basketball team and two different vans and yeah. So I don't know if the coaches drive or what happens there. But I think some of the private schools, even they'll have the vans and then they have like a dedicated like almost buildings and grounds person who can also drive. Interesting. So they'll yeah, I've seen that before too, where they the van shows up and the person is also employed at the school in some other capacity. I would think it would be less expensive if you could lease your own vans and get drivers for them. Maybe maybe yeah, it is it's we were talking about this all. I mean, I know it's tough getting work workers all over, but yeah, the bus is it's hard because the schedule kind of interrupts your day. You have to be available first thing in the morning and then, you know, what in the afternoon afternoon. That's when I was a kid, it was like retirees, people who retire, but they just wanted something to do. Right. But with COVID, I think a lot of people didn't want to risk exposure. It's been tough. And I think they're a little bit more strict with the. Looking into someone's past, if you will. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, so yeah, it's been a different note. How's your house? How's the record? I mean, losses. So we are I can't even begin to remember how many games we've played. Two and oh, I'm going to say. Oh, good. Yeah. Tonight's Ames Berry. And that's a an hour drive. Oh, geez. On the bus. So I stopped my drama meeting at two o'clock. You're not taking drama meeting and driving. I have enough days. So the chair, there is an issue with her computer and it is up helping resolve that matter. So as soon as the it's matter resolved, she'll be able to get back on. But we're just waiting for that. Are we streaming or are we just waiting? No, no, you're talking. There you go. No, I thought so. I was just checking because sometimes not. Yeah, no, we're just waiting. So if everyone could just stand by, we'll be hopefully ready to go in a few minutes. I have a team, Eileen, of Seven Girls. Mm hmm. That's it. And yeah, it's and two swing. I call them swingers. So they play up in, you know, up in the varsity and with me. Oh, to give you some more subs. That and it just, you know, they're they're on the cost of going up to varsity. Yeah, and we've done OK. Our practices have been a little difficult because we can't do it five on five. You know, yeah, image, if you will. So the girls, they've done a good job of learning the plays, despite not having defense. And I don't think we play like a one of the top teams. I don't think we play them for another couple of weeks. So we're getting some good experience, getting ready for them. Yeah, that's good. One team we did very well against and the other team, we won by three. Oh, and that was a, you know, a division up from us. So that was a good game. Good. Yeah, it went back and forth. I was having a heart attack. Now, do you have an assistant coach or is it just you? Just me. And then when the varsity game starts, there's a couple of us to help her. OK. That's fun. Keeps me young, or at least I'd like to think so. So no offense to anybody in the office, but there was no way I was going in there today and. There was no heat in my office yesterday at all now. And then the guy came right in the middle to try to fix the end. It's like right next to me. And I'd left the door open to get enough heat in so it was tolerable. And he goes arguing back at seven in the morning. I'm like, go back at seven in the morning. So knock on wood. It's a lot. Does someone walk in there for me to make sure it's taken care of before I go back in tomorrow? Anyhow, some offices like mine's very hot. And then yours is right next to it, cold. So I've never had this issue before, though. Mine's always been fine. Yeah, just a snap. Never I. Loretta's, I guess, was freezing because she said that she said she was there late last night, like I was and she said it was freezing in her office. So yours could have been. I don't know. I didn't go in there. Colder, the better for me, as you know. Yeah, but when you can feel it in your hand, like you feel like it's crossed the line, it's gotten too much. I think I told you this before I now that I'm on blood thinning medicine. I used to laugh at my father when he was 80 years old. And it'd be like sweaters on, but it's 90 degrees. Oh, my God, it'd be summer and he's inside with a sweatshirt on. I'm like, Dad, what's going on here? Well, now I'm my dad. It all comes back to circle. We all turn into our parents. Yeah, eventually. No, that's funny. It's funny you say that because my hands get very cold now. Yeah. It's funny that's happening to Kathy's machine last month in the middle of two meetings, mine just automatically. Updated, updated. So mine did it this morning. I was having a lot of issues yesterday and they went in remotely and did something and I had to disconnect and reconnect temple times and I get started again. It started happening in this morning and I get a restart and there was an update that it had to go through for some of this. I usually get updates on the saying, hey, you got to restart your computer by the 18th, let's say. Yeah, I didn't get a warning on this one. It just said I just did it when I restarted. It always happens that way, though. Even yesterday, the iPad froze and I was on like the office internet. Yeah, I was home and I had to hop off and come on through the laptop. And then later I turned it back on. It was working just fine, but it was all right. Are you on an iPad right now? Right now, yeah, this is I usually do the meetings on the iPad. That's a clear picture. Yeah. Mind you, at least the computer opened so I can pull up the materials on the computer. Yeah. Now, do you use the three screens in your office? Do you have three screens? Nope. Best thing I ever do. I do this, I do this on the iPad. That works for me. I know some people like the screens. I don't that doesn't work for me. I didn't think I would like it. And then now that I had it when I'm home, I wish I had it. Yeah. I tried hooking a monitor up, a separate monitor up here really early on in covid. It just it was a lot of space for not a lot of value. Gotcha. How you get to stay home for Christmas, I hope, or all over the place? No, with everything here and in my people coming into town, et cetera, just we didn't we're staying local. Nice. Yeah. I got to get my keys. I got to get new bindings put on. People, you know, people laugh when I say to them, geez, if I brought you skis, do you think you could tell me whether you could put bindings and I tell them how old they are? And they're like, we're never going to be able to do it. And then I showed them the skis and they're like, these are in great shape. I was like, yeah, I probably went half a dozen times total. And then stop skiing for a while. And then so I got to bring them, but now I got to bring them down. Remember to bring them down and have time to bring them down there. Well, it looks like up north got a lot of snow. So snow, well, a lot of people started skiing and dusted off skis. So it's a it's a backlog if you try to get your stuff tuned. We have a ski store in Wenham. And I don't know the name of it. It's something in ski shop. That's all I know. And they do mostly rentals for the year. Yeah. So one day or two last month, there's like a whole traffic jam trying to get into that. It's a little shop all the way around Thanksgiving, right? Everybody's trying to grab their skis. And it was one of my friends is a skier and he rents him. He doesn't buy his own. Does it every year for his whole family? I'm like, why don't you just buy your own for the rest of your life? And for him, this is perfect. He goes because if I stop skiing, why would I want to blah, blah, blah? Yeah, see, I want to have him so I don't need to deal with. I've been doing it and renting as I go. I finally bought my own boots last year. So then I would only do the skis, but we tried going to Blue Hill and they would give you a window. You know, it was still COVID ask, right? So you have everybody else had rentals or their own equipment. We had a three hour slot. I spent almost two hours queued up trying to get the skis. Oh, and that's when I was like, forget it. I'm either getting bindings on my old skis or I've got to get something because I can't do that. That's just a waste of time. So is there a local binding shop for you? So there's a place down in Westwood that will do it. And then there's another place in native that I think I got to take them out to confirm they're less backlog than the other place. One down there is like two, three weeks turn around to even get your stuff back. Really? Yeah. I always forget about native and meaning shopping. The old shoppers world, they still call it shoppers world, even though it's really. Yeah, so they blew up the outdoor one and it's still outdoors. Now it's like parking lot in the middle, right? It's like two strip malls facing each other. Yeah, but there's a lot there. I mean, in terms of going to one place and being able to hit a bunch of stuff between the mall and that. Like the Winfield shops down where we are. Yeah, I have to go Christmas shopping. I haven't even been yet. The problem now is if you try to order online, it's probably not going to get here in time. So now you really have to go in a store. It's been all gift cards for the last 10 years. So you just have to go click to get the gift card? I usually go physically and pick them up because they give you they give you the little boxes you can put them in. Oh, yeah. Now, are you going out anywhere? You stay on local. No. We do like little one day trips. My wife and I, we don't we don't go places. I didn't know if you were traveling out. My kids are 30 and 26 now. And so we visit Courtney out in South Dakota. Each of us take a turn and go out like maybe every four or five months each. But overall, no, we're homebodies. Unless you're going out to concerts. All within an hour and a half of our house. Oh, I didn't realize there was an outer limit. Yeah. And I will drive two hours for a concert. Although my my daughter is getting married next year and it's in Colorado. So I am praying. Oh, you said you want to go to Red Rock? Yes, I'm praying that there's some type of a concert going on within a week of it. So that I and I don't even care if it's a good concert just to see the place. Yeah, yeah, I've never been. I'll see a baseball game there. You know, the park is awesome. Yeah, so it'll be fun. I think I told you when we brought her out to Idaho, my god, I saw more of this country than I've seen in my entire life. You drove. Yeah, throw back and forth or forth and back, I guess. Yeah, I drove cross country after college. I had a brother live at who was living and working out in California. And he bought my parents' old station wagon off them. And so we like would drive. I think we stayed in two hotels, like cheap, cheap rooms other than that. It was all driven by who we could stay with along the way for free. You know, whose floor could we crash on? Yeah, that must be fun. It was fun. It was a lot of fun. And then this was in the day of when AmEx would give you those $99 tickets, you know, way back. So then he was able to just put me on a plane and send me home. Nice. All I can think of is the 70s show when you talk about the station wagon. Yeah. Have you seen the movie The Way Way Back or the I think it's called The Way Way Back? No, Steve Carell. They filmed part of it at Water Wiz in Warram. That's like the water park. Yeah, film on there. No, that one I haven't seen. Yeah, like circa 1980s. Those are the best years. I don't think people truly appreciate growing up in the 80s, how great it was. So have you watched Stranger Things? No, it's kind of creepy. I had to get talked into it because it's not my thing, but they it's set back and it's like middle school, high school kids back in the 80s. So it's like a sci-fi thing, but it's funny. I tell my kids and obviously my friends of today, I still have my best friends from the 80s that I call. They don't even live near me, but I call them regularly. We stayed in touch. And I said back then that whatever group or circle of friends you had, they were your best of best friends and they took care. We took care of each other. You know, if it was just funny seeing like the bikes with the flag on it. Oh, yeah. Or you have like, you know, the landline where you've got to drag the cord into your room. It's like stuck in the kitchen wall. Yeah, you get off to a separate room. Put the old card in between your spokes of your bike. Yes. Oh, I forgot about that one. Yeah. And we didn't have helmets back then. Oh, yeah, you said that orange flag. Please don't hit me. I think of that. I think of the hills that we used to go down in the neighborhoods and how fast we went down those things. We're lucky we didn't crash into a car. I got to take. So who doesn't say the I.T. guys are everyone's best friends. Yeah. Amen. And I say, guys, of course, guys and guys and I, I'm so appreciative of that team. There's a reason why you know, we we hire the best in today's an example. So to Tim, Drain and Ben, thank you so much for coming and intervening with my computer, which was being enhanced, apparently, in the middle of this meeting, so thank you. So, Dave, we're all set streaming, I believe, right? I believe so. So we're still streaming. I lost my Wi-Fi connection real quick, but everything still seems to be going. I'm just trying to figure out who it's streaming off of now. If it's streaming off of Tom or Crystal. OK, maybe Crystal or Tom. OK, so to the public, again, my apologies. And I think you heard me say that the I.T. has been tremendous team to help me in the middle of really what was an upgrade of my unexpected scheduled upgrade of my computer. So, again, thank you. So we're now turning back to our discussion with the application of American wagering, which is Caesar's entertainment. We paused because there were several questions that were complex that needed to be addressed. I do want to give every commissioner the opportunity to speak as to this matter. Commissioner Skinner, you will add the last question and I will entertain your question. But before there's any responses, I do want to hear from the other commissioners as well, and I will select the order. Go right ahead, Commissioner Skinner. Madam Chair, I don't want to belabor the point. I think where I am experiencing the sort of a manifestation of the concerns I raised early on in adopting such an aggressive timeline to issue sports during licenses. And so that's all I'll say. You know, I do not intend to put anyone on the spot. Certainly not Director Lillio, certainly not Director excuse me, Council Grossman or any of my fellow commissioners. I am one of five and I've been heard. I said what I had to say and I look forward to hearing what my other fellow commissioners have to say about the matter. OK, and I'll turn to Commissioner Hill. Did you want to add something? I hear Commissioner Skinner's concerns and I respect them. My view is that we had a debate on this a few weeks ago as a commission. We voted on the regs in regards to what we were asked to do from 23 and and I would hope at this point that if we need to make changes to the regulations that we will revisit them at some point in the future. But at this point, let's move on with the applicant and ask the questions of our applicant who are before us and who have been patiently waiting so that we can do the job that we were appointed to do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Bryan. So this process has an end life to it. I mean, there is a sunset provision to what we're doing. There are limitations to what IEB is being asked to do prior to us looking at preliminary suitability. However, in my view, that doesn't stop any commissioner on this body from saying to IEB, I need more information on X to go forward. And that's certainly how I have been approaching it. And I continue to intend to do that so that if I see something that I think needs to be delved into further, I intend to do that. And I intend to ask IEB to look at something particular, either as a condition precedent to be voting on something or as a condition on a license. So that is my view on it. It is an aggressive timeline. We are relying on self disclosure and sort of reciprocity from other jurisdictions in front of us. That's what I will say on that when you're ready. I just have a couple of specific questions I wanted to ask. Caesar's getting back to them in terms of just what was supplemented and what was before us today for them. We'll turn to that matter. Commissioner Maynard, I'd like for you to have the opportunity to speak. Thank you, Madam Chair. I respect every commissioner on this commission and I know that we put in a lot of work to get to where we are. I believe that our review of our regulations per our regulations are a bolster, not a compromise over 23N. The reason we asked for additional information contained in E3, which was provided to us today, was so we can make a decision on preliminary suitability. I want to be clear, though, that if any applicant violates the process or misleads this commission, I know that the full weight and force of this commission will be brought to bear. I'm comfortable following the regulation that this body adopted. As Commissioner Hill pointed out, as long as we continue to get all the information that's requested in the application and we have requested additional information or clarifications. In this particular case, we request more information from the applicant. We got it. I feel very comfortable making a decision based upon that information. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. So now, Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Hessian, thank you. As you know, this commission must do all of its work in public, which means that sometimes we have to sort these matters out and it takes a little bit of time and process. So thank you for your patience. What turn then? We the last question, I think I asked Commissioner Skinner, she had any questions of you, Commissioner Skinner. I think that you suggested that you didn't. But I think you can still turn back to you. Commissioners, do you have particular questions for Mr. Hendricks in terms of the schedule that submitted as part of the supplement? Commissioner O'Brien, I do. I have two questions. One is attorney Hendricks is somewhat in line with sort of the trend that Commissioner Hill noted. And it's more in line with particularly Iowa and New Jersey in terms of certain things that happened before you actually had authorization to activate things. And so obviously we're in a posture of getting ready to launch as early as March. So I'd love you to be able to speak to what precautions have been put in place, particularly for the Commonwealth, to make sure that if you're awarded a license, aren't going to activate anything prior to being authorized to do so. And then and if we have talked about this already, let me know. It's been a long week, a couple of weeks, but the erroneous use of the credit cards that happened through the third party vendor, I'd also like to know what, if any, changes scissors made after that. And if any of those address an executive session, let me know. Commissioner O'Brien, how do you speak to all those? I believe we can speak to those publicly. And then if I'm incorrect on anything, we need to supplement the executive session, we'll certainly do so. So to reflect your first question about implementation of a product or platform changes prior to approval, a couple of items that I would illustrate. One, we continue to refine our change management process as we work through all these implementations. So each of those items has been a lesson learned where we have improved how we communicate between our product compliance, our technical team, our regulatory compliance team and our regulators to ensure that we do obtain all necessary approvals before implementing a process change. So in our presentation last week, my colleague, Floyd Baroga, our VP of Product Compliance, discussed our change management plan at a high level. And so I can tell you with our full intention that as we work through a potential go live in the Commonwealth, that each step in our change management plan will be followed and we will communicate effectively with commission staff to ensure that anything that requires approval is run through that change management process appropriately. Additionally, as we discussed, we have a robust independent testing lab process whereby we confirm the version that would be implemented. Then the Commonwealth meets all applicable standards. Platform will be confirmed through an independent testing laboratory and then deployed only subsequent to all necessary approvals. So part of it, I think, is just a reflection of the expansion of the industry in a short amount of time. But what we have done is try and learn those lessons as quickly as possible to make the smoother subsequent rollout. And lastly, I would mention we've also dealt with conversion from older platforms to a newer platform will not be facing the issue. The Commonwealth would be deploying our best possible platform initially. So there would be no system conversion to deal with as well. So I saw a pause there to ask if that addresses your question. In the general sense, yes. I don't know if there was any particular changes to your internal controls or compliance programs in regard to launching that stops this problem or whether that's whether what you're saying covers it. Like I like to we update the actual change management plan following each of these instances. So if there's an instance of, you know, item X was not properly communicated to a regulator, we then review our change management procedures to ensure that item X is covered. So I hope to speak kind of systemically enough to address your concern. Each of the items that were specifically noted here are now reviewed prior to deployment for any new version. OK, and any particular protocols in terms of launching in a new jurisdiction to make sure aren't added to the list of things that launched early? Yes, absolutely. So we regularly set up meetings with our regulars prior to launching in a new jurisdiction where we kind of provide a timeline of ITL certification when we would expect to deploy, go through a testing process with the regulator and then have kind of a final confirmation of a run through of all of the steps involved with each specific jurisdiction. The checklist looks a little different between state A and state B, but we will walk through each step in our checklist with the appropriate party from the commission to ensure that everything that we anticipate deploying has been properly reviewed and approved. OK. And then the third party vendor on the credit card violation. Yes, so I believe we spoke to this a little bit last week, so I want to make sure that I kind of properly tie back to our prior conversation. So the instance, I believe you were referencing, evolved one payment provider that did not properly exclude credit card deposits for all or for several operators in that specific jurisdiction. We worked with that provider to ensure that any credit card number or any card number associated with a credit card will be excluded through the platforms that customers cannot deposit through a credit card through any of their payment providing services. Additionally, we now audit that on the back end to confirm that that is still in place. So, Eric, I think I kind of do that high level. Anything else you might want to add? I'm referencing my colleague, Eric Eshin. Yeah, that's that's right, Jeff. And what we did in this particular case was also to make sure that any of the things that come in that are associated with credit card companies are rejected up front so that we don't end up in the same position that we had before. OK, great. Thank you. That was it for me. Thank you, Commissioner Ryan. Other questions for the applicant with respect to the supplement? OK, then what I would suggest is that we now turn back to our earlier process. And as I indicated earlier, we did come to a conclusions on Section B, C and F that we felt that it had met. Those are expectations. The supplement did not affect those sections. And then we indicated that we can't a consensus that expectations were exceeded with respect to Section D. Sections E and G that remain outstanding. Do we need to return to the earlier sections commission? I see Commissioner Hill is saying no, thank you. OK, Mr. Skinner, Commissioner Barron. No need to return. No, OK, thank you so much. Then let's turn to Section E with a supplement and the that they provided. Madam Chair, with the supplement that they have provided us, I believe they have met expectations. Thank you. Any. I agree. Any questions or for the consensus? I think it meets expectations. I also think it meets expectations with the reservations I raised early on in the meeting and just to be clear to the applicant and to be fair to the applicant. My concerns are not exclusive to the review of this application, just just a general statement, if you will, of what I deem certain inadequacies, inadequacies, excuse me, in this process. But with respect to Section G, I do feel I'm sorry. Yes, I do feel that the submission now meets expectations. Thank you, Commissioner. OK, so we have a consensus on E now to G. And of course, Director Lillian updated us on the piece that we needed to complete. Madam Chair, I now believe G has met expectation. Others. Great. As do I. Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, all right. So we're all set. Now I will have a turn to our agenda item number five. Where we can consider whether we want to consider making a determination in this matter today, the determination that, of course, can be subject to conditions, but we'll have Councilor Grossman walk us through that process. Thanks, Todd. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner. So, of course, the evaluation process is described in Section 218.06 of the regulations I touched on it a little bit earlier, but allow me to just walk through these factors once again. You'll recall that the umbrella standard here that we're ultimately looking at is whether a license award would benefit the commonwealth. And the standard of review you are applying to that question and all of the others is whether there is substantial evidence in the record, whether it be from the application materials that have been submitted or any testimony received as part of these reviews that would support those conclusions. And so I will walk through each of the factors and then go through the subfactors under each factor, and I can just go through them kind of collectively or I'm happy to pause on each one if there's any discussion to be had relative to any of these subfactors. So the first factor is the applicant's experience and expertise related to sports wagering, including the applicant's background in sports wagering, the applicant's experience and licensure and other jurisdictions with sports wagering and a description of the applicant's proposed sports wagering operation or description, technical features and operation of their sports wagering platform. The second factor is the economic impact and other benefits to the commonwealth if the applicant is awarded a license, including employment opportunities within the commonwealth, the projected revenue from wagering operations and tax revenue to the commonwealth and community engagement. And again, there's another sub-factor that does not apply in this situation. The next factor is the applicant's proposed measures related to responsible gaming, including the applicant's responsible gaming policies, the applicant's advertising and promotional plans, and the applicant's history of demonstrated commitment to responsible gaming. The next factor is a description of the applicant's willingness to foster racial, ethnic and gender diversity, equity and inclusion, including within the applicant's workforce, through the applicant's supplier spend and in the applicant's corporate structure. The next factor is the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation, including geofencing, know your customer measures and technological expertise and reliability. Next is the suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers, and we can talk in a little greater detail about this one. But the sub-factors are whether the applicant can be or has been determined suitable in accordance with 205CMR 215, the applicants and all parties in interest to the licensee's integrity, honesty, good character and reputation, the applicant's financial suitability integrity and background, the applicant's business practices and business ability to establish and maintain a successful sports wagering operation, the applicant's history of compliance with gaming or sports wagering license requirements and other jurisdictions, and whether the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practice. And finally, the last factor is any other appropriate factor in the commission's discretion. So those are the the that's the standard and the factors and sub-factors that the commission has to evaluate in deciding whether to award this this license. Before doing, though, I just wanted to circle back to the suitability component because that drives the ultimate outcome here to some degree. As we talked about earlier, there are two potential options. The first is a durable finding of suitability, which I would submit to you. May not be appropriate in this instance as there has not been any adjudicatory proceeding in which this applicant's suitability was reviewed. Accordingly, the commission can't find by clear and convincing evidence that it has satisfied its burden, which brings us to the second option, which is a preliminary finding of suitability, which as discussed earlier is premised upon the applicant's certification and the report that the IEB submitted for your review. If, in fact, you find that there is substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the applicant is preliminarily suitable and ultimately agreed to award the license, that would make this applicant eligible to apply for a temporary license, which is a process that is described in Section 219 of the regulations. There are also I won't go into them right this second. I'll stop. But just to refresh everyone's memory, of course, there is a section that talks about automatic conditions that will attach to the award of any license or temporary license that I'd be happy to walk through when we reach that point in the discussion. And of course, you'll want to also talk about before engaging in any final vote, whether there are other conditions that have arisen in the course of your evaluation that you would like to see attached to the issuance of any license. So, Madam Chair, I think with that, I'll turn back to you. I'm happy to take any questions. Mr. Sears, do you want to discuss conditions? I do have a proposed condition, Madam Chair, for discussion, which we may very well put this into regulation as we're figuring out our advertising marketing regs in the coming weeks. But given the past practices of this particular applicant and I understand they've made representations, they do not intend to do this in the Commonwealth. But I would feel more comfortable going forward if we do give them a license based on preliminary suitability, that a condition be that they not enter into any sort of agreement or relationships for advertising or marketing with any Massachusetts college or university. And could you say the restriction again might be broader than then? Well, I put this up for debate. I know that there was a particular matter that was discussed that may not. I think it's fine based on the language, but I can say it again that I would propose that it be conditioned on the applicant and putative licensee, not entering into any agreements or relationships for advertising or marketing with any college or university inside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And I know that you did frame it that this could be a matter for regulation as opposed to a condition that you would like to perhaps have as a condition, I would, because it doesn't that that regulation doesn't exist at present. And if we're being asked to make a decision today for me, I would want that as a condition. So I would suggest that we can we can talk about this, but we may need in order to have it being nuanced, if I remember correctly, that there might be issues around commercial help, disadvantage or somehow compromise a competitive competitive landscape, if we talked about this in public. Todd. Yes, so we did talk about this issue in the executive session in some context. But this is, I think, a high level discussion of this issue, which seems appropriate just in general, without going into detail. In order for me to actually get comfortable with the condition, I would need to dealt into the details of that condition that's being proposed right now, because it's quite broad. So I'm thinking that in order for me to have that conversation, we might need to have an executive session. Well, Madam Chair, I think if the applicant, maybe we should hear from the applicant, whether they feel like if they're comfortable with that in terms of not raising any claims of competitive disadvantage, then. Yeah, I was just looking to remember the conversation. But certainly Commissioner Maynard. I do want to say before the applicant does have an opportunity to speak. That's a condition that we have not placed on anyone else. And that's the part that I'm kind of Commissioner Bryant, I'm struggling with and can see maybe doing this in regulation is that that that piece. Yeah, this applicant has had those contractual relationships. The prior applicants have policies that don't do that, which is why I'm raising it, particularly on this sort of potential preliminary suitability temp license situation unless and until we have a reg that addresses it specifically for everybody. I appreciate that my worry would be what if one of these applicants to go and contract with the university next week and the conditions not on them, but it's on this particular person. I'm just that that is my worry. And and from my perspective, it's perhaps best for a regulation. And we have the advertising come up and then we can talk about it in the context of a global context and not with respect to a particular applicant's business model. But if we if we are exploring it as a condition, I would say that probably from my position, remembering part of our executive session discussion, I would want to make sure that all commissioners are reminded of one one item that was raised. I'm not saying how I necessarily would vote. I'm just saying it might require a nuanced discussion. Commissioners, would you prefer that we look at this in a matter of regulatory restriction or or enhancement, depending on your point of view? Just a process question, I guess. When would that regulation come before us next week, isn't it? No, not next week. Is it the it's a 12th of January advertising? I think it's January. Yeah, January 12th. Relatively soon. I can't that may be right. I don't have the schedule in front of me here, but soon. Commissioner Bryant, would you be comfortable? So I would rather I am moving that we have that as a condition of the license. If no one seconds me or it's not voted, then it is what it is. But I would move that that be a condition on this license if we, in fact, vote and to give them a license today. And Commissioner Bryant, your your condition is purposefully brought. Yes, but if there is no second and no vote, then there I'd be willing to second the motion, but I do share the concern that Commissioner Maynard has raised just from an equity standpoint. I want to see about attaching the same condition to other applicants that we have in the pipeline. Absent a universal regulation. Thank you, Commissioner. I'll turn to Mr. Oh, Commissioner Hill, did you want? I was going to turn to Mr. Hendricks. My apologies, Mr. Hill, Commissioner Hill. That was going to be my request, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hendricks. Appreciate all the commentary. So speaking of behalf of Caesars, we would have no issue adhering to that condition. As we say to you, pardon me, we are not pursuing such agreements in the Commonwealth, nor will we. So we will fully be able to comply with that condition. We would ask that this same condition be applicable to all licensees, given the competitive landscape. But in respect to a license for Caesars, we would have no issues adhering to that condition. So I think if we've got the representation on the record from the company at this point that they intend to comply with that request, then I can withdraw my motion. Commissioner O'Brien, when you say marketing and do you mean marketing at the campuses themselves and promotional at the campuses themselves? And it's restricted to that at the campuses and then on any of their venues. So, you know, at any marketing material the college might put out to not have any sort of cross marketing with a college or university, with their marketing on it. Commissioner O'Brien, if appropriate, I just want to again confirm we will comply. Right. That's I understood. I will not. OK, so the condition is withdrawn. And based on the based on the representations of attorney Hendricks now that the applicant would intend to not take that action. Pending our review of the regulations, then I will withdraw the motion. Pending our review. Correct. Thank you. Excellent. That's very helpful. And this will give us a chance to have some discussion. Thank you. Is there another condition? And to be clear, Commissioner O'Brien, it raised very, very, very concern and was discussed in full some. So thank you. And it's just, I think, what's the best measure and so we'll get to it. I think it's slated for January 12th. All right. Other conditions, Commissioner Hill. No, Mr. Skinner. How many conditions, Madam Chair? OK, thank you, Commissioner Maynard. No conditions, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Also further. OK, so with that, we do have the standard conditions, which you've read into the record before, and it would be helpful again for us to hear. Should we decide to vote? Absolutely. So these conditions are identified in Section 220.01 of the regulations and they attach to all licenses and they are as follows. Number one, that the operator obtain an operation certificate before conducting any sports wagering in the Commonwealth, that the operator comply with all terms and conditions of its license and operation certificate, that the operator comply with Chapter 23 N and all rules and regulations of the commission, that the operator make all required payments to the commission in a timely manner. In this case, that would be payment of the one million dollar licensing fee as part of the temporary licensing process. The next condition is that the operator maintain its suitability to hold a sports wagering license. And finally, that the operator conducts sports wagering in accordance with its approved system of internal controls consistent with 205CMR and in accordance with its approved house rules in accordance with Chapter 23N Section 10A and consistent with 205CMR. Those are the automatic conditions. And then, of course, there's the temporary licensing process and operation certificate sections that are discussed. OK, but that said, Commissioner Hill. Madam chair, I do have a motion that I'd like to put before the board. I'm going to attempt this after my little fiasco from last night. So bear with me, please. No, it wasn't a fiasco. That was that launched us. Thank you so much. I would move that the commission find based on the application and what was discussed before us today and on December 14, 2022, that the applicant American Wagering Inc. DBA, Caesars Entertainment, has shown by substantial evidence that they have satisfied the criteria set forth the general laws, Chapter 23N, as well as 205CMR, 218.065 and specifically as to subsection 207, that the license award would benefit the Commonwealth and further that they have established by substantial evidence, their qualification for preliminary preliminary suitability in accordance with 205CMR, 215.012 and 218.072A and that this approval be subject to the requirements of 23N and the requirements set forth in 205CMR, 220.01. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. Do we have questions or edits with respect to Commissioner Hill's motion? Todd, did I hit the right ones this time? I think you got it. OK. I'm hearing no questions. No edits. Health and Grossman, we're all set. I think you're all clear. So to think or we're all clear, you're all clear. Let's let's go for it. That's what I need. Still a little bit of lawyer left to me. OK. Commissioner O'Brien. I hate to do this, but could you do the 215 site for me again, Commissioner Hill? To let me just bring it up. Is it 215.02? Is that correct? Is that what you said? I 205CMR, 215.01, Section 2. OK, great. Thanks. I. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. I. Commissioner Skinner. I. Commissioner Maynard. I. And I vote yes, I zero. Thank you. Chair, commissioners, thank you very much for the review and approval. We are very excited to continue to work with the commission and offer to use your sports vote to the Commonwealth. So thank you very much. Yeah, thank you very much. Commissioners, what would you like to say to the the applicant? Well, now, I say the same thing to everybody, which is good luck and happy holidays. Like before we before we go on with our congratulations, Executive Director Wells, there's a little piece of business that will come that they will do now. Do you want to just remind them of the good fortune? I'm sorry, now I'm not catching what in terms of what goes in terms of their temporary licensure, they'll be working with you. Correct, correct. So yes, so the the gaming statute required that sports wagering statute requires that the executive director deem them a qualified gaming entity and then come before the commission, pay the one million dollar fee, which is the good news for the Commonwealth. And then they can go forward and get the final license for the commission. There is also the certificate of operations process before launch is allowed. Thank you. And that all sounds right. Now let's continue our comments. Commissioner Skinner. Congratulations. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. I want to thank you for your patience with us as we go through this process. Congratulations to you and welcome to Massachusetts. Commissioner Maynard. Congratulations and good afternoon, not good night. And again, congratulations to your entire team. And I want to thank you, Mr. Hendricks and you, Mr. Hessian, for your complete thorough responses to all of our questions and queries. It's been a long process for you, but we the thoroughness definitely indicates our investment here and the investment in your licensure. We look forward to working with you as in what I understand is we should grade as a productive relationship as a regulator and licensee. We look forward to that. So thank you. Congratulations and happy holidays. Now we have some more work to do, but I suspect you've got your own work to do. So thank you so much. Congratulations. Thanks again. Thank you very much. OK, commissioners. It is 20 of one. We are now going to be turning to a new a new matter on the agenda and that has to do with returning to PPC and its category one application. I want to ask before we start, does it make sense to break to take a short break and have a bite to eat? And then we convene rather than starting and stopping. What do you think, commissioners? This is a natural time. I see north grounds up. Good afternoon, general manager in the grounds. Nice to see you. They've been waiting in the wings, but I want to just see what makes sense. It's it's a little bit of hurry up and wait, but I wonder if it does make sense to do it now, just so once we start, we can go through. Agreed. I I'm very sorry. I'm hurrying. So but you probably saw it coming north. We're going to take a pause, collect our our documents, get organized to be ready for your presentation and why don't we say it's 20 of one will be convene at 10 after one and we'll be able to turn our full attention to folks. And again, we thank you for your patience. Certainly. Thank you so much. I think Mike. We're going for the Robert Goulet look today. I think that's his name. I'm telling you, Brad, you should do the the late John Connery years. That's what you should say. Probably probably people would know that better than Robert Goulet. Whenever I'm coaching my girls and I throw a name like Robert Goulet out, they all look at me like I have three heads and I said, go Google it. Yeah, I'm an eighties baby and everything I say is back to the eighties and doesn't always come doesn't compute with them. Brad, I have a photo from Christmas's past where I'm wearing a black turtleneck with a gold chain and I look like the way the Rock Johnson. It apparently was a look very nice. I'm pointing the early 90s. So Krishna Hills, say to your girls, your team, Steve Jobs. Ah, that brings you right into their world. The two thousand twenty two or close enough, right? That's a good one. I wanted to mention that to you the other day when you mentioned Robert Goulet. Now you're a hit for the maths. OK, we have everybody. Commissioner Skinner back. OK, she is so excellent. Great, thank you. This is the reconvening of the Master's Gaming Commission public meeting number four hundred and fifteen. And because we're holding this meeting virtually, I will take a roll call. So good afternoon, Commissioner O'Brien. