 I'm sorry, I'm just a few minutes late, turning to a couple last minute things. We are holding our meeting, of course, virtually. So I'll do a roll call to start our day. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I am here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Great, and good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, I'm here. Excellent, and Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair, I am here. Excellent, okay, we have three sets of minutes to get through, Mr. Secretary. We do. So Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approve the minutes from the March 14, 2022 public meeting and the April 28, 2022 public meeting and the July 12, 2022 public meeting that are included in the Commissioner's packet, subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. I think we have different quorums for those. Yeah, we might need to separate them. We might need to break them up. Like March 14, I think he's the Chair, you and I. And then April is also Commissioner Skinner and then April and July, Commissioner Skinner as well. I think, I guess Commissioner Skinner, yeah. Yeah, she was April and July. So I guess the first, we just need to do March separately and then we can do the other two. Yeah. So let me put that down in my notes. Thank you for that. Commissioner O'Brien. Sorry, Commissioner Hill, we might need to do all three of them separately because I'll need to abstain from the vote on the April 28. Minutes given that I was not present for the entirety of the meeting. OK, if that's what we want to do, that's fine with me. Unless you vote on the extent that you were there, Commissioner Skinner or whatever, however you want to do it, from you were there for part of it. Yeah, I mean, if that's an option, I can go that route. Yeah. Yeah. OK. I'm sure Khan could reflect that properly. So let's do the March 14. So Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approve the minutes from the March 14, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Any questions or edits? OK. Mr. O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And no, this is March 14th. You weren't quite here yet. Yeah, March 14th is pre-everybody vote. That was just the three of us. No problem. I abstain. You were very close to being here then. It was just the three of us. And we were happy that we were three. I read them, which is what was confusing. So yeah, that's right. OK. So your vote will be for the record. I abstain. OK. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. I abstain. OK, Michael. Yes, thank you. And Commissioner Skinner, would you like me to continue doing them singly or the next one together? Singly or me? Yes, please. Yep, perfect. So Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the minutes from the April 28th, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. I have one edit or question. I'm not sure if Mark Vandalinden is on. And I don't have them in front of me. But I just wondered if there was an inversion in the word Mark on, I think it's page 16 of our packet, where there's something about the word change from problem to harm. I wondered if it were that they were switched around. It sounded as though the word harm was changed to problem. On page 16. OK, let me pull that up, Madam Chair. I'm going to read it to you because it's going to be easier for me to pull it up for you then. But I just happened to note that because I know it's so critical to you. Let's see, Mark. I should have the long packet. So I didn't want to print it out. It was on page 16, but I might have. Yeah, no, I see. I am. I see it. You're right. No, it's page. It is what, right? No, I think you're right. I think that it should be harm. Harm is a more commonly used term now as opposed to problem. We talk about gambling related harm rather than problem gambling because it's more inclusive. Then can you just find it on our packet? Because now, of course, I'm having trouble. I thought it was, oh, I know it's because I'm on page 15 on page 16. OK. So did everybody find that? The trade state that Commissioner O'Brien asked the why the word problem was used to replace harm. And it should state that the word harm was used to replace problem. Yeah. OK. So that was one quick edit. And Derek, a note because reading our minutes is so critical. I have been delayed on the indirect spend letter that you've prepared. And I need to get you to really ping me on that. OK, Derek, please. Timeliness now. It's much different than it was in April. And you did such a great job on that. So the set of minutes reminded me of that. Yes, I'll review that with Commissioner Skinner because I know she had some comments too. And then we'll get a final version over you. OK, and excellent. And we'll reach out to Anna. Thank you so much. Yes. And Judy and I will make sure that is changed. The harm to problem to harm. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good one for the record, I think. Commissioner Hill, thank you. Yeah. Good catch. So in terms of that change, then I will, if there are no other edits, I'll take a vote. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi for so much of the meeting as I was present. OK. And to Commissioner Maynard. I abstain. OK, and I vote yes. Thank you for that edit. Excellent. OK, and then. One more. I believe, too, that it's a good set of minutes. Everyone has a reminder. It includes the good summary of our discussion on the that was the independent monitor appeared at that meeting. So just a good reminder that if you we have a future agenda item on that. So thank you. Right. And then. Next set. Yeah, Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approved the minutes from the July 12, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Any questions or edits? OK. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. I abstain. And I vote yes. Very good. Thank you. Well done, the legal team. All right. So moving on now to the administrative update. Good morning, Executive Director Wells. How are you? I'm great. Thank you. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, members of the Commission. Before we jump into Mr. Bann's update, I just wanted to mention the public meeting room and give you an update on what's going on there. As you know, our streaming equipment in the public room meeting room has not been operational for some time. We've been fortunate to be able to convene these meetings virtually, and that has been helpful. But I know many of us are looking forward to having these meetings take place back in the office. To ensure our avian streaming equipment is functional and adequate to handle our needs, our team has brought in Charles River Media Group. They're a vendor we've worked with in the past to assist broadcast meetings with broadcasting meetings, and we've been working with them to build out the meeting room. The team from Charles River will be in the office on Tuesday to begin this build out. Once this system is up and running, we'll have the time to test our capacity, our plan is to begin convening our public meetings in person. Commissioners and MD staff participating will be in the public meeting room, and those outside stakeholders taking part in the meetings will be asked to join in person as well. It should feel a lot like it used to with the participants in the room, but we are allowing for capacity for virtual participation and for extraordinary circumstances. Someone can't make it to the meeting of commissioners on available things like that. There are going to be limitations to the circumstances where a party can't make it to the office, so you should just be aware of that. In this case, those participating remotely will only join in their particular section of the meeting. We'll continue to stream our meetings on YouTube and our website, and those will remain the best option for the public to watch our proceedings. Well, I'm checking with legal respect to the COVID policy and having people in the building, so we'll confirm on that, but it looks as if we may be able to just have people work, or participate remotely on that for the time being, but I'll give you more of a confirmation on that closer to the date where we'll actually be having the meetings in the office. Anybody have any questions on that? All right, so with that, I will... Sorry, Karen, I have one. So when you say limitations on who's participating, is that non-commissioner participants will have limitations? No, it's more that we have, right, but we have a limited number of laptops that'll allow for remote connection, so we can't have a variety of people participating meeting remotely simultaneously. That's where we may have people go in a note. Obviously, commissioners would take priority because they need to be at the meetings, but we're trying to limit the remote participation, A, to give you the feel and have that experience back where you're together, but we only have a limited number of laptops. And so can it be loaded on all the commissioners' laptops, or is this more when you anticipate you're gonna have to request an advance? Yeah, so it's, yes, I think it would be an advance. These are specific laptops for this system that were better being purchased, so it's not just your laptop can connect. Is that correct, Mills? I wanna make sure, if Mills is on it, he can confirm that. Yeah, that's correct. It's more like a production suite where you folks won't have to have your laptops in front of you with your webcams on. You'll be in person, the cameras that are connected to our production system will be, what is broadcasting to our YouTube channel and to our website. Okay, so it could be that a commissioner would have to go old school and phone in if it happens morning of or day of. No, we would make priority for a commissioner to be able to participate remotely. There are options for that. Okay. There's also, as long as the law remains the same, allowing this kind of virtual meeting, if there's an extraordinary circumstance where there is a number of people that need to participate remotely, you could always do one of these meetings. I think the intent is to go back to in-person meetings. You're all together, you're seeing each other, discussing matters and staff is in there having that same experience. And Karen, just to follow up, hybrid is an option. It's just not an ideal option, but it is an option and it's something that we will be prepared to deploy. Right. And I mentioned to staff, we want staff in the room for the commissioners, so the expectations they will be in there. I'm just thinking we are, sadly, still in the quarantining protocols. So I hate to get into that circumstance where we're losing the ability for