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. Love to see all the faces. You had that. Everybody switched places on me with our our growing crowd and Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank you. So before we get started, I just want to go through a little bit of process there with me when we are turning now to item number six on our application on our agenda, my apologies. And this means that we're turning to item number six will continue with our application review conducted at the Gaming Commission's public meeting number 406 on December 6th. Submitted by Plainville Gaming Redevelopment as he doing business as Plain Ridge Park, casino or PPC. And before we get started on going back in terms of reviewing our work, we'll turn to the applicant. And I know we have a good representation and for that we're very appreciative. Just as a reminder where we were left off, though, the Commission reached a consensus that the applicant met expectations with respect to Sections A, B, C, D and F. The Commission did not reach a consensus on Section E. Commission also reserved additional questions regarding responsible gaming at kiosks for an executive session. Executive session was held on a few items. The use of kiosks, discussions around advertising issues regarding barstool sports and a review of associated data and the suitability of barstool sports in its connection to suitability of the applicant. So I also should note in connection with that, Commission did not reach a consensus on Section G. We reserve the right to revisit the other sections. But at this point right now, the focus was on Section E and G. And the applicant did request the opportunity to revisit us. And with that, you also provided a communication a letter. And so the applicant, I think, it's the Yellen and President Snow, right? Who will be beginning of who should I turn to first? Is it General Manager Brown? Madam Chair, if I may. Yes, we appreciate the opportunity to come back and talk to you. Joining me today for the follow up discussion on our application for our Category One license is Jay Snowden, the CEO and president of our parent company, Penn Entertainment and members of his executive team. And I would like now to hand it over to Jay to address the commission. Jay. Thanks, North. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Commission, members of the Commission staff. Great to be with you here today. I know most of you have met most of you, but for those who I have not yet met, I'm Jay Snowden, CEO and president of Penn Entertainment. And I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in front and support of our pending applications for the Category One and Category Three temporary licenses. I have with me today my entire executive team, all of my direct reports are CFO Felicia Hendricks, our general counsel, Harper Co, our head of operations, Todd George, head of government and public relations, Eric Shippers, our head of strategy, Chris Rogers and our head of HR, Wendy Hamilton. We also have Aaron Chamberlain, who you are all very familiar with as the SVP of regional operations over our Northeast properties. Chris Soriano, our chief compliance officer and of course North. And we have several others available as well during Q&A if that is applicable. I did want to, before I get into the testimony that I prepared, I did want to also, I know the five of you on the commission recognize this, but you have absolute top of the line staff all across the board from Director Lilios and Executive Director Wells, of course, your general counsel, Mr. Grossman and everyone that works within their organizations. You guys have all been at this now for two and a half weeks. I know it's been early mornings and long nights. We've been covering a lot of it and watching. And it's a long process, but I think it's thorough. We appreciate the opportunity. We do trust this process and really appreciate your staff. They're super professional. They're very knowledgeable and they're extremely responsive, which is all we could ever ask for. So I had an opportunity to watch the video replay of the public portions of the hearing on December 6th and understand how the November 20th New York Times article along with several other negative news stories included in the IEB's report has impacted the MGC's deliberations over our license applications. We provided your response letter on December 15th along with several exhibits with requested data, statistics and answers to your questions from the hearing. I hope all of you have had the opportunity to review that submission. Having operated in Massachusetts with you now for over seven years, we trust the process, as I mentioned earlier, and I'm hoping you'll keep an open mind to our side of the story and the additional facts and relevant data that we're here to present today. Before I begin, I want to reinforce the critical distinction between Barstool Sports Inc. the media company, which I'll refer to as Barstool and Barstool Sports Book, the sports betting platform that is wholly owned and operated by Penn. As the MGC is aware, Penn acquired a 36 percent equity position in Barstool on February 20th, 2020. Barstool is an internet entertainment company that provides a wide variety of content to its audience with 110 personalities across 95 shows and 17 different verticals, including sports, comedy, pop culture and business. These shows include the nation's number one overall sports podcast, part of my take featuring Dan Katz, the top overall hip hop podcast in the US, million dollars worth of game featuring Waldo and Gilly and numerous other programs appealing to a broad and diverse audience, including women, military veterans and the LGBTQ plus community. Barstool's advertisers include some of the world's most respected brands, including Chevrolet, E&J Gallo, TaylorMade and other Fortune 500 companies. Barstool has grown significantly since it was founded by David Courtney in 2003 in Boston, with over 400 employees today in a diverse executive team led by CEO, Eric and Ardini. Last year, Barstool set new records from both an audience and revenue standpoint. Both have more than doubled since we made our initial investment three years ago as it continues to disrupt and redefine the digital media landscape. Importantly, Barstool continues to serve as a responsible corporate citizen that gives back to the community, such as raising over 40 million dollars for more than 800 small businesses across the country affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, many of which were multi-generational and at risk of closing permanently, including minority women and veteran owned businesses, including over 25 here in Massachusetts alone. Much of what Barstool does on the charitable front occurs behind the scenes without much fanfare. That's the way they like to do it, such as the fundraising support for the families of fallen firefighters and police officers and their Boston strong effort, which raised $240,000 for one of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing. I encourage you to watch the Barstool difference video from the link we provided in our letter. Prior to Penn's 36 percent investment in early 2020, Barstool acted as a marketing partner for many of the country's top sports betting operators. In connection with our investment, Barstool agreed to exclusively promote Penn's various gaming offerings and licensed to Penn the right to use its brand for our retail sports books and online sports wagering and iCasino products. As a result, in September 2020, Penn launched our first online Barstool sports book in Pennsylvania. Today, Penn successfully operates retail sports books in 13 of our casinos across the US and the online Barstool sports book in 14 different states. Penn is also set to launch Barstool sports books at our four casinos and online in Ohio come January. To be clear, neither David Portnoy nor anyone else at Barstool has any control or decision making authority over the operations of either the retail or online operations of Barstool sports book. All decisions, directions and influence over the operations of sports betting are made entirely by Penn team members who are authorized to do so and are licensed to do so is required. Barstool is solely Penn's media and marketing partner and will continue to operate as such once Penn requires 100% of Barstool in February 2023. Barstool has been a successful partner and they are a critical element of Penn's unique omnichannel strategy that we covered in our letter. Our relationship with Barstool is one of the reasons we've been able to significantly grow the younger 21 to 45 year old age segments of our casino database over the last two years, leading to meaningful revenue growth that our retail casino operations. To directly address the commission's concern over the age of the Barstool audience, according to independent third party Google analytics, approximately 85% of Barstool's audience on its own and operated platforms such as their website and media app is over the age of 25. In addition, analytics from Facebook, Instagram, Spotify and PodTrack reveal that approximately 90% of Barstool's audience on Facebook and approximately 70% of its audience on Instagram is over the age of 25, while nearly 90% of Barstool's podcast audience is over the age of 22. We believe Barstool's targeted promotion to its overwhelmingly 21 plus year old audience is more effective from both a cost and a responsible gaming perspective than the general television and radio ads prevalent in the industry. We provide you a couple of examples from recent state launches in New Jersey and Kansas in our letter. In sum, Barstool is a media company and successful marketing partner. Penn, PPC and PSI are gaming operators. The Barstool sports book is a sports wagering platform owned and operated exclusively by Penn. Nothing is more important to Penn than its gaming licenses and the positive, honest and transparent relationships that we maintain with all of our regulators. And we are deeply committed for both personal and professional reasons to be responsible gaming and a culture of compliance. A few of us on my executive team and our board, including myself being from Las Vegas, have friends and or loved ones who have experienced gambling problems in their lives. It's a very serious issue and how we deal with it is a big part of who we are at Penn. Recognizing that Barstool is comprised of entertainers, some of whom create edgy adult oriented content that includes irreverent humor and satire in an unscripted 24 seven reality TV format, Penn, in conjunction with our Corporate Compliance Committee, established meaningful compliance guardrails at the time of our transaction focusing on responsible gaming, illegal activity, responsible alcohol consumption, harassment, discrimination, political commentary and SEC regulations. These guardrails are included in the Barstool employee handbook, which every employee must sign. We have provided you a copy of the guardrail training along with our letter. In addition, Penn's Corporate Compliance Committee regularly receives updates on Barstool's compliance and regulatory matters. Penn's support of Barstool's culture of compliance and its adherence to the guardrails remains primarily overseen by our Chief Compliance Officer, Chris Soriano and Michael West, Vice President of Legal, Strategy and Business Affairs. As part of those duties, Mr. West is responsible for training Barstool employees on the guardrails and monitoring Barstool's new content for any potential violations that may arise, including regular discussions with Barstool employees. Within five weeks of closing on our Barstool investment, Mr. West conducted approximately 20 customized training sessions for the entire Barstool team, focusing on the guardrails, the importance of compliance and providing education on responsible gaming. Mr. West and Penn's compliance team continue to train new Barstool hires as well as provide periodic refresher sessions at least annually. Our partnership with Barstool allows us the unique opportunity to speak directly to our patrons in the way they talk about sports betting. To that end, Barstool has created multiple public service announcements, including one featuring David Portnoy and Dan Katz, which has received over 1.1 million views and counting on Twitter alone. This is different from the fine print responsible gaming messaging at the conclusion of a radio or TV spot. All of this, when coupled with the entertaining personalities of Barstool, results in authentic, engaging and creative content on both sports betting and responsible gaming. These unique efforts are above and beyond Penn's industry leading responsible gaming policies and protections covered in our submission and in our letter. Beyond Penn's internal efforts, Mr. Soriano mentioned during the hearing Penn was actively involved in the development of the American Gaming Association's responsible marketing code for sports wagering. As referenced during the hearing by Aaron Chamberlain, who I recognized earlier, SVP of regional operations, the Barstool sports book recently passed the responsible gambling counsel's RGC, their RG check. The RGC has been a leader in the prevention of problem gambling in Canada and globally for more than 35 years. Penn Interactive, the direct parent entity of PSI, became one of the first US operators to voluntarily go through the RGC's exhaustive RG check accreditation process. Notably, the RGC found, quote, Penn Interactive's overall approach to RG is comprehensive. A strong commitment to harm, mitigation and prevention contributes to quality of the program, unquote. In addition, RGC found that, quote, Penn Interactive's RG policies document a clear commitment to prevent marketing materials that could be misleading, potentially vulnerable players, including those, excuse me, who are underage or enrolled in exclusion, are appropriately considered, unquote. Finally, on the issue of responsible gaming, I want to address the November 20th New York Times article, which was referenced by commissioners several times during the hearing on December 6th. To be clear, we proactively provided a copy of the article to the MGC, not out of concern of risk to Penn, but solely in the interest of full transparency, which we have always done with our regulators and will continue to do anytime our integrity or record of compliance is called into question. First, Penn was aware of the New York Times focus on this subject as the reporter had contacted numerous former colleagues, friends, industry insiders, former regulators and others over the last eight months. Notably, Penn was not contacted directly until we were sent a list of questions to, quote, fact check for the final story mere days before it was published. Based on the questions, which were conclusory and negatively slanted, we chose not to participate in the article. Upon publishing, we were disappointed by the number of misrepresentations and factual inaccuracies contained therein. The headline alone reveals the sensationalized nature of the story. Unfortunately, we see too much of this today's day and age, quote, desperate for growth, aging casino company embraced, quote, degenerate gambler. Ironic, given Penn was named a Fortune 500's list of 100 fastest growing companies in the US, a record six consecutive times. And we had virtually doubled the size of our company twice in the years preceding our 36 percent equity investment in Barstool. Other examples of misleading and disingenuous reporting by the New York Times include a reference to the Illinois Gaming Board's Assistant General Counsel writing to his colleagues about Mr. Portnoy in a negative light, Penn conducted their own FOIA requests and learned that the Assistant General Counsel in the email exchange was simply answering a direct question from his superior, the General Counsel, about what a November 4th, 2021 article by Business Insider said, because the General Counsel did not have access to it due to it being behind a paywall, he was not providing his own opinion on David Portnoy, as was portrayed in the New York Times article. We provided you a copy of the FOIA email exchange in our letter. The New York Times article also provides an account of a virtual town hall meeting we held with our employees at Penn, right down to what I was wearing that day, the writer was not present for the virtual town hall and did not reference who informed her of the subject matter or discussion, but portrayed what she wrote about the town hall as fact. I can tell you firsthand, as can any of my current management team members, many of which who are with us today, on that and who were with us, who were present on that virtual call, that what she described as the substance of my remarks were factually inaccurate and completely taken out of context. Prior to the article's publication date, we received an email from one of the prominent responsible gaming organizations quoted in a story who shared with us that they pointed out to the reporter that Barstil's responsible gaming messages, quote, may help reach some of those hard to reach young male sports betters, unquote. That point never made the story, nor did other positive comments that we know were made to the New York Times during some of the interviews with our former colleagues, friends, industry insiders and former regulators. They've many of them have told me personally what they shared and none of the positive comments ended up in the story. Incidentally, others in the gaming industry were also troubled by the New York Times, one sided take on sports betting, which was covered in three other articles that were published on the same day the Penn Barstil story ran. The American Gaming Association has responded in a letter to the editor and there have been complaints by sources named in the articles of misrepresentations and even outright fabrications of their quotes, such as a top executive from Spectrum Gaming Group, who demanded a retraction in a strongly worded response, we provided you copies of both in our letter. In response to the commission's request for further information on the Barstil College football show, which was launched by Barstil in 2019 prior to Penn's investment in Barstil and before Penn offered any Barstil sports books. We attached the schedule and the locations for each week of the 2022 season as an exhibit to our 2015th letter. The show recorded either in studio in New York City or on location before a live audience, unlike other onsite college football pregame shows, including the popular on-campus ESPN College Game Day in which sports betting is a featured component, only two of the 17 Barstil shows were located on a college campus and while sports wagering has been discussed on the show and its host may refer to the sports wagering picks, the focus of the show is on college football and that weekend schedule of college football games. The show features a diverse slate of entertaining guests such as Toledo Mayor Wade Kapsakavich, not an easy one to pronounce, who awarded Barstil personality, Dan Katz, with a key to the city of Toledo, comedian Theo Vaughn, University of Iowa's three-time All-American wrestler Spencer Lee and former Rutgers University athlete and motivational speaker Eric Legrands. The commission specifically inquired about David Portnoy's actions during the show in September in Knoxville, Tennessee prior to a University of Tennessee football game to clarify the event was not organized by the Barstil sports book. The primary focus and intent of the event was on the upcoming game and not to promote sports betting and it occurred not on campus but in off-campus bar. During the show, Mr. Portnoy referenced a bet that he had made on the University of Georgia. To be clear, Mr. Portnoy wagers from his own personal accounts and with bets that are all well within his means. The size of the wager may seem large on its face, but is based on his unique circumstances, including his annual income. No different than many of the high end blackjack and slot players gambling in all three of the retail casinos in Massachusetts every week. Wagering at those levels in and of itself does not constitute a gambling problem. Finally, Mr. Portnoy, like all players on the Barstil sports book, is subject to our customary responsible gaming practice of monitoring for problem gaming behaviors. And he is very open with his audience. I've seen him do this multiple times. When he loses and feels like he needs to take a break from betting, that can be a very effective and genuine responsible gaming message to your audience. Last week, there were press reports that the Ohio Casino Control Commission issued a notice of violation to PSI for an advertisement during an episode of the show at the University of Toledo. We look forward to having the opportunity to address the matter directly with the Ohio Casino Control Commission through its regulatory process and would be happy to answer any questions from the M.G.C. about this during executive session. That said, we do acknowledge we're not perfect. We own up to our mistakes. We certainly learn from them. And I would proudly put our historical regulatory compliance track record up against any other commercial operator in the industry. To the commission stated concerns of the show's appeal, as we're talking about the college football show, the appeal to an underage audience, approximately 86 percent of the show's viewers are on YouTube, not live, but 86 percent on YouTube, where 90 percent plus of total viewers watch the program or above the age of 25, which satisfies easily the AGA marketing code for sports wagering, minimum of 73.6 percent over the age of 21. Consistent with the show's protections to not target or appeal to minors, the show's personalities and producers have been through multiple training sessions on responsible gaming and Barstow and Penn's compliance guardrails. Notably, Penn and Barstow have no sports betting related marketing or promotional relationships with any colleges or universities. However, Barstow is currently working with over 500 college campuses across the country to increase awareness around mental health and campus safety. In January, Barstow plans to kick off an effort focused on supporting college students coping with depression and anxiety. Notwithstanding any of the facts and data we provided in response to the MGC's concerns raised at the December 6th hearing, Barstow will voluntarily voluntarily restrict live audiences access to any of its college football shows going forward to age 21 and over. In closing, as it relates to David Portnoy, I'll be the first to admit that his personality and style of humor is not for everyone, as would he. He has said and done things in his life that he regrets and or would do or say differently today. He has covered this publicly many, many times. I'm sure the same would apply to the marketing partners and promotional spokes people for the other applicants in Massachusetts who have received their fair share of negative press for past actions, quotes, jokes and behavior. David Portnoy is very open and transparent publicly, and he has thoroughly addressed the personal allegations made against him in the media, while stories about his personal life may fuel clicks and sell subscriptions similar to the New York Times article. Mr. Portnoy has not been part of any law enforcement investigations that we're aware of, and he has not been party to any criminal or civil litigation or financial settlements based on any of these allegations against him. These facts often get lost and overlooked when his name is brought up. Much of the media criticism about David Portnoy, including the New York Times article, attempts to paint him as a misogynist or racist. If Mr. Portnoy were those things, I can assure you Penn would never have partnered with him. Those who know me personally and professionally know that I would never have partnered with him. Barstool Sports is a highly inclusive organization with female leadership from CEO Erika Nardini to other members of management and the talent team. I encourage you to look at their rankings and reviews on Glassdoor, and the content Barstool produces comes from an incredibly diverse group of individuals, including college football analyst Casey Smith and podcast stars Rhea and Fran from Chicks in the Office. In addition, there's former MLB and NFL player and current head football coach of the University of Colorado, Deion Sanders and current NBA player Pat Beverly. And as I mentioned, Wallo and Gilly from Million Dollars Worth of Game, the leading hip hop podcast in the nation, who just by the way, re-signed with Barstool Sports for another three years. And let's look at his gaming partner, Penn Entertainment. Ford's magazine recently ranked Penn as the top publicly traded gaming company in their list of America's 500 best employers for diversity. The prominent all in index named us to the top commercial casino operator for diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging. And with female members comprising 44 percent of our corporate board of directors, we were named a champion of board diversity by the forum of executive women, the Greater Philadelphia region's premier women's organization. And we were honored at the women's forum of New York annual breakfast of champions for leading the way to gender balance on corporate boards. In addition, last year, Penn was once again named as employer of first choice in the annual Bristol Associates Spectrum Gaming Executive Satisfaction Survey for employer of choice. Penn has held the title of first or second place since the survey and its anonymous began 11 years ago. And Penn Interactive also came in first place last year in the surveys, inaugural eye gaming and mobile sports betting category. We have a great culture and track record at Penn Entertainment and we are extremely proud of it. I hope we would all agree that the media of today is not what it was 20 years ago, whether you're Republican, independent, Democrat, conservative, moderate or liberal. It is largely biased and political and not in and of itself a reliable source for decision making or drawing conclusions on important topics. We have this conversation as a family with our children at our dinner table often. There needs to be objectivity and balance and a thorough review of both sides of any issue, relying on biased sensationalized news stories and editorials to render a suitability decision on a marketing partner and or a licensee would establish a very dangerous precedent for the common wealth and for our industry. Penn has undergone rigorous regulatory oversight of the Barstool Sportsbook in 14 states over the last two plus years and through our experience compliance functions, our comprehensive guardrails and extensive training programs, we are committed to meeting the MGC's expectations and standards regarding the conduct of our sports wage arena activities in Massachusetts. Again, we are not perfect, but we own up to our mistakes and we try very hard not to repeat any of them. Barstool was founded in the common wealth and has held a non-gaming vendor registration issued by this commission since May 20th, 2020. Barstool has similar registrations or licenses all in good standing and several other gaming jurisdictions throughout the US. Since Barstool is a marketing partner with zero control over any of Penn, PPC or PSI's gaming operations, we do not believe there is any basis in law or fact to deny PPC a Category 1 temporary license or PSI a Category 3 temporary license. To conclude, we are not asking for special treatment. We are merely asking you to consider the facts and data and hold us to the same standards as the other applicants. We have been a successful operator in the common wealth for over seven years with a terrific compliance record. And according to this commission in A plus plus application other than this one concern, which I appreciate, I hope we have earned the opportunity to prove to you through this period defined by the temporary licensure that we will deliver on the things we have shared in our application and committed to today. Thank you again for your time and your consideration of our applications. We greatly appreciate the process, appreciate the dialogue with you and your staff and the opportunity to address your questions and concerns from December 6th. With that, my team and I would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you, President Snowden. So commissioners, we have really a great representation of the applicant here. And and I know that both North and Jay came direct us to the individuals who could best answer any of our questions. And for that, we thank you for everybody showing and I suspect that you were available. I can't remember now what last day you were waiting for us. So again, we thank you for your patience. Commissioners, as I said, we were looking for some particular responses, E and F, E and G, my apologies. And we, of course, have the ability to use a second session where appropriate in our general council approach and will advise us carefully on using that tool. So which questions? President Snowden or chair? Yes, Commissioner Hill. President Snowden, thank you for that presentation. We greatly appreciate it. A conflict that I have is when I see someone from Bar Stools at one of the college shows on one of the podcast, doing something that may be against what we believe is responsible gaming. Things may be said when we talk about Mr. Poitnoy putting out all this money or losing some of the comments he's made in the past, fly in the face of responsible gaming. So as a company, how do you address that? Because it is flies in the face of what we really are pushing here for responsible gaming in some cases. I think, Commissioner, from my perspective, I would like to go through the examples that you may have one by one. I think that there are often times you have to, I think, take a step back sometimes and also realize that one of the real strengths that Bar Stools Sports has is the relationship with their fan base. And it's something that I've never seen before. The amount of loyalty, the understanding of the quote unquote inside jokes, often times with regard to I'll give you an example that you may view on the surface as being a responsible gaming issue. But if you watch what they do and how they have been doing it for years now, you'd understand what it means. Dan Katz goes by the nickname Big Cat. He comes up with a can't lose parlay bet every week. He also is admittedly one of the worst gamblers on the planet. And so it's meant to be funny. It's not meant to push something as being viewed as can't lose. So oftentimes what you may see or hear, it can be a headline. It can be in response to something that you don't have full context. And so for me to answer that question broadly, I would say I would need examples, but I think you would find with us, Commissioner, as you always have in Massachusetts, we're wide open to thoughts and feedback. We've been working with Mark Vanderlanden on your team for years at the land-based casino, and if there are specific examples of things that you believe collectively, when you have full context that we could be doing better or be doing different, we're wide open to engaging and having those conversations. But without specific examples, it's hard for me to answer that direct question. So I'll throw out an example if we can talk about it in public grade, if we have to go to an executive session even better. Can you talk about what's happening in Ohio where one of the shows was held, I believe, on a college campus? And again, I could be wrong. I'm doing it by memory. And there may have to be some action taken because of that. But it flies in the face of everything we've talked about, about being anti-college, if that makes sense. Sure. So I'm happy to speak on what I can. We have not gone through the full regulatory process in Ohio. What happened was we held one of these college football shows on the campus of University of Toledo. Again, I'll go back to the audience as primarily an online audience. There is a live component, but 90 plus percent of the audience is on YouTube. It's not the live audience. The live audience is in the hundreds of people. The online audience is in the tens of thousands of people. And the stats that I shared earlier about them being above the age of 25, I believe it's 86 percent are over the age of 25. So the mistake that was made in Ohio, which is on us, by the way, is we should have reviewed with the Ohio regulators what our plan was that day. We were not there to promote the sportsbook. We were not there to promote betting. What we did and it was a mistake was mentioned that we were going to be going live on January 1st, not thinking that that was full advertising. Again, that's our fault. We own up to our mistakes. We should have checked with the regulators before we were on campus. And if we had not made that mistake, then I think the show would have been fine. But we made a mistake. It does happen. We learn from those mistakes. We own up to it and we move on. Thank you, President Snowden. And I'll say this publicly for the first time since last week. As we've been going through these applicants, I learned something last week and I was shocked by the data that I was given after the fact that, in fact, a lot of these consumers or people that actually you're trying to attack away over 21 of years of age. I was talking about the student section of the colleges around here. And then my good friend, Commissioner Maynard, put me in my place and said, well, you've never been to a UK game. You've never been to an Ohio game where three quarters of the stadium is filled with people 50 and older. You know, that is their pro sport compared to a Boston. And after hearing that, I actually did a little bit of digging and data collecting myself. And I was shocked to see the data showing me the same exact thing that you mentioned today, that it's not as many young people as I thought it was. So I appreciate you bringing that to our attention and to my fellow commissioner for educating us on college sports in states that don't have proteins like we do here in Boston. Madam Chair, that's all I have for this. If I could just one more also, Commissioner, to your point. We also, as I mentioned in my testimony, we heard you loud and clear with regard to the concern on campus. Again, even though the vast majority, 90 plus percent of the audience is on YouTube and 86 percent of them are 25 plus, we understood the message around being on campus. And so we've committed to going forward. If and when we do additional college football live shows on a college campus or near college campus to making sure that the live audience is also 21 plus. That was not being done previously, much like with ESPN and others. And we commit to doing that going forward. I'll step in now, Commissioner Hill. OK, Commissioner Brown. Thank you. It's good to see you again, Mr. Snowden, and I appreciate the information that was given to us last week in addition to what you submitted and what you said. I do want to ask additional questions about some responsible gaming. But before I get into that, I do also want to point out something that I've said to you in the past. And I said last week, last time we were here, which is the concern that I have about Barstool and the relationship with PPC and Penn and now PSI has a lot to do with branding and not simply responsible gaming. And so I understand and I appreciate the detail that you've given us and concerns to a New York Times article. That was not the only reason that I raised the issue. And it's not the first time I raised the issue. I raised the issue as far back as Q3 of 21 when you start branding my choice in Barstool on the quarterly reports for PPC that you would present to this commission. And I raised the fact that. Tying your brand to that brand brought in the good, the bad, the ugly, they came with that brand and I still have that concern and I have that concern historically on what that brand is and reaching out to a demographic that was helpful to your company. It is also a group that is particularly vulnerable to addiction, albeit over the age of 21, for the most part. There are more recent episodes, not only David Portnoy. This is not simply an article or a conversation about David Portnoy's conduct. This goes to the brand itself. There are other Dan Katz in particular also, you know, can have some crass things that he puts out. What I am struggling with is marrying that brand with PPC's sportsbook, which you have elected to brand Barstool, which you elected to do because it gave you the market share and everything that went with Barstool support. So while I understand the legal distinction and the functional distinction between the two, I as a regulator, as I sit here and consider suitability, albeit Penn and PPC having already been deemed suitable or in a very different category than PSI, however, I have questions and I would like you to address for me as a regulator when I think about suitability and I think about the overall character and reputation and honesty of an applicant and a licensee and to date, PPC in my experience has been exemplary in the responses to this commission. I've said it before and I will say again from the opening to covid responses, et cetera, minors on the floor, I'm having a hard time reconciling, branding a sportsbook in Massachusetts and burning a sportsbook, mobile sportsbook on the floor at Penn with a marketing agent that you will own a hundred percent of in February, that I have concerns that go not only into responsible gaming, but simply the character, integrity and honesty and reputation as a company. That's an equal part of this for me. So if you could address that for me today, I would love it. I would be happy to, Commissioner, I guess from my perspective, it would be helpful to understand what is it about bar stool that makes you so uncomfortable? And do you feel like you've had the opportunity to learn everything about bar stool that we can provide you to provide some balance? Because it feels to me like when you first presented this concern to me in 2021, that you had a position on bar stool. But as we've shared new information, it seems as though you're learning more about bar stool and you're learning more about the diversity of the audience and you're learning more about the different verticals that we have and the fact that it's not just young men, it's actually well representative of the United States of America. When you look at the breakdown of who who listens to their podcasts. Diversity, 20 percent of the audience, most people wouldn't believe of the total audience are women. And when you look at the diversity by ethnicity on podcasting, it follows exactly what you see across the United States of America. So I guess I hear the concerns being things that just don't line up with fact when I provide the facts around what bar stool is and the diversity of bar stool and the statistics and data that go with it. I'm happy to engage in that conversation, but I would also hope that we would be provided benefit of the doubt during this temporary licensure process to prove to you and to give your enforcement division enough time to conduct full due diligence and a full investigative work around suitability, because I don't think that you have complete information today based on the comments that have been made. So the reason that I've been raising it with you since that time, I'm a little frustrated with that, because what I got is pushback at the time was they're not a qualifier. So even though they're doing it, we don't conduct any sort of sports books in Massachusetts, it's far too attenuated for you to be asking those questions, Commissioner O'Brien, you are now in the Commonwealth asking to brand with this. So I am very happy to hear that you're open to having a full some discussion about them and how it comes in and how it's connected. That's exactly what I've been asking for. And that's exactly what I would like to have. And you're right, there is a different posture we are in today versus category one, category three and also where we stand in terms of, you know, potential preliminary suitability versus durable suitability. So that's exactly what I want is I would like a deep vetting by IEB of Barstool, because I think that they are so tethered to what you're going to bring into the Commonwealth. I do think it's time to have that conversation. Listen, I respect your position on this, Commissioner, I am could not be more proud of our partnership with Barstool. I think that I've shared a lot of information today that I'm guessing many of you did not know or had not come across because when you just Google David Portnoy or your Google Barstool sports, you're going to get click bait first. The first 15 things that come up are going to be the most controversial issues that have ever come up around David Portnoy or Barstool sports. That is not what Barstool sports and David Portnoy are all about. So we would welcome that conversation. Again, what I would only think I would ask for, Commissioner, is an open mind. That's it. Great. So I guess I have a couple of questions, Madam Chair. And Mr. Stone, in addition to that, but if we want to move on to other commissioners, I can certainly circle back to that. That would be great. Let's hear from the other commissioners because I think we've heard your major concern and then we'll shift to more nuanced questions. Commissioner Hill, we heard from you. Commissioner Maynard or Commissioner Skinner, who was moved on me. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Either one, do you have a question or comment for President Snow? I do. Good afternoon, President Snow and team. I share a lot of the concerns that Commissioner O'Brien just raised. But I also hear you in your presentation and sort of the recognition that we do need to allow the opportunity for some additional fact findings, some additional information gathering and discussion, quite frankly. This goes beyond responsible gaming for me. You know, I put it in the category of my concerns. I put my concerns in the category of responsible relationships. And we have received a lot of information in the way of articles that have been that have been submitted and disclosed to us. And so I would look forward and welcome the opportunity to hear directly from you and your team a response to those articles. I appreciate all of the information on the positive side that you've provided in your your written and oral presentation, but I do think, you know, that what is missing. And I made comments earlier today along these lines, what's missing for me is a deeper dive from our Investigations and Enforcement Bureau, as you recognize, Mr. President Snowden. You know, and I would I would love to give the benefit of the doubt. You know, but I think there needs to be a more wholesome discussion around some of the things that that are troubling in what we've what we've learned about Mr. Portnoy and of the Barstool sports operation. Again, now. Potentially tethered to to you, Ken, the PPC. Thank you, Constance. Now, did you want to respond? Those are similar, Commissioner Skinner. Thank you for the comments. We do have lots of evidence and just as many articles, if not more, that are written positively about the great work that Barstool sports and David Portnoy have invested in philanthropically and they do it without fanfare. I mentioned that in my prepared remarks. You're not going to read about it because that's not why they do it. They do it because it's who they are. They care and they've gotten behind a lot of great causes here in the Commonwealth that I mentioned in my prepared remarks because they're great people and they care about Massachusetts residents and David himself, David Portnoy himself, is from Massachusetts. I live in Massachusetts is an extremely important state for all of us at Penn and Barstool and for me personally. And I'd like for you to have access to the good stuff because I feel like what you've been presented with to date, Commissioner, in all due respect is the bad stuff and there's lots of good stuff and a lot of the bad stuff isn't completely factual as proven recently in the New York Times article. Things are taken oftentimes out of context. Someone is labeled as a racist or a misogynist when they are not and their actions prove that they are not things that may have been said many, many years ago that the person regrets having said. I think we live in a day and age where it's we quickly come to conclusions about people based on one comment or one headline. It's sort of guilty until proven innocent. And I would just respectfully suggest that we go through a process, if that's what's being asked, so that we can provide full information and allow the commission staff and the commission to evaluate. So you have full context and you have something that is comprehensive versus what I understand, Commissioner Skinner, is concerning when you just read the negative articles, I would feel the same way that you do. But that's not the whole story and it's not even most of the story. It's a small piece. Barstool Sports, another just piece of context for all of you. They are a very fast growing