somewhat of quarantine, but still participating. So more to come on this, we'll give you an update once that equipment's installed. Hopefully on Tuesday, they'll be able to complete that. We'll do some testing. We don't want to have a public meeting as the first experience with it. So we'll do some testing and commissioners be able to see how that feels. So it'll be hopefully a lot like it used to be when we're all in the room, okay? Any other questions on that? Okay, I'll turn it over to Bruce Baird. I believe he just has a very brief update today. Yeah, I have a chair of commissioners. I have a small update today. I'll start with the MGM. They continue to hold job fairs. They're replacing all their older style slot machines with the latest technology. They're converting all the slot machines in the poker room to poker slot. So the whole room will be a poker style poker room, including the slot machines. They're also this weekend hosting a Halloween costume contest in the Commonwealth bar. PPC has a big drawing. It's a big draw bank on October 29th, where there's all kinds of prizes and contests for the public. Encore yesterday filmed the NESN's ultimate betting show. It's a 30 minute show that will be aired later on. And that was done at the Wing Bet Sports Bar yesterday. Any questions? I suppose that's a big deal for them to be replacing all their slots machines. Yeah, yes, it is. It's not something totally uncommon in this, but you'll want to have the latest and greatest to be able to attract the customers. So that's what they're going to do right now. In terms of your work, that keeps you good and busy. Yes, yes, it does. Well, thank you for that. Thank you to your team, Director Lillios. Thank you. But that's interesting. And I appreciate the switch to the poker. Yeah. It's changed smart. Okay, thank you. Welcome. The next item for the COVID, pardon me for the administrative update is a request. We're looking to update the COVID policy for the agency to be in line with the CDC guidelines. We'll turn it over to Dave and Tripti. Tripti handling this one? Yes. Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. In early 2022, the CDC changed the quarantine and isolation policy requirements to reduce the number of days and quarantine from 10 to five. The MGC working group got together and we felt that we would like to take a conservative approach and maintain the 10 days. And that's what the commission approved at the time. And at this point, the MGC, well, we always required it when we had folks come back to the office, that all MGC employees are vaccinated, all guests are vaccinated. And we have a reliable reporting system to ensure employees are kept safe and we have a proper notification process underway. So what we're looking to do is or what I've requested is that we adopt the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines in an effort to ensure that we can have adequate staffing and still maintain the appropriate safety precautions. So at this point, we're asked employees to stay home for 10 days and isolate. And the CDC requires five days and the additional five days would be with a high quality mask for a total of 10 days. So we're gonna need a vote on this and the recommendation then overall truth is for us to fall into CDC guidance, correct? Correct. I've been actually a proponent of this since January because I've always felt that our folks over at the properties have to follow those guidelines and that additional protections for us didn't feel right to me. So this would put us into, and also it matches science. So the HR team, thank you for reconvening on this matter. I think it's good timing, Karen. I know that everybody should be getting their boosters, right? Karen, for good help. But you are looking for just this, it's really just a shift, a slight shift. I just to put it in context too, at the time that the CDC first amended and we were in conflict, it was primarily because of staffing challenges the places we're having, which is why we stayed with the more conservative measures. We've now shifted where it's more widespread and not just a staffing amendment in terms of the isolation protocols. So I'm comfortable now doing it. I was not back when this came up in the winter, but I'm comfortable with it now. Thank you for adding that in, that's right, Aileen. And the one thing I will add is at one point, there were various requirements by CDC with whether you had the booster if and there was a lot of ands with it at the time, where we have a very clear direction now and the CDC also has a tool online so we can apply the consistent approach given the situation and symptoms and being close contacts and various things like that. So Trupty, that's where I need some more information. Sure. How do these revised measures, according to the CDC guidelines, how do they play into the vaccination requirements and the booster? I understand we are still requiring our staff to be vaccinated, but not so much boosted. Same thing with visitors. So what is the CDC guidance there? So in each instance, you would put the criteria into the system. So example, if someone tested positive on, let me say today, one of the symptoms and then there is a component where you would not put the information around boosting or not. It's whether they've been vaccinated or whether they, when they tested