digital media company. When we first made our investment three years ago, they did just shy of a hundred million revenue. And as Eric and Ardini mentioned, at the end of two thousand and twenty one, they were already over two two hundred million dollars of revenue. So they've doubled their size in two years. Now, a lot of that is advertising revenue growth from Fortune 500 companies that I listed earlier. And a lot of those companies used to advertise with some of these other media outlets that like to write negative things about Barstool and Barstool Sports. So I would just ask that you have an open mind and understand that there there is more of a story than just what's in the headlines and in this and in the articles, when oftentimes there's a biased, sensationalized agenda that's involved. And unfortunately, that's the world we live in today. I think we all understand that. Sherry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, President Snowden, for for addressing us. I've had some time to think about this. And, you know, I'd go back and I think about all the testimony, the application. I think about selectman Jeff Johnson addressing this commission about all the good work that's been done for Plainville and in the region in Southern Massachusetts. But I do have to say that. And I hear you that we we have heard predominantly one side of the story, at least in that last that last meeting. But I did say in the executive session, you know, I do feel that you're the company you keep. And I've said around and really studied on that. And I believe it's true. And I just kind of hope that the better influence prevails in this relationship that you're building. And, you know, if it doesn't, and I mentioned it earlier, the M.G.C. has a lot of tools at its disposal to deal with with these issues. But I am trying to think about the region. I'm trying to think about the benefit of the Commonwealth. I'm trying to devoid myself of any sensationalism that comes along with this topic. And I am very open to keeping an open mind because I believe everybody deserves a fair shot. Thank you. So I'll just add in a little bit. First off, President Snowden, I do think that I mentioned in my immediate concern about the idea that this could be, in fact, a approach could be in fact a positive form of responsible gaming, influencing a particular audience in a way that uses satire irony. And I and I questioned it and said, of course, I could, I could be, I could, my mind could be changed with data or something to that fact. So I appreciate I'm hearing you say that you, you know, you've collected data today and I hear you. I have to say that in the application alone, I feel that we don't, we don't have evidence. You know, I think there's one New York Times article that was included in the suitability report. But that was informative to me because I had understood Barstool from one perspective. And and but had not really understood. Ironically, the the impact that some of the influencers, including Mr. Courtney, I had or how much time they spent on gambling and and not just sports, I had always understood sports. So, you know, I probably gauged in some late night Googling around and and you're right, probably the way that the, you know, unorthodox work, probably the most sensational stories end up in the front. And so I've seen my share of YouTube, YouTube and TikTok and and Instagram and Barstool all over the place. Congratulations, they do. You know, the Barstool has accomplished what you've described and in terms of having its place in the media and the various verticals. But I appreciate it. I think I heard this. As it's known. We probably don't have a fair sample of evidence in front of us. And we probably need more information to really understand the landscape and see where where it does a lot. You know, I am thinking about responsible gaming primarily. It's very much in our lane. And I've been also thinking about the targeting of the miners, which we've been talking about. So I immediately thinking of those areas. There's there's room for discussion around the others. But those are my primary concerns. And some have been addressed somewhat. But I can't say that all my concerns by any stretch, you know, Ben Swage, because we just don't have enough information. I can't say that I'm not keeping an open mind, though, because. One way or another, there just isn't sufficient evidence. But there is, I think, enough of us that raise concerns that we need to address them. So what I think I heard you say is that we could perhaps ask our IAV to look further into this with your cooperation and to the extent that there's data on responsible gaming and research and information about that, we would welcome that. I think we want to be at the always at the forefront of that that topic. And so I know Director VanderLinden will be available to help in that assessment, but I also hear you saying that you're seeking temporary licensure. I feel like that that fits in what is our statutory mandate. That there could be measures, something where we could pursue a temporary licensure if we go back. We have to go back to the sections and see if, you know, where we are and go to the next question. But it's something to think about, whether it's temporary licensure with an ongoing some kind of investigation. I won't add what I would add to that right now, because I think there's some nuanced questions, but I'm hearing you. I think that's what you were suggesting. I don't want to put words in your mouth. President Snowden, is that what you're thinking? Yes, you summarized it where, well, Madam Chair, we believe that we are we put together a fulsome application response. We heard you loud and clear on some concerns on December 6th. We've responded to many of those concerns with data and statistics around audience. We also have decided that we are going to change the way that we manage the live audience of the College football show in response to your concerns. And we also do think that there's so much more for you to see and to understand and to learn about Barstool Sports and all of the personalities at Barstool Sports that, unfortunately, you just why would you have all that information at your fingertips today? But I would say that we have a very strong track record now of over two years being live with Barstool Sportsbook, both at the retail and online across 14 different states. And the results have been have been very good from a responsible gaming standpoint, as well as from our ability to organically grow our market share without doing it the way that everyone else has. And I I just I guess one of the things that processes in my mind, I'm not going to be one of those that sits here and points to other applicants. It's not my style, but I do think that all of us have different approaches. I think it's very debatable about which ones are the best and most effective. I'm not sure if, you know, watching television with my son who's 13 years old every Sunday and him being flooded with commercials about sports betting is is that better or worse than Dave and Dan talking about a can't lose parlay card? I don't know. But I think these are questions that need to be answered and thought about with regard to all of the applicants. And it does feel a little bit like we're focusing more on our relationship with our marketing and promotional partner than we are with the others and the approach to advertising than the other. So maybe that's OK, because we're here talking about temporary licensure and to your defense that IEB has not had ample time to go through a thorough due diligence process, which I think we all agree. They we need to allow them the opportunity to do that. But yes, we are here saying that on a temper temporary licensure basis, we believe that the track record, the application when I say track record, not just Plain Ridge Park Casino in Massachusetts for over seven years, but also our track record as Barstool sports book in 14 other states that we have proven that we can operate effectively, responsibly and do it in a way that's in the best interest of the Commonwealth. And so we're here today to seek approval for temporary licensure for the Barstool sports book for retail now Category one and hopefully this afternoon, later today in Category three and give us the opportunity to show you what it's all about. I hope that we've earned that opportunity, given our track record here and across other states and the relationships that we've built with you and your staff. There's headlines are one thing and then actually what you do is something different and we want to prove to you that we know what we're doing and we know how to do it. It won't be perfect. It's not going to be without bumps in the road, but I'm sure every other licensee or every other applicant would say the same thing. I just want to just follow up. President Snowden, thank you for that one. I would test that on my health measures, barely assess all of the applicants. We are concerned about the intensity and frequency of the ads that you and your son are experiencing and are addressing that in our advertising regulations. So that is on the front line. I think I think the difference here is that your application was excellent. As I noted, I think I was the one in singularly. It was not a group grading. I think I was the one who said a plus plus. I will let my fellow commissioners assign their own grade, but with respect to everything but the outstanding issues, it was excellent, including your responsible gaming piece, but there were pieces in your responsible gaming, including your adoption of the AGA conduct that seemed to conflict directly with the messaging that I heard from Mr. Portnoy and the other 100 influencers that you have. I haven't seen them all, of course, but that it conflicted in a way that I hadn't haven't still haven't been able to resolve. And as I said, I could I can remain open minded that perhaps it does have the effect that you're imagining, perhaps having a million followers means that they're they're hearing responsible gaming and not just being entertained by what might be clamorization of excessive gaming. So that's the tension. I think we know that, right? And that's where I think we would look. I would look for additional input and data. And then also with respect to the temporary licensure versus other options, I think I turn to Council Grossman, but in many ways, the statute is structured in a way that that is somewhat the direction of the law that we must follow. So I appreciate today the the offer for exploring where I see this conflict of what you're representing as your plan for responsible gaming and then how it gets executed. So Commissioner O'Brien, you had some more new questions. Let's turn to them. Certainly. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just circling back to some of the RG concerns and the issues that were raised, I'm very happy to hear that you're going to make that change to the live audiences, because in connection with Ohio, it did go a little bit beyond simply saying you were launching before you really were. I mean, they were telling people to do their pre-registration, sign up, that sort of thing, if there's more you want to share with us in terms of response, et cetera, that needs to be an executive session, let me know. But yeah, I wanted to on that issue, I was just going to respond. We we the mistake that we made, Commissioner, is that we didn't think what we were doing was in violation of anything, but we should have checked before we showed up. So we were thinking and advertising its logos in stadium, the kind of things that do happen on other campuses, and we shouldn't have assumed that we knew what the term advertising meant in the law. We should have asked before we showed up on campus and mentioning that we were going live and what the offer was to go live again, primarily to that YouTube audience, that's over 90 percent of the audience is not the live group. But again, you might say that's a distinction without a difference. I would say it is an important factor. But nonetheless, we made a mistake. I can assure you that won't happen again. And we'll we'll own up to it as as we do. And when we know about these things, when we make these mistakes on our own, we self report. And I think in this case, we didn't realize we made the mistake, which is why it was brought to our attention and we'll pay the fine and we'll move on. So going at the when you gave the list of where that sort of college football barstool happened from a number of them in a studio, etc., etc. The one on week 15, I think was December 11th, I believe, was the Army Navy game at a parking lot near the stadium in Philly. Is that correct? It might be. I don't recall exactly what the location was, Commissioner. I think a lot and which appears to be one of the parking lots right next to the stadium where the game was, is that fair? Again, I don't think I'm seeing a head nodding, but I. So my question was was pointedly basically what you said you're going to fix, which is when I pull up the video of that, it appeared to be, well, technically, maybe not on a college campus in a parking lot next to a stadium hosting a college football game with a pan shot of the audience. It looked pretty young to me. And so my question to you was whether or not you had done over 21 or anything or whether there was anything else about that live broadcast that you wanted to talk about here today? No, other than to say, again, because I have not looked in particular to that one, Commissioner, but what I said earlier, whether the football college football show going forward, whether it's on campus or just off campus or next to the stadium, but outside of the line of the campus, we're committing to the live audience being 21 plus going forward. OK, great. Thank you. That was it for the RG follow-ups I had, Madam Chair. Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioners. So the RG. It was E and and G. So that would be the respect to be Commissioner Ryan. OK, other other questions for clarification on on the on the RG or G, like Commissioner Skinner. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. President Snowden, in your communication from December 15th and you might have even mentioned it today in your oral presentation, you say the bar stool cannot take certain marketing actions without approval of the pen appointees to the bar stool board if that action could have an adverse impact on pens, gaming licenses. And so what I mean, I know this is a very broad question, but what what at what marketing actions do you consider might put you at risk in Massachusetts before the Gaming Commission, before this commission that you would that you would deem where you would deem the approval of pens for necessary? I think every state commissioner, as you can appreciate the nuances and the rules, the laws, the regulations are a bit different. So I guess what I would say in answer to your question is like we have done in the other states, make sure we have a thorough understanding of what those expectations are, and we obviously would include that in how we think about approvals as it relates to bar stool content specifically around sports betting. You know, primarily the messaging and the focus has been around around responsible sports betting, responsible gaming, age, alcohol usage and things of that nature. But if there are other factors that are specific to your question here in the Commonwealth, open to what those might be. And we would obviously address those with with bar stool. I don't have any specific actions. I'm just being just wanting to follow up with the statement that you that you made. So how does that, how will that play out? Will you issue an advisory or any sort of guidance or pen to bar stool of the media side, informing them of such requirements and the kinds of marketing that you would expect that they would seek approval for? That would have been the case for the first three years. So I would say has been the case and will be the case through February come February. So two months from now will be in full ownership. So there won't really be a board dynamic bar stool will be a subsidiary of Penn and will simply work on the direction of bar stool sports with Erica Nardini, the CEO of bar stool sports. So there will be less to your specific question and what we put in the testimony and in the letter that has been in place for the last two and a half, almost three years that that structure goes away. And bar stool will be part of Penn. And so obviously, Erica and Nardini and team will be engaged with us regularly about, you know, content, specifically as it relates to sports betting and responsible gaming. That's not a new initiative. Thanks for the clarification. And would Ms. Nardini report directly to you, as I understand it, according to the work chart? Yes. Yeah. She she report will report directly to me. David Portnoy, I think important to highlight for the commission and staff. And it's it's in the fine print on that org structure is like many of the celebrity content creators at bar stool. Essentially, they are part of their own loan out company. So think about it as their own entity. Dan Katz, the million dollars worth of game guys, Dion Sanders, they form their own entity, which is referred to as a loan out company. So he will not directly be on payroll of bar stool, but he would still have an exclusive relationship with us as it relates to marketing and promoting certain products and verticals and things of that nature. But he will also have business pursuits and opportunities of his own outside of bar stool, again, very similar to the other folks that I named. They're not not everything they do is with bar stool, but they have a contract and arrangement with bar stool around certain aspects of what they do. So I have a follow up question for Mr. Skinner to that because that was really your you're addressing the org chart and that relationship. And I appreciate that Chris, you're in charge of the compliance with the guardrails that are being erected with the on the on air talent group go through any of that training on establishing the guardrails. All of them, yes. Chris Oriano, feel free to jump in. No, that's correct. I'm sure the everyone goes through that training and it's it's not a static. It's not a static process either. Certainly, you've seen the guardrails and provided them to you. My colleague, Mr. West regularly trains on those and we regularly report to the compliance committee of our board of directors at our quarterly meetings as to how those trainings are going, any best practices, anything we can learn, any enhancements we can make. So it's not just enough to do it once. It's important, I think, that we're being dynamic about how we evaluate how that training is going and what we're learning from it and how we can improve from it. And in terms of your compliance work that you do, do you start googling away to see how they're doing employing your your guardrails? Because it wasn't clear to me that they were necessarily getting all the black and white guardrail concepts. So I'm wondering about that as we move forward. Again, understanding there could be data that says, you know, some of the guardrail suggestions aren't so important, but it is in your pocket. And yet quick, quick googling suggests maybe, you know, just as recently, I got one YouTube, you know, September 1, 2022, that I could point out no need to, you all know what they are. So how do we reconcile going forward? But you don't have a contractual relationship with them. I asked this question repeatedly to all the other applicants, President Snowden, with respect to third party affiliates who are messaging, you know, what control do you have over their content? And I'm hearing you say that given the corporate structure, maybe not the control that I, you know, the aspect of control that I've been able to discern that other applicants have over third party affiliates. Yeah, I guess, Madam Chair, the way I would answer that question is to say, as it relates to the businesses that we are engaged with them on, we would have control over that. And those are that's part of the contract is that they would abide by responsible gaming protocol that we establish in these guardrails. So I hope that answers your question. Yeah, I bet that my fellow commissioners are struggling because it's hard to discern the difference, of course, among the various platforms. And I think you're well aware of that, too, probably to Commissioner O'Brien's first point are still brand is so, you know, so broad. I don't have in mind a assault. Commissioners, something for us to be thinking about, but to the extent that you could somehow there's a way to publicly discern and make that difference, it would be helpful. But I don't know how you would do that. Commissioner O'Brien, if you got some thoughts. I think it's more for the body of five of us to, you know, as we finish up the regulatory scheme on this, too. We've had a lot of conversations about whether and at what point do we as a commission identify someone who needs to be vetted as a qualifier if they are, in fact, to be a third party marketer for a licensee. And this may be an avenue where if the structure of the relationship with Barstool is such that, you know, maybe they at some future point continue to have an impact on the reputation character, et cetera, of the the licensee, but not necessarily directly qualify as an individual qualifier. There may in fact be mechanisms for this commission to then conduct their own suitability on third party marketers if they are, in fact, having an influence on the brand. And commissioner, to that point, from from my perspective, that's obviously within the commission's decision making process. And you'll end up where you guys end up on that. And all I would ask for is that it's handled equally. And there are lots of marketing partners and across these different applicants. And I think ours gets a lot more attention, but there are lots of them. And so I would just ask that you guys think about that and look at it through the lens of handling this in a fair and balanced way across all the applicants, which I'm sure you would. But I think, again, ours gets maybe more attention, but there's there's lots of marketing partners out there. I think the nature of the relationship with the marketing partners is probably part of the analysis that we're having. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. Thank you, Madam Chair. President Sun, as to the Ohio matter, and I think I already know the answer to this, but I want to clarify it. Would you notify the M.G.C. before you announce the go live date and what to sign up? Would you consult with us? 100 percent, Commissioner. We we screwed up in Ohio and we'll pay the price, which is a hefty fine. I'm not happy about that. We've had very direct conversations about it internally at Penn, and I can assure you that will not happen in Massachusetts. So I want to ask another question that I think goes to the heart of kind of what you're trying trying to get across, President Sun, we do seem to be focusing on. I'm just going to say, you know, some I'm not the humor police, and I'm not going to start being that today. But what are some of the benefits to the Commonwealth in bringing the bar school brand to Plainville and to PPC and your perspective? I know that you said you hope to give some information to Loretta. You hope to get some information, but you're here. What are some of the benefits to the Commonwealth? Yeah, Commissioner Maynard, it's a great question. And I mentioned this a little bit in the letter in my prepared remarks and that barstool sports was founded here in the Commonwealth almost 20 years ago. We'll be celebrating the 20th anniversary in 2023. And this is from a from a fan base perspective and a loyalty perspective. This is the number one state in the United States in terms of the following to the barstool sports brand. And so we we would expect that Massachusetts would be one of, if not, our highest ranking market share states because of the history and the fan base and the loyalty here in Massachusetts around that brand. And again, this is not just a David Portnoy topic. David has David Portnoy has a very strong following here. So do a lot of other barstool personalities. I meet again, I've been living here for for many years and I went to college here. And there are a lot of barstool fans across the Commonwealth, so I think would be very confused and upset if that were not one of the brands offered knowing that it's alive in 14 other states. There would be a lot of confusion around that. And I think that the other nice thing about the barstool brand and we've proven this in states where we've gone live after other applicants, Pennsylvania being a good example, New Jersey being a good example in New Jersey. We were because we were still ramping up and getting to scale in the states that were legal, but we were late to the game and we were two to three years after the fact going live in the state of New Jersey. And today we rank somewhere either fourth or fifth in the entire state amongst 15 or 20 operators. We rank fourth or fifth in the state of New Jersey pretty much every month, despite other most of those others having a two to three year head start. So it's a very strong brand and it also is a brand that will grow the market. It's not a steel share brand. When we tend to go go live somewhere and we're late to the game, it doesn't appear historically like we've stolen market share from competitors. We actually grow the grow the pie because of the audience loyalty factor. Thank you. Other questions, commissioners? OK. So at this juncture, we probably should go back to our process that's been working quite well for us and think about whether this applicant has met our expectations with respect to certain sections. And we can then we would, if we are prepared, we could move toward a disposition. We would look to Chancellor Grossman, there's been a proposal from President Snowden that we would want to think about from a legal perspective and in our obligations under our current statute, Chapter 23. So let me take your pulse and know that there's some unanswered questions. But how are we feeling? Commissioner about, let's say, exhibit exhibit section E or section G? I'll speak for us for E. And I think they met expectation. I agree. My comments are going to be relevant to both sections E and G. This commission hasn't declined to approve a license for lack of a full suitability review and investigation by IEB. And I don't think it's the commission's intent to do that now with this applicant, particularly since it is a category one applicant who we are very familiar with. So quite frankly, what President Snowden has proposed is no different than what is already applied to the other applicants. So I do think that the sections E and G meet expectations. But I do want to caveat that by saying we do need a more thorough investigation, even on the preliminary, excuse me, preliminary side of things from the IEB. Can I just get a question? Ask the Council Grossman. If you want to clarify that I do think this would be a shift from what we've done with respect if we were to do a preliminary with ability. Well, let me be clear. That is not that is not what I am asking for. But I am interested in exploring the attachment of certain conditions relative to I guess I wanted to point out that you said it would be no different than how we've done with the other applicants. And I think if I might be wrong, but Council Grossman, you can clarify and I might be unclear as to what President Snowden has suggested, so I could be enlightened. Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners, a good afternoon to everyone. No, this neatly falls within the construct of the regulations and the statutory scheme. We are looking here essentially at a preliminary finding of suitability, as opposed to the durable finding. The Commission has awarded the durable finding of suitability on two occasions through the two category one gaming licensees. And in doing so, the way it got there was in relying on the Commission's prior finding under Chapter 23K that there was clear and convincing evidence presented by the applicant edit in its qualifiers at an engineering proceeding. And you'll recall that Chapter 23N allows the Commission to use this information obtained from the applicant under Chapter 23K in support of any of its decisions, but you need not do so. Essentially, if there is our outstanding issues that you believe would benefit from a full IEB investigation at this juncture and accordingly, essentially, there isn't substantial evidence that the prior finding can be unequivocally relied upon without any further review. You can look to that preliminary finding of suitability. You would merely need to find that there is substantial evidence based upon the information presented, which, as you'll recall, is the IEB's report and the attestations provided by the applicant as to their suitability in order to find that that factor has been satisfied. And I mean the factor related to suitability, which, of course, is but one of a number of factors that the Commission will evaluate and consider in deciding whether to award a license. So this idea is similar to the way the Commission has reviewed and evaluated other applications, specifically of the non Category 1 gaming application. Thank you for that clarification. Other thoughts and. So in terms of conditions, because I do think I need to speak about that now before I answer on Angie, as a cleanup matter, I would like someone to get back to me on exactly what happened in that parking lot for the Army Navy game in terms of whether under 21 was allowed in there for that. I'm just curious on that if someone can actually get back to me on that. In addition, you know, I made pretty clear I want a full suitability review of Barstool as part of this and I want that to happen as a condition of this going forward. My guess is I will say the same thing in terms of PSI, they would be linked. And I also want to make clear that that includes a fulsome look at the company as the media marketing branch of the licensee without sort of these any distinctions of who's an independent contractor and who's not. I'm looking at the entirety of what that brand is. That's what I'm looking for. My understanding is President Snowden embraces that idea and is open to that. But I want to make clear that when I asked for that to be one of the conditions that that is the scope of what I am looking for. Mr. O'Brien, my name is Michael West. I can tell you that on on the week 15, college football show that you're asking about that was at Lincoln Financial Field, which is in Philadelphia. There was no idea taken for that live in person audience. I'm sorry, Saladin, you cut out. There were no. We did not check identification or age of the live in person audience. OK. Thank you for that. Mr. O'Brien, I do need to defer to Director Lillios to really understand your your request about suitability and to make sure that we're all in agreement. I'm not saying I'm not. I just want to make sure I understand, understand it. So I'm regularly as I'm looking to you, do you understand the scope of what Commissioner O'Brien was suggesting for a condition and how does that fall into your work? Yeah, I am trying to understand that. So yeah, go ahead. I mean, I think to put a finer point on it, I view them as essentially an entity qualifier in this regard because they are as a branding mechanism, so integrally intertwined with this applicant and the following applicant PSI. And so I am looking for them to get a suitability review as if they were an entity qualifier as a condition of the CAT one and the requested CAT through Tethered with PSI. I'm sorry. No, I think I think that's exactly the point is that I think the condition is that bar stool and we'll have to get the precise entity name will as a condition of any entertainment license be designated a qualifier subject to the full investigation that the whole company will have to be subject to. And Kathy, I fully anticipated that that would be something that we would review, especially in light of the upcoming transaction with 100 percent ownership scheduled to take place in February. So I did consider that we would review that at that time. But, you know, I understand that accelerating it at this point, you know, I did think reviewing it at that time as part of also ongoing suitability where constantly evaluating new corporate transactions and, you know, adding adding qualifiers or designating qualifiers depending on the transaction. So I did expect to to to get there. I had thought of it in the context of preliminary suitability. I've been thinking about it more in the context of ongoing suitability. But, you know, I understand that you know, that that goes like this. My my only question is is Commissioner O'Brien's proposal is that would that be a matter of your discretion to your position as to who was deemed the qualifiers or not? Because I'm wondering if it sounds reasonable, but she's saying, although technically I'm not sure that it might be our reaching beyond in a way that we don't do for other applicants. So I'm trying to make sure I actually want to unfair Madam Chair, if you go back several years to a licensee when matters came up in the public realm, the Commission did then direct IEV to go and do further suitability and investigation. That's exactly what I'm thinking of. And I as a registrant, even though I know I think that we were asking for to look. I don't know if it was further on suitability, but it was further. It was further on suitability. And it was IEV was directed to do an investigation on batters that went into the public realm. So are you saying, though, can I ask this question? Are you saying that that they that they would have to be a qualifier in order to to for the or are you allowing IEV to do some investigation to learn? I I think in the procedural posture right now is IEV has to do an investigation for this commission to then adjudicate whether or not it impacts the Katwan existing license for PPC, the requested potential temporary license for sports wagering Katwan, and then it may relate to the upcoming PSI tether three. That's in snowden. Yeah, I I I guess I'm confused on the process here. I'm not sure I understand why we would not be considered for temporary licensure now for the reasons that I described before with the brand that we're recommending while full suitability work is being done behind the scenes. Maybe I'm missing something. No, that's not what I'm saying. So procedurally right now you have an existing category one gaming license. And so procedurally this the question is whether anything is there's substantial evidence to challenge that by clear and convincing evidence that we would disturb it for that even to be considered, we would need to get a full report from IEV on bar stool and connection with the other two, your request for a temporary Katwan on sports wagering. For me, I'm making it clear that even if they don't technically fall as a qualified entity for IEV's review right now, I want that to be part of the suitability review that would go on before you would be deemed potentially durably suitable. I think now you may be completing concepts. I think it's one investigation that impacts two different licenses and two different postures. I don't want to put words in your mouth, Commissioner Ryan. What I understand that I was being proposed is that this applicant for a Katwan sports wagering application license is looking as an applicant is looking for requesting a temporary licensure subject to an investigation by IEV because we don't have really a complete record. I think all of us agree our record is slim and it wouldn't be fair either direction for either President Snowden to conclude that we're wrong or for us to conclude that he's wrong. So we know we need more. So that would be so I'm only looking at twenty three and right now. And so the condition for twenty three and would be now if you could fill in the blank would be subject to a full suitability investigation by IEV on Barstool as a qualified entity. OK, so let's now let's just get clarity around Barstool. What do we mean by Barstool? I believe it's Barstool Sports, the media arm. Now, that is not before us, though. That's exactly what when I asked for I want a suitability on sport book on sport Barstool, let me be very clear, I meant the media arm of Barstool. So that's the parent company. Barstool Inc, which is the media, as it's been described to me, is the media branch of the Barstool branch, Empire branch, shall we say. But I think we need some clarity around the corporate governance structure. President Snowden again, just so that we all are on the same page. I'm getting a little uncomfortable with this being in public domain. I think we need to have maybe an executive session to discuss this. I'm not sure I'm not following exactly where this conversation is going. I'm actually very confused right now. Thank you. So. Councillor Grossman, I don't know if we have the ability to move into an executive session, but I do appreciate President Snowden saying that he's confused. I think I could join in saying I'm confused too. So Commissioner Bryan, you just maybe five, ten steps ahead of us. So in order to even entertain a license condition, and it would be, of course, a vote of the body of a commission, we certainly want to be clear as to what you are thinking. So Councillor Grossman, if you could help us think about this. Sure. I think what we're trying to determine now, and we could probably do it by just looking at the filings, but to the extent anyone can assist on this, is which entity exactly will be designated as a qualifier to the Penn Entertainment temporary license for purposes of conducting the investigation. We understand there are two barstool entities, so we certainly want to make sure we get the right one for starters and then make sure that we scope out that entity properly. So to the extent that we can do that now, that would be helpful. We'd have to think about whether there's anything sensitive about the answer to that question before we could talk about it privately. But Commissioner Bryan, is that right? We're trying to just identify the entity so that we can scope it properly. I think that's really the question. Right. Chris Soriano or Harper, do you want to jump in here? I will if I may be helpful. I think the media entity that we're discussing is Barstool Sportspeak. And that and that's been certainly that's the entity that Penn will be taking the 100 percent ownership of. I think we're we're maybe misunderstanding or getting confuses around the question of the definition of a qualifier versus where I think if I do not intend to speak for the commission in any way, but it seems as though where we're trying to get to is some further review by the IEB of Barstool Sportspeak, that entity. And I think that that's something that can be conducted pursuant to a process that we discuss with the IEB and work out with the IEB and obviously would be fully cooperative with the IEB going forward. I think especially given the ownership structure and where it goes, I'm not certain that the entity meets the definition of qualifier. But certainly it's within the commission's authority and we would gladly cooperate with the IEB to provide such additional review and answer questions such that when we were back for a final determination, that record was fully developed. Commissioner O'Brien, I think we're on the same page on this one. I just again, I in no way intend to speak for you. Yeah, no, I'm looking in particular for a full sum review by IEB on suitability of Barstool Sports, Inc. Is that as it relates to PSI or is that as it relates to? Maybe, because it's my understanding when I look at PSI's application, it very much relates back to Penn and that it will also be the overwhelming marketing arm of PSI. So I think it applies to both. But what is in front of us right now is PPC's request for a CAT one. So is your condition also intended to apply to PPC as a suitable licensee right now? That would really be if only if any evidence came in front of IEB where they brought it back to us and said there was some reason to disturb a finding at this point, I'm looking to get the information about moving forward on the CAT one sports wagering license. I think just add some clarity. Any any information that is unearthed or discovered or what have you would have to be brought forward under a separate process in order to look at PPC and gaming and redevelopment. So that's not really before us right now, but certainly there is an overlap in the information of something were to come about. There certainly the licensee would be entitled to an entirely separate process to look at that. We might be based on the same set of facts and circumstances and the same investigation, but it would not be just brought forward as part of this sports wagering license. Right. Director Wells. Yeah, just just following up on that. In my in my experience, and we've had a couple of these in the past, I believe, with the casino license or structure, the process would be and I think this sort of gets to what commissioner Brian is getting to, but through the normal process we've had before. So let me defer to the commission on ultimate decision making. Normally what we do is we would scope, identify qualifiers and then during the course of the investigation, potentially identify additional qualifiers and make that designation during the investigation. What I hear commissioner Brian saying and commissioner Brian, please correct me if I'm not phrasing this correctly. What I'm hearing is that you want an investigation into that company. What may be helpful at this juncture is instead of making that qualifier determination right now is for the IEB as part of their suitability investigation. Anyway, they would be looking into this and then potentially make either an interim role or make a designation on their own or if the commission wishes, if they're seeking some commission input on that, present some information if that needs to be a determination by the commission itself. So either way, I think you get what you are looking for. And we can put it on the record, but it's more consistent with past practice to just go forward with the investigation rather than adding a qualifier that's not part of that statutory or regulatory structure. So if there's something in addition that that you're looking for, we could even add that now. I don't know if that's helpful or not. So my understanding is right now, Barstool Sports Inc. is not listed as an entity qualifier. Correct. And I am asking that it be added as an entity qualifier. And I thought there was agreement on this, but it sounds like maybe not. I'm not sure. I guess I'm I I understand that. What I think what we're concerned about, I suspect because it's known and it's that perfect government structure is such that in many ways we, you know, there's there's control issues and we can't necessarily get to the entity that might be most interested in. And I suspect that's what Commissioner Bryan is addressing. I also feel very compelled to honor our our statute and our and our our regulatory scheme and the role of the IEB in this process. And I don't want to deviate from that. And I'm just not sure if Commissioner Bryan's condition would be a deviation or permissible under the law. And with that, I'm not sure how I truly feel. But I just right now it's completely whether that's an overstep that would be problematic. And this is how we do our business here, right? In public sorting out these complex issues. So, Council Grossman, if you if you want to take a break to think about this and look at that, that's fine. I think that Commissioner Bryan is that what that's part of the issue, right? I'll be one. I don't think I'm overstepping any commission authority in this regard. I think the only. You know, technical machination that might have to occur is the actual 100 percent acquisition of Barstool Sports, Inc. by Penn in February to actually complete it so that you have the ability and the authority and the control to give IEB what it may ask for in conducting that review. That's the only delay I see in that. And I had a question along those lines. If if we didn't if IEB didn't designate Barstool Sports, Inc., a qualifier, what would be the extent of their investigation for purposes of the Category One application? And I can jump in here on that. There's depending on what your kind of information you're looking for, there's a lot that the IEB can do to identify the areas around possible overstep on responsible gaming, possible inconsistency with sort of cultural integrity pieces that you may be concerned about as being connected to the brand that you're overseeing in a regulatory capacity. So there can a lot can be done without designating the company. Barstool Sports, Inc. as a qualifier. It's important that we not go outside of the legal authority to designate a company as a qualifier, because along with that designation comes the designation of, you know, individuals for fingerprinting purposes and that sort of thing. So we really have to be within our authority for those designations. And that is a process that we've already started looking at with respect to this company. We typically like to see the transaction occur and the executive leadership fall into place before we make the requirement, because historically we have found that when we don't wait for that, inevitably there are differences in what people was expected and what ends up being in reality. But there's a lot that can be done without that formal qualification piece. My suggestion is that we come up with a plan and make sure it covers the points that the commission wants and that we revisit the qualification piece in due course. And I guess I'm suggesting that that approach, Madam Chair and Commissioner O'Brien is no different than the approach that has been applied to every other applicant with respect to, you know, the full suitability investigation that is to come. I think one distinction of Commissioner Skinner is that this is a category one applicant that has a different, this is treated differently by statute. The other two category one applicants have been awarded durable suitability. They are not going to continue to have any further investigation. I hear President Snowden coming today with an offer to go to the temporary with the idea that we with the idea that I think many of us would have requested that we needed more information. So I do think there's a distinction in this category one. I feel that way. I agree with you, Madam Chair. Can I just confirm my understanding of what you're saying, Madam Chair, is because this category one applicant is subject to suitability under twenty three K. Is it that we're calling into question now that the suitability of PPC under their current license? No. OK, I can think of three and twenty three and section six. Council Grossman, if you want to go over that language. Yeah, we can do that. And I also just I think if I can try to refine the issue here and Commissioner Brian, please jump in if I have this wrong. The issue is under section five and six were qualifiers, if you will, are discussed. An argument might be able to be made that Barstool would not be covered. And what we're saying here is that regardless of what the scoping might have become, if we just ask the IEB to scope out Penn Entertainment, Barstool is automatically going to be designated a qualifier. And so there will be no argument that they're not covered under the statute. But just to point out, there are some issues that go along with that. And Lorena pointed one of them out. There are issues in the statute relative to fingerprinting people, for example. And we may not have the ability to fingerprint Barstool because they wouldn't necessarily have qualified as a qualifier under the statute. And we can and I'm speaking in very broad terms here, but we can only fingerprint people who meet the definition of a qualifier. So if the Commission would have to understand that we might be able to conduct a background investigation that might not include running queries on the individuals involved in Barstool, as we ordinarily would. So I think that's the issue. It's just that the Commission is automatically designating Barstool Sports, Inc. as a qualifier, regardless of whether they would have been included as part of the scoping exercise. And I think that's what my fellow commissioners would have instead of word to get some insight now from Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill, you shipped it on me. Where are you? He's not there. Well, Commissioner Hill did bounce out. Oh, here he's back. Here we go. I am here. Oh, thank you, Commissioner Hill. Yeah, thank you. Do you have have you been able to listen? I have. Yeah, that's what I thought. Any any. What? I feel. I know there's some concerns from my fellow commissioners on this, but I feel with what has been put forward and the amendments that have been put forward and through the conversations that we've had today that we could move forward here with a temporary license and get the information that we need on a move moving forward basis. So I feel and I feel very comfortable doing that. So is that in terms of in terms of the proposal that President Snowden offered? Is that what you're saying? Yes. OK, and what about a further condition with respect to the process of that investigation? I think Commissioner O'Brien would like assurances that we expand to include a certain qualifier and IEBS directed or has suggested that perhaps that could they could get information without on the responsible gaming piece. Director Lillios and other sort of the cultural piece without that qualifying qualifier piece. How do you feel about that? And I think and I think that would be fine. I guess what I'm struggling with is trying to understand how we're not going to be getting that information moving forward. And I guess there's a disconnect between the regs and the mass general law of why we wouldn't be getting that information on a moving forward basis. We're not getting it up front. I understand that. But ultimately we would, I think, unless I'm missing something. OK, Commissioner Maynard, and then we'll take a break and just everybody just take a little bit of a break and then we'll turn back to the applicant. Make sure we're sorting this out correctly. OK, Commissioner Maynard. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't want to do anything that disturbs the current suitability under 23 K and it seemed like that that was pretty much an agreement. I have a real problem with treating people differently. And, you know, if I'm not going to vote to bring in other cat ones and ask about their marketers and fingerprint their marketers, I've got a real problem doing it here, honestly. I would trust the systems that are in place as they are. I have full faith in Loretta and her team. And that's kind of how I would I would approach this. So I'm not sure that I would. I would feel comfortable directing the IEB duty thing and specifically as a condition. And yes, yes, a small request, or at least I think it is. It's been quite some time since we've heard from President Snowden. And I think I could use a better understanding of exactly what he has proposed. I'm not clear on that. So I think that is going to give us some context, because what I intend to do over break is circle back with Council Grossman. So I can be sure I'm understanding how this is all working or going to work. President Snowden, thank you, Commissioner Skinner, very fair point. Thank you. Happy to, Madam Chair and Commissioner Skinner, thank you for proposing the question. What we are asking for is exactly what Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Mainer just summarized, which is the ability to move forward on a temporary licensure basis as proposed in the application and to let the full comprehensive suitability due diligence background check play out in its normal course as it is with all other applicants and for us to be treated the same way as we move forward on a temporary licensure. OK. And with that, it is 10 after three. But why don't we break until three thirty and give everybody a chance to do their homework that they need to do, take a look at the statute and get any clarifying questions answered all in accordance with our obligations under the open meeting law. Thank you, everyone. Thank you to the applicant. Thanks, Dave. Also. Thank you. OK. Commissioner Hill, you are on a phone, I believe. I just don't see you on my page. You had to shift to a phone. I am here. Thank you. So there we go. That's the beginning of my road call. We must do that because we're on a virtual platform. I've got Commissioner Hill, Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Right. Mr. Skinner. Here. And Commissioner Mainer. I'm here. All right. Let's proceed. So we are returning to a convening of Massachusetts Gaining Commission meeting number four fifteen and this December 20th, and we were contemplating the disposition of this matter of we have PPC, Plain Ridge Park Casino in front of us seeking their Category one license for sports wagering, and there was a proposal made by President Snowden that would allow for temporary licensure with the ability for us to have IEB further into this matter, investigate so that we have both sides, all sides, all stakeholders have really a fulsome, fulsome report and an understanding of all the issues. Commissioner O'Brien, you had made a proposal around a potential condition and there was a little bit of a struggle to understand all the implications. And so I thought maybe it might be helpful for the clarification from you or anyone else who has that. Certainly, Madam Chair, what I had said earlier, what I was looking for in this regard was also that there be a fulsome and full investigation by IEB about Barstool Sports Inc. Without limitation and connection with their branding as it relates to PPC by extension, Penn and PSI, but PPC is the one in front of us right now. And so branding as opposed to whether or not it's a qualifier, is that helpful? I think it's essentially the same thing. But if in terms of addressing the fingerprint issue, etc., I think that language gets me what I need and addresses that conundrum. Well, that's just the fingerprinting. I don't know if it's just the fingerprinting. I think it's also just process, but they understand the fingerprinting issue. There's limitation on that, but just in terms of process. So Director Lillios, do you want to elaborate on what you would imagine the further further investigation to look like? Yeah, in terms of a full and fulsome investigation, I think we can anticipate that there would be full cooperation from Penn Entertainment, from PPC and from Barstool Sports Inc. because as of February, they will be fully owned by Penn Entertainment. So I don't see any problem there. Penn has always been cooperative with us in the initial licensing stage and up through up through today. So my suggestion is that we put together an invest plan and proceed on it, can connect with you, Eileen, if you would like. But we'll we'll start to put together that plan forthwith and the temporary status should allow us enough time to be able to do a full review. Questions, comments? OK, Director Wells, you have clarifying. I think that makes sense. What I what I hear Commissioner Bryan saying is that she doesn't want any limitations, the IEV's ability to investigate the issues that we've been talking about. And I think that this approach that we're talking about here satisfies that. So I think as long as we're all clear on that, that would make sense. And we can go home. OK, OK, so with that issue resolved, are there other conditions that the commissioners would like to explore? Tom, we're at that juncture, correct? Yes, I think this is a good time to establish what conditions may attach. President Snowden did on the record answer a question I had. And I think once February comes, it will be an expanded responsibility where you would really end up, for lack of that word, own or be in control of any content that's used for promotional marketing, advertising purposes. And I've asked that of the other applicants. Yes, that is correct, Madam Chair. And that would be in February in the interim. I understand that there's less control right at this moment. Well, as as it relates to sports betting and gambling, there's control mechanisms today by way of the guardrails. It'll just become more official, less guardrail and more policy, I guess, once we get to February, once we have full control. But there's control mechanisms in place today. There have been for the last two and a half years or two years and three months since we've been live with online sports betting. Commissioners, do we feel we need to in any way strengthen that as a condition? I feel on the record, President Snowden has taken responsibility for responsible gaming piece and those guardrails that they've established in their exhibits to the letter. So, you know, following up on Commissioner Mayer's point, we would, you know, we'd have to hold the licensee accountable for that. Understood. OK. Anything, any other condition? Commissioners, Commissioner Hill, are you all set? I am all set. Thank you. All right. With that said, do we have any help from our legal department on next steps? I think we're at the juncture where the Commission can take a look at each of the factors outlined in Section 218 to draw a conclusion as to whether there is substantial evidence to support each of those and ultimately whether the umbrella standard that the award would benefit the Commonwealth has been met. As part of that, as we've done a number of times now, we'll take a look at the suitability provisions of the regulations just to ensure that that piece is buttoned up as well. So, Madam Chair, if there's nothing else, we can move right into that process. Yes, please. OK. So. In determining whether to award a sports wagering license or a temporary license, for that matter, of course, we take a look at Section 218.06, subsection five of the regulations. As I just mentioned, the umbrella standard in determining whether to award such a license is that we look at whether the license award would benefit the Commonwealth. The Commission has identified a number of factors that we will look at to determine whether that standard has been met. And of course, there are sub factors in support of each of those factors that I'll go through now, very in mind, of course, as we discussed earlier, that the Commission has to find that there is substantial evidence to support whatever conclusions it draws relative to any of these factors, whether positive or negative. And so the first factor is whether is to look at the applicant's experience and expertise related to sports wagering, including the applicant's background in sports wagering, the applicant's experience in licensure and other jurisdictions of sports wagering, the description of the applicant's proposed sports wagering operation or description, technical features and operation of the sports wagering platform, which is not applicable here. The second factor is the economic impact to and other benefits to the Commonwealth if the applicant is awarded a license, including employment opportunities within the Commonwealth, the projected revenue from wagering operations and tax revenues to the Commonwealth and for a category one sports wagering license applicant, as we have before us, the applicant's proposed plans for construction and capital investments associated with the license board and finally any community engagement. The next factor is the applicant's proposed measures related to responsible gaming, including the applicant's responsible gaming policies, the applicant's advertising and promotional plans and the applicant's history of demonstrated commitment to responsible gaming. The next factor is the applicant's willingness to foster racial, ethnic and gender, diversity, equity and inclusion, including within the applicant's workforce through the applicant's supplier spend and in the applicant's corporate structure. Next is the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation, including which might not be relevant here, any geofencing, know your customer measures and technological expertise and reliability. Next is the suitability of the applicant and qualifiers, and again, we'll we'll circle back to this one momentarily, but the sub factors include whether the applicant can be or has been determined suitable in accordance with 205 C mark 15. The applicants and all parties in interest to the licensees integrity, honesty, good character and reputation, the applicant's financial stability, integrity and background, the applicant's business practices and business ability to establish and maintain successful sports wagering operation, the applicant's history of compliance with gaming or sports wagering licensing requirements and other jurisdictions, and whether the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practices. And finally, any other appropriate factor in the commission's discretion. So those are the factors and sub factors that the commission has set out for review and determining whether to award a sports wagering license. It may be helpful, madam chair and commissioners, to circle back to section two 15, which talks about suitability determinations. And you'll recall that the regulation breaks suitability down into two potential options. One is the durable finding of suitability and one is the preliminary finding of suitability. As a practical matter, the applicant here has essentially suggested that it is not pursuing the durable finding of suitability at the moment. The durable finding of suitability is essentially the final finding of suitability, which has to be established by clear and convincing evidence. And as we have done on a couple of occasions, that determination, when it comes to a category one applicant, can be premised on the idea that the applicant has already gone through an adjudicatory proceeding as part of his chapter 23 K suitability finding, which this particular applicant has. However, if there are any outstanding issues, as I mentioned, that would benefit from a review by the IEB and further review by the commission ultimately, the commission need not rely on that finding of suitability by clear and convincing evidence and instead can look to the preliminary finding of suitability standard, which is also addressed in section 215. In this case, the clear and convincing standard doesn't apply. You need only find by substantial evidence that the applicant has demonstrated its preliminary suitability. And in reliance there, we look to the report filed by the IEB and the attestations filed by the applicant. In the event that there is a preliminary finding of suitability entered, as opposed to the durable finding of suitability, the applicant merely becomes eligible to apply for a temporary license. Of course, the temporary license allows the IEB to conduct a full background investigation, which will ultimately be brought before the commission and an adjudicatory proceeding to determine whether the applicant and its qualifiers are suitable by finding a clear and convincing evidence. So that's what's before the commission at the moment. The other thing that's important to keep in mind here are the conditions. And the commission has identified, I believe, two conditions which we can go through and then, of course, there are the so-called automatic conditions that attach by way of 205 CMR 20.01. So that, Madam Chair and commissioners, is an overview of the law governing the commission's decision at the moment. If it would be helpful, we can talk about the conditions that the commission has identified to supplement the automatic conditions. And the two that I have noted here is first that the applicant and presumptive licensee, if that is the case, agree that nobody under the age of 21 years old will be allowed at its live shows. The second one is that Barstool Sports Incorporated shall be designated as a qualifier subject to a background investigation in accordance with the statute and the regs. Essentially not withstanding any determination that may otherwise happen. I think that that language was tweaked a little and Loretta, correct me if I'm wrong. I think what I asked for that marries the requirements of what I was looking for was that the condition be that the licensee fully cooperate with IEB. Who will conduct a fulsome investigation without limitation of Barstool Sports and their connection with the branding of the licensee. So that I'm clear, Commissioner, as opposed to the qualifier definition, is that correct? Correct, I believe that was the language that got me what I was looking for. And I think what the Commission was looking for, but addressed a statutory issue for IEB. Loretta, correct me if I'm wrong on that. That's correct. And I believe we can do a very relevant full investigation without the qualifier status. I understand that. Sorry about that. That I think is the language we ultimately settled on. I think we're coming on. We kind of clarify that right at the beginning, right? And then in terms of the first one, could you just say one more time, please? The the applicant slash licensee shall not allow anyone under the age of 21 into its audience for live shows into its audience. Thank you. That's right. And we will have mechanisms in place to not allow. I can't sit here today and tell you that a person could not sneak in. It's impossible. I just want to make sure we're very clear on what we're going to do, which is to do everything in our abilities to prevent that by identifying those that are attending the live show, right? The live show show, meaning the college, Barstool College Football show. Yes, correct. OK, it's restricted to that. But that that is the show that is in question. Is that correct? And maybe we should clarify that college show. Is that if you want to limit it just to college football shows? We could name of it. Well, no, no, no, that's the name of the show name of the in my testimony. We just shortened it to calling it the show, but it's the college football show. Right, like ESPN Game Day. This is called the Barstool College Football Show. And that's what Christian O'Brien, you were that was correct. So it's the college football show. Correct. That's helpful. OK. And then we had clarity without a condition around controlling content of their party, emotional advertising, marketing. And we know that that expands. Now we have the automatic. There are no other conditions. Do you want to go over those for the so that everybody can hear them again? I haven't yet memorized them. So I'm getting close, but I haven't either. So there I actually have a question on what time has said so far. Oh, sorry, Commissioner Maynard. I'm sorry, I missed you. Was President Snowden really confused about this, saying that he was comfortable moving forward with a preliminary finding of suitability, or was President Snowden saying that he was comfortable or was wanting durable finding suitability, which they've already been investing in in twenty three K. I just want to make sure that that's correct where he stands. I think under twenty three K, there's no question. There's no question around suitability. We're not looking at that at all. But President Snowden has offered today is that that they would be looking for temporary licensure, which allows for preliminary suitability and allows us to do that to gather information and the IEB. And I'm using the word investigation because it is, but it really is to collect on all sides of the sum report. And that's if we did a durable, then we wouldn't need to have any kind of investigation. So that's so there's no there's not he that doesn't disturb their suitability now as a under twenty three K whatsoever. Does that make sense? I just find I'm having a hard time understanding that when the February when February comes around, why would there not be? Why would the IEB not be able to do an investigation? If a durable finding of suitability enters, there's no further background investigation