positive, what's the day five and what are the precautions that would need to move forward from there? And whether or not the individual was boosted does that determine the length of time they should quarantine? No. No. Okay. Other questions that I can help folks with? Do we have a motion? Well, I just wonder in light of Trupty your answer to my question, and I know it's not on the table for today, whether we should be revisiting the vaccination requirement at some point. I mean, just given their, I understand general discussion about this at the state level where certain state agencies are offering the opportunity for individuals who are terminated for not being vaccinated to return to work. So again, I know this isn't what we are presented with today, but perhaps it makes sense for the COVID policy committee to take that up. The one thing I will add on that topic is with the state requirements at the time when we were working with the working group, the state was not mandating the booster requirements, but they were requiring the vaccination requirement. And that's something that the MGC adopted. And we worked with staff across the agency to ensure that component for the MGC. And yes. Mr. Skinner, just so I understand, you would like to revisit the exact question would be what? Well, I'm just with the CDC guidance in general. I'm wondering if it makes sense to review other components of that outside of just the quarantine component. And with regard to the vaccine mandate that we have, yes, in particular, but anything else that might apply. So are you saying, because I missed the point that we should include boosters, are you saying we should reverse the vaccine mandate? No, I just think given the change in the CDC guidance overall, since the beginning of the pandemic, I would just ask for a more comprehensive review of the CDC guidance to determine whether there are any other areas where we should be revising commission policy as a result. Yeah, so I thought that it says, we recommend that the commission adopt the CDC COVID-19 guidelines as a requirement. I thought that what you would do is you pointed out this particular issue, but that overall our policies would be consistent with CDC guidance. Perhaps. I mean, perhaps. But what I think is before us today is reducing the quarantine time. I didn't think that to be the case. Am I, I thought that you were actually, it was going to be a broader request today, Director Wilds, am I wrong? My understanding is that generally in the prior meeting we had the commission adopted the CDC guidance with the exception of this quarantine requirement. So the request today is that you fully adopt the CDC guidance. I think that could make it a lot easier for other people understanding what we're doing. And then there's one consistent thing, both CDC and the MGC. And all our employees- That keeps the vaccination requirement in place. Correct. Right. That would keep the vaccination. And our employees who work the floor of the casinos are now online. Correct. And racing. And racing, yeah. And racing, yes. Dr. Leipan, I almost said that earlier, but I wanted to make sure I was right. Good. Exactly. Okay, then that is understood. Does that helpful? I'm just gonna- I wanted to make sure, I was wondering if you had a different proposal. Okay, good. So do I have a motion then? Madam Chair, I would move that the commission adopt the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines with respect to isolation and precautions for people with COVID-19 and further move that the commission rescind any portion or portions of its existing COVID-19 policy that conflict with the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines with respect to isolation and precautions for people with COVID-19. So can I make a motion to amend slightly, which would be not only people with COVID-19, but those who have had known exposure to COVID-19? Because I think it addresses both quarantine period. I accept the amendment. Does it include overall COVID-19 compliance commissioner Maynard? My understanding was, is that commissioner Brian was wanting to bring the CDC's policy across the board. Would you just re-state your motion? My apologies. So you want me to reread the motion with commissioner O'Brien's inclusion. But the amendment, thank you so much. I move that the commission adopt the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines with respect to isolation and precautions for people with COVID-19, as well as those with known exposures and further move that the commission rescind any portion and portion of its existing COVID-19 policy that conflict with the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines with respect to isolation and precautions for people with COVID-19 and those with known exposures. I would second that. Could I make and suggest another amendment that it's consistent with CDC overall, including with respect to isolation, blah, blah, blah. That's not very nice to say, blah, blah, blah. But do you see? I accept the amendment. Forget the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Just so that we have a COVID policy that is consistent with CDC. Is that an understandable amendment? Commissioners, I believe it is excellent. Okay. Any further edits that are more graceful than mine? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Do we need a further second now that you've amended it or are we good to go? Okay. Second as amended. Thank you. And then I vote aye. Thank you. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Mr. Skinner. Aye. Mr. Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Okay, the next item in the administrative update Good work. Thank you. Next item in the administrative update that Dr. Lightfilen is going to give us an update on this higher stakes. Good morning. We had a great Monday. They were calling it the million dollar Monday. That's the most as far as my knowledge goes. It's been given out in a single day in Massachusetts ever for horse racing. We worked at Department of Agriculture Resources and consulted them. Recommended that we scan the temperatures of every horse that came in on Sire State days. So we worked with Plain Ridge Park, Casino's employees and our own. A big shout out to John Gilbert and Sammy Wick who got like over a hundred horses scanned each Sire State day. That was a good undertaking to ensure the health of all the horses involved. Our Sire Stakes races, we take blood gas tests on every single horse. Normally we take two out of a race in Sire Stakes. We take all of them. And on finals day, that's eight races that are full field. So our veterinarian, Dr. Risa Sheehan and her assistant, Sheri Gilbert for the day tested over 66 horses instead of just what would have been normally 20. So again, a shout out to them. And they had eight races with the different divisions. And the winners were spread out among 16 different owners, eight different trainers, six different breeders and five different drivers. So it was nice to see the money being spread out among different people. Certainly some people have more than one horse participating in the event. So some of them had, you know, seconds and thirds as well. But it was great to see the winning money just spread out among multiple people. There's three legs leading up to it. And in those three legs, they gave out $1.5 million in first money. And then on the finals day, they gave out a million, 125,000 per race, which again is just outstanding. So it was a good day. Tim Bajorski, who is the publicist for the Standard Bread Owners of Massachusetts has done a nice job on their website. If anybody wants to see more information, there's points on each horse and how much money they earned and all that. So anybody looking for more information, I would direct them to the SOM site. And as usual, we had great cooperation with the participants, the SOM and Plain Ridge Parficino on that day. So it was a great day all around. Questions for Dr. Leibman. Great day. The weather wasn't perfect, but really good for the horses. Right, the horses didn't mind it at all. Little rain's okay. Yeah, really good. Not so wet that it was presented safety issues. They just ran fast, huh? That's good. That's good. So Dr. Leibman noted the good work of the association. So maybe, I know that you'll coordinate with Mills to maybe highlight that link to their website. That would be great. Yep, that would be great. Excellent, thank you. All right, anything further? None of that. We're ready, I can proceed to the sports wagering process updates. I see Mark Vanderlin is coming on. Are you going to add something? Yeah, I think I'm on the agenda. You're on next, right next. Okay, I thought you were adding on to Dr. Leibman. Yeah, no, no. There you go. Yeah. My apologies. I thought legal was going to be right up there, but I forgot we put you, we snuck you right in the beginning. We have a couple of things. So Mark's just going to give an update on the studies that are noted in 23M. There we go. Thanks Mark. Good morning again and thank you for helping on the minutes. Yes, this is really an important, it is an important update. I guess I thought we might be including it an update, but it really does belong in sports wagering. So thank you, Director Vanderlin. Certainly. So the Act to Regulate Sports Wagering extends our commitment to gaming research by aligning 23N, and actually there's a typo here. Section 23, with chapter 23K, the expanded Gaming Act, section 71. In both these sections, the MGC is directed to develop an annual research agenda to understand the social and economic effects of sports wagering in the Commonwealth and obtain scientific information relative to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, epidemiology, and etiology of cancer. There is further detail in chapter 23N, section 23. And it specifically directs that the annual sports wagering agenda do a number of things. One, an assessment of whether problem sports wagering is comorbid with problem gambling. An assessment as to whether the individual participating in sports wagering are different than those who are participating in other forms of gaming or gambling. And an assessment of the impact of sports wagering on youth under the age of 25. So interestingly, we haven't formally adopted this section of the sports wagering research agenda yet as we're working off of our fiscal year 23 Gaming Research Agenda. But we are able to, and we'll soon be able to say a number of things about these specific sections. As you may know, we're conducting or just wrapped up data collection for the follow-up general population survey. Follow-up meaning that the original chapter 23K, section 71, called for baseline general