that is performed because you've already found by clear and convincing evidence that the entity and its qualifiers are suitable. So that's the end of the flag that a little bit because I understand that that point, you know, a durable finding of suitability stands unless there's something to call it into question. But suitability is ongoing and with licensees that have been found fully suitable before we may be investigating matters. And in fact, as new qualifiers get added, you know, we're investigating them and not disturbing findings or as new notifications get made or new information comes to light. You know, we have ongoing matters with licensees that are fully suitable. So it is a good question. Commission or Maynard. The difference is that for durable, it is there's always ongoing suitability. But in this instance, under the statute, temporary licensure can be granted with subject to third category one, subject to certain rules and regulations under section six. I'm OK. I'm still confused. OK, Commissioner O'Brien's condition. Right. With her condition tied to the durable finding of suitability. It's not tied to the durable finding of suitability. It's tied to the temporary license. And so the durable finding of suitability stands based on the hearing back in 2013. And so IEB would have to present us with substantial evidence to disturb that finding right now. They haven't gotten to durable on this particular one. It's a temporary license. We have yet to say as a commission, there's clear and convincing evidence as to durable in part because I was looking for this additional information about the branding. OK, I'm just going to put it on the record that I would treat them as I did the other two. Oh, you know what? So I am. I was a gross man. I've made an error. Because I did not take a final temperature on the two. And maybe that's where there was lack of clarity. How can I correct this? Just go back. We haven't voted yet. I think we definitely need to make findings on each of the factors anyway. So it's perfectly appropriate to go back. So you know what? And to the applicant, this is some, as you know, we've been having long days. And each each applicant quite properly has presented different issues. And we're we're we're working with the law that was given to us. And it's it's quite new law. So here we go. So I want to return now to Section E. I think I heard from everybody on Section E. That we with with a condition, Commissioner O'Brien, that you announced, that's where we got a little head. I'm sorry. You would be comfortable with Section E provided there was a condition. Would you still have that line? Correct. OK, and I feel that E is met with with the condition of. I frankly, a further investigation. So now we have G and this is where it could be helpful for Commissioner Maynard. Section G deals with suitability. We were very fortunate to have an executive session where many questions were answered that the public won't have the benefit of that at this time to understand the questions that I think I went over at the beginning. But that said, today we also had the update from President Snowden. And we are now. Looking at suitability, Commissioner O'Brien, would you say on its face that the applicant has met Section G? On a minimum presentation of the application? Yes. Yes. OK. And. Commissioner Hill. She has been meeting its expectation. OK, and Commissioner Skinner. Yes, meets expectations. And Commissioner Maynard. Yes. And and I would say that. With respect to the applicant's suitability, there is no question under 23 K that there's no no disturbance of that under 23 K. And with respect to our relative suitability with today's explanation and today's offer, I am very comfortable with the applicant having met met at Section G. Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, for me, there's also a question of looking at it in its entirety. Do I want that condition? Yes, I do. In terms of moving forward, I would want that condition as it relates to G. The condition being the further investigation. Correct. Correct. So with respect to the presentation and the offers that made, I feel that we could move ahead. Now, Councilor Grossman, if you could just assist Commissioner Maynard with the distinction that were in Commissioner Maynard, if you could just have that discourse with Councilor Grossman so that you understand, you know, everybody's on the same page. We want to make sure everybody is clear with respect to the statute. I just so what I let me pose my question. If we found them, that the durable finding a suitability, which we have done for the other two category one applicants moves from twenty three K to twenty three N, which we have done twice. And the director of IED, you're sitting here to me, Loretta. Sorry, I'm pointing to you, is sitting here telling me. That she can look into bar school. And I wrote down the condition that Commissioner O'Brien mentioned, which does state of the licensee will cooperate with the IED. I am totally not understanding why we can't find a durable finding of suitability. And also say that Loretta, who's sitting right here in front of us today, has the authority to look into bar school. I'm just confused about that. Is that not possible, Todd? I think it is possible. It gets a bit nuanced in that in order to do that, you would have to find that there is clear and convincing evidence as we sit here today that an entertainment has demonstrated its suitability. And there are, I think, just concerns amongst some of your colleagues that there are questions to be left to be answered where it might not be possible to get to the clear and convincing level, which is a very high level of proof. And so I suppose, yes, that it is possible that you could enter a durable finding and then direct the IED to investigate bar school as we prescribe. If I may, commissioners, so if we were to be granted a durable finding of suitability, just as we have been for the past seven years, wouldn't we still be subject to ongoing investigation at, frankly, whatever level the executive director, the IED and their team would feel would be appropriate to be able to allow us to maintain our durable finding of suitability, such that I would. I don't think so, because I don't think it's always ongoing. Correct. We don't allocate resources to our IED to investigate someone or something, an entity or a fire unless something sparks that. Am I correct, Director Wells? I understand where you're going. So in terms of it is always ongoing. Today, we have to make a vote. We would have to take a vote today around factors that come up in commission, they all build different levels of comfort. But Director Wells, we wouldn't allocate resources without something to spark. Even though it's ongoing. Well, we have our upcoming acquisition of bar school, which I would think would be one of the things that the commission, the IED, might want to look at. I can answer the question for me right now, which I said early on, which is I, as one commissioner, do not find clear and convincing evidence for a Cat 1 sportsway during a quest on behalf of the applicant without further information that I've asked for is one of the conditions. So in terms of where everybody else comes down, I can't speak to it. But that is why I would not vote for durable. And I heard President Snowden on her temporary licensure with an investigation. And that means some preliminary finding and with the investigation. And I would also probably I would add and I know Director Lillios forgive me, but I would probably add for some timelines on the investigation so that we could be there to the applicant and that Commissioner O'Brien is not in her head. That would be fair all around to the applicant and to the IED. But some check in points on timelines for that investigation, because I know that they can sometimes just take its life of its own, but I was going to add that. So my position would be to that at this point in time, given the concerns and given that I think I said it quite clearly for me, there's a tension between what was put forward in the application and then some of the public information that I understand isn't a fair sampling. And I accept that from President Snowden that we both are a fair sampling. We want as much data as love to get the responsibility and research. I think that would be very, very helpful along the way. And and so I would say that that would be my recommendation. Perhaps a slightly different lens, but aligned with my fellow commissioner, O'Brien. I don't know, Commissioner Skinner, are you turning off here? Oh, I'm leading in. No, I agree with you, Madam Chair. I am also interested in supporting my fellow commissioner. That that that is what my approach has generally been throughout all of our meetings and, you know, but that doesn't mean that there's not an opportunity to question, to engage and present a different side of things. But where, Madam Chair, you've noted that President Snowden has requested the temporary licensure, there's no need in my mind to go back and forth or even, you know, have a further debate on the question of durable versus preliminary. So that makes it a lot easier for me to, to, to, to, you know, to get my head wrapped around exactly what's happening. Commissioner Maynard or what's being proposed, excuse me, Commissioner Maynard. I struggled before the break, too, with really understanding what the request was and it's been interpreted for me. I think when, you know, it's a different context when we're drafting regulations, reading them and doing our best to understand them, then we are presented with when we have live issues that we have to apply those regulations to. And, and that's to me, that's what the disconnect is and has been throughout this entire process. So that's where I'll leave that. I just, you know, it's the decision has been made much easier for me, again, given that President Snowden has essentially offered a path forward. And I appreciate that, Commissioner Scarron. And I would be the first to say that that I always am open to learning a lot more. I just wanted to make sure that President Snowden was fully aware of the implications of what he was saying and that I understood what he was saying and that it wasn't being interpreted by anyone else, but, but for the organization. So I understood. I, I'd also understand where you're coming from and I appreciate where Commissioner O'Brien is coming from. I think and I agree that there should be an investigation, an ongoing investigation where I differ is that I guess I would say that they have met the standard by clear and convincing evidence. And so there is disagreement on whether there's a durable finding and suitability or not from this Commissioner's standpoint. And so that I do want to be on the record. And I still want to, you know, I still was trying to understand if, you know, we throw a lot of terms around here, terms of art, right, that have different meanings to different people. And I just want to make sure that that was, that was his understanding. Because I don't see anything in the application if we are getting ongoing investigation by by the IED that would leave me to treat this any different than I did at EVH or or or or any other CAT one, so in GM. So that's where I'm coming from. And if I could, Madam Chair and Commissioner Maynard, and I appreciate the discussion, durable would be ideal. I'm trying to listen to the Commission and some of the questions and concerns that are coming forth. And we are very comfortable with there being an investigation to the extent of what Director Lilios described, of course, we would cooperate. And I think that from my perspective, this is going to happen whether we call this one durable or temporary. And then we call PSI, which we're going to talk about at some point this evening, that is only temporary. So if these are both temporary or one's temporary and one's durable, the same investigation happens on the same topics and brand association. So that's I'm coming to the conclusion of we you want this, we're fine with this. Let's come up with language that we can all move forward with. As long as we get our temporary licenses, we can move forward in January and March on the go live dates with Forestal Sportsbook. And the full investigation is happening simultaneously with that, which it would with the temporary license of PSI. If we get to that point later, then I'm comfortable agreeing to temporary for the category one as well. That's where I'm at. Thank you. Can you explain with the CAT ones? They paid a five million dollar. They pay five million on durable. And that's because they get a different license, correct? That's the full license. So that's a five million dollar fee. The temp is one million. And then you pay the additional four on receipt. So in the temporary license can be supported by preliminary suitability. And so that the. The technical technicalities matter. I am I stand by language. I wasn't saying that they didn't know I'm not saying that I'm saying I was directing that to the president's note and I'm going to stand by what I thought was the original proposal because I thought that was very helpful. As we, you know, some of us struggled with the evidence that's in front of us with respect to responsible gaming and gaming that might target particularly youth or other populations that might be more susceptible to problem gambling. And there are other issues. I think I'm elaborated that my focus is on those two because it's truly in our lane, it's truly germane to our mission. And frankly, you PPC, you have been outstanding in that in that world and a tremendous partner. And so we know that we have confidence on this. But right now the questions were raised. And I think you made a very good case today, President Snowden, that we don't have a full picture. And I don't think it's a full picture on either side. So I stand by my decision that I wouldn't probably be able to find clear and convincing evidence on this piece of work, but I am hopeful that we could turn to that sooner than later with an investigation that is reasonable in scope and time. Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Hill. How would you like to chime in? And then I'll turn back to President Snowden. Madam Chair, I agree with what we're saying by Commissioner Maynard and ready to move forward. OK. Commissioner O'Brien. Like I said, I'm. Happy to move on a temp with the conditions. OK. And Commissioner Skinner, any further comment? OK. Now, Commissioner, Commissioner President Snowden, I just demoted you. If you would like to chime in before we move ahead on a motion. Nothing further, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the dialogue. Appreciate the openness to taking our time to learn more. And we're confident that that process will play out as it should. So do I have a motion on on this on a disposition of this matter today? Madam Chair, I would move that the Commission find based on the application and what was discussed before us both today and on December 6th of 2022, that the applicant Plainville Gaming and Redevelopment LLC, DBA, Plain Ridge Park Casino. Has shown by substantial evidence that they have satisfied the criteria set forth in general 23 and as well as 205 CMR 218.065 and that the license award would benefit the Commonwealth and further that they have established by substantial evidence their qualifications for preliminary suitability in accordance with 205 215.012 and 218.071 A and that this approval be subject to the requirements of 23 and and the requirements of 205 CMR 220.01. In addition to the two conditions allowable by 215.012 D2, as previously stated by General Counsel, specifically that the licensee agrees not to allow the attendance of anyone under the age of 21 at their shows for the Barstool College football show. And second, that the licensee fully cooperate with the MGC's IEB without limitation and conducting an investigation of Barstool Sports Inc. in connection with the licensee's branding of the licensee. Second. Can I have a point of clarification? Does that comes to Grossman include? I think we segregated the suitability from the other factors at one point. This combines it. So it's a combination of both that. They're both the same standard, in this case, in the other durable. It was the clear and convincing. Right. Which is why these are both the same standard. I'm just wondering about my fellow commissioners being able to express their want to make sure everybody can express their full support on their piece to separate it out. I was particularly, Madam Chair, I was in this position when we did the timeline. I made the motion. If anyone wants to second it, they can second it. My apologies. I guess I was just thinking how we might have done it the first time. Commissioner Bryant, and I should have followed. Do I have any questions or edits? I did get my edit clarified and we have a second from Commissioner Skate. Commissioner Maynard, would you like to make an amendment or? This is you called for discussion, right? Yes, that's right. I can count to three. I'm going to vote for the preliminary finding that I'm doing so to move this forward. I'm not doing so because I don't believe that they didn't need a durable finding and would have also conditioned that on IEB during the investigation. So I will vote in the affirmative, but it's I would actually move the standard myself. OK, and Commissioner Hill, can't quite hear you, Commissioner. I'm in agreement with what was just said by Commissioner Maynard. OK, all right. So with that said, are you all set with no further edits or questions? OK, with that said, we'll take a vote. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Yes. OK, Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. So if this moves you forward and we will monitor the investigation to keep it going along. My hope is that we all learn a whole lot and we very much respect the discourse today and your your interest. And we thank PPC for its continuing partnership and look forward to working with you on going forward with their new sportsbook. So congratulations, President Snowden, congratulations. Thank you to the commission. Thank you to the staff and we look forward to continuing to work with you as we move forward in Massachusetts as we have for the last seven plus years. It's been a great partnership. So thank you. Thank you. And, you know, it's nice that you live in Massachusetts. We really appreciate that. Duly noted. So thank you so much, everyone. I know that we have if I could just I just wanted to say also my thanks and particularly President Stoneman, I know you and I may not see exactly the same in terms of the posture of this. I feel I've been objective and fair in the five years I've been here. And I would and I'll continue to do so as we go forward. And I'm happy that we all came together and work this out in a way that moves us forward. So good luck to you. Likewise. Thanks, Commissioner. Other comments. President Snowden, thank you very much for your advocacy. I appreciate your forthrightness and I admire your commitment and passion, you know, to getting it right. And I see where North and his team gets from. So congratulations to you and happy holidays. Thank you, Commissioner. Happy holidays. Commissioner Maynard. President Snowden, thank you so much for all the information you gave us today and all the follow up from December 6th forward. Good luck and have a great holiday season. Thanks, Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill. President Snowden, thank you once again for coming before us today. I appreciate all the hard work. And we lost. Congratulations to you. There we go. Great. Congratulations. This was clear, Commissioner Hill. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Hill, much, much appreciate it. I know you're in a van. If I heard you right earlier with your JV team, go into a game or something. So we understand. But thank you very much. I appreciate it. Yeah. So thank you. Again, we thank everyone for their effort. We thank you all for turning out. We also appreciate your patience and happy holidays. And again, President Snowden, thank you today for all of the information that you share. All right, now we have another decision making point. Commissioners, it's for 30. Many of these folks are also invested in their next presentation. I know that Commissioner Hill is unavailable as of five. So we could start and do about, you know, 40 minutes of some work in the presentation, if that makes sense. But their presentation may go maybe longer than that. So. Madam Chair, I propose that we adjourn for the evening, start fresh after the new year, as is anticipated, according to the schedule, I would hate to have the presentation be made and then have way too much fun over the holiday and not remember anything when we come back on January 3rd. President team, I'm not sure who I should be speaking to. Who's the lead for the PSI? Chair, I'm happy to introduce and certainly make the introduction while we're here. But Benjamin Levy is the head of PSI and I believe he is. He's dialed in. Introduce yourself, please. Yeah, that's the Madam Chair and commissioners. So I understand the proposal is to hold this over until January 3rd. So we have the the afternoon starts at one 30. Karen, is that correct? That's correct. I'm looking at the schedule right now. They have that slotted for one 30 because there's a public hearing on the untethered in the morning and then and then we would move to the next day for the two other with the idea that we would be able to address both. And maybe with a little a little break will be all rearing to go. But we I wanted to just say hello and it's nice to meet you. And I feel terrible that you've been waiting on the sidelines. Are you not all I think that rather than do half an hour today and then pick up two weeks since, I think that's a much better proposal. And you're available. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Levy. OK, to all of you, happy holidays and thank you again for being patient. The process is progressing and we're very, very pleased with today's discussion. We look forward to your presentation next next year. Commissures, anything else you want to say? From me, thank you, Mr. Levy, for your flexibility and likewise to your team. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you to everyone who's been on here multiple days for some of you and we'll see you in January. And I hope everybody has a restful holiday. OK, then, commissioners. We need a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Any discussion? OK. Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Bye, Sarah. Have a great night and thank you again. Appreciate so much. Happy holidays. Happy holidays, everyone. Happy holidays. Thank you.