population survey before casinos opened. So we're at this point now with three casinos opened up, we're doing the follow-up general population survey. And we have included a number of questions around sports wagering that should answer these very important questions so we can get a better understanding of sports wagering in Massachusetts. And so while this is technically considered the follow-up, this is a baseline in terms of our understanding of sports wagering before it's launched in the Commonwealth. That final report is expected to us later in the spring. It's part of our research agenda for this year. So it should, it will be delivered before that July 1st. I just wanted to give you an update on that. I had a really good conversation with Dr. Bolberg earlier this week, after I had already submitted this memo. So now moving on to the two studies that are the MGC is to begin immediately. And I wanted to just give you an update on the status of those. So there's two of them. Chapter 23 in section 20 is a study examining the feasibility of allowing retail locations in the Commonwealth to operate sports wagering. We have developed a scoping document for this section 20 requirement. I've recruited a couple of our research consultants that we have on hand to provide feedback and both of those research consultants gave me feedback on that scoping document. Per Treasurer Goldberg's request during the September 8th, 2022 meeting, this study will consider the effects on lottery because as she actually pointed out, many of the potential retail locations would likely offer both lottery projects as well as sports wagering kiosks. The scoping document will inform the development of a competitive RFR, which I expect to release by the end of December. As required by statute, we'll make sure that a report, a status update on this is delivered to the legislature by December 31st, 2022. Before I go any further, are there any questions about that study or the status of that study? Mark, I have a question. Actually, it's just a comment. I believe Treasurer Goldberg's request went a little bit beyond what you've noted in your memo. I think her office is actually asking to participate in sort of the preparation, et cetera, for the study. So I don't have the request in front of me, but if you could just review that to ensure that we've captured the request in its entirety that week. I thought she wanted to participate in the study. I don't think she would have known that we were even putting out an RFR for that, Commissioner Skinner, does everyone, we could go back and check. I think Director Vanillen, you would certainly have Treasurer's office participating in the study, right? And regardless, I'm happy to include the Treasurer's office as well in the crafting of that, of the RFR. So regardless of what she said, that's good, as long as it doesn't delay just somehow, that's all I wasn't sure where you were in our status. So Commissioner Skinner raised a good point, but she definitely would like their office to be involved in it. Commissioner Skinner, does that- It does, it does. And I think I said she wanted her office to participate in the preparation for the study, et cetera. And so actually participating in the study was included in that. Yeah, I thought you meant like professional, for this RFR, I was like, I don't sure if she really needs, she wants to be involved in that, so much of it, that's a good point. But yeah, absolutely, you're right, Commissioner Skinner. Madam Chair, I have a question, if not a comment as well. Mark, can you explain to us how we would be interacting with retail operations, restaurant owners, things of that sort. They also wanna be part of this discussion. And in fact, as soon as the bill was passed and signed into law, I think for the next day or two, I got a lot of calls from the retail operations, like are we allowed to apply for these licenses? We now know they're not, but the study was something that they cared deeply about and wanted to be insured, they would be part of the process moving forward in regards to the study. Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Hill. That is considered in the scoping document. So I don't, as I talk about various methods that could be approached, I think that we'd be talking about multi-modal approach to this. So it would certainly include key inform and interviews, collection of primary, secondary data, different types of government reports. There's a number of ways that we recommend that the applicants consider collecting data. And that very point was on my mind as I was considering that. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from Mark on this first study? Good job, Mark. Great, okay. So there's a second study as well. It would be section 25 of the Act Regulating Sports Wadring and it's a study, a research study on the participation of minority business enterprises, women business enterprises, veteran business enterprises in the sports wagering industry in the Commonwealth. So this isn't quite as far along, but I have begun working on the scoping document and similar to the section 20 study, I'll pull in and recruit the assistance of at least two of our research consultants to provide feedback. And because this study requires a sports wagering industry be live in the state, I don't advise that the RFR be released until later in 23 or date has determined by the commission. In other words, I think that it's important for the industry to be active and kind of find its stride before we would launch this specific study. So I will have a scoping document ready and a report prepared for the legislature as well by December 31st, 2020. Questions on this study? I have a comment, Madam Chair, not a question. Yes, commission. I just wanna make sure, and I've told Mark this offline but I want it also in this meeting that as we move forward with this, it's very important to me and I know the other commissioners have expressed this publicly for there to be representation and for there to actually be minority folks at the table, women-owned folks at the table. We were just, this commission alone was recognized in the EOS Foundation Report for having fantastic gender balance and diversity on this commission. And so I wanna make sure that that extends out to this report. And it's something that I just wanna monitor along the way and I hope that those that are listening are interested in being a part of this. Can I just extend on that? I've stressed to Director Vandal-Linden because I'm hearing you say that they participate in the study but perhaps I know that many share my feelings on this too that whoever is doing the study is diverse and can represent these interested parties and stakeholders. So the research team needs to reflect this issue. So noted, and as we develop that competitive RFR we can certainly emphasize the importance of this aspect of it. Yeah, thank you so much. I could also add on this point, it is noted that this study doesn't take place until sports wagering is live in the Commonwealth. I can't imagine that the lawmakers in the government thought that that meant that MBEs, WBEs should not be involved in sports wagering for at least a year and not involved. And that's why in our application we have a separate section on diversity. And we welcome every applicant to be innovative in getting WBEs, MBEs, vets involved at the table through joint ventures as partners. There's the traditional supply chain. That's one approach, but it doesn't necessarily really advance the interest of these entities. We can also think about partnering in terms of once they get a license how do they get out across the Commonwealth to these establishments that can't operate under the structure of the law, but surely could promote an online operator's license. I know others might want to add on that, so I'll stop now, but I think that this is an opportunity. There's a year, it's about a year before we can address this through the study, but we are addressing these issues through our application process. Missioners, do you want to add on? I think that's a really good point, and I hadn't really considered this until you just mentioned that, that as we scope this document, it should consider how it's addressed up front through the application process and what the effect of that is as we look at this study. So thank you. And I'll make sure that that's somehow captured in there. Yeah, yeah. So anybody want to add on that? Because I know we all have thoughts Commissioner Skinner, I think you might want to add. Madam Chair, I just want to say thank you for your comments. That's exactly what I had been meaning to emphasize, the fact that we can't wait until the study is done just to be looking at this issue. So I appreciate your comments once again, and Mark, I appreciate your efforts to ensure that we are considering diversity on the front end. Excellent, thank you. Anyone else want to add in? Okay, yeah, there's real opportunity here for anyone who gets to throw his privilege of a license to provide gaming in Massachusetts. So we look forward to reading the application on that piece. All right. Yes, good morning. Good morning. How are you? Doing very well. How would the commission from my role collaborating with Mark? And I'll meet with Mark to try to see how I from my world I can help support that effort. And I have to understand it better, I have to be honest, but also my diversity standpoint be involved. So I'm listening, it's not that it's on deaf ears. I just wanted to make you know that I do want to be involved. You've raised a good point and Director Wells, this is an opportunity for a whole bunch of cross departmental conversations. The commission will works with Mark kind of through his process, but I think Director Vandalman has just heard your question clearly. So I think you're going to knock on your door, or at least a phone call today. And Director Wells, can you, you know, just let's reflect on this question that Chief Maltrow has raised today. Thank you so much, David. Thank you. Okay, any other questions on this study? I have one overarching question and it relates to perhaps a comment that Director Wells may be addressing later. Mark, if you could remind the commissioners, we do have the, we have the studies. There's also the research agenda piece. And even as I look at your summaries and I went back and looked at the statutory language last night, these studies presume social and economic impact on the communities. I guess I'm just wondering if you can describe to us in your world, ultimately, not just with respect to these two studies, how will you be following up with respect to sports wagering on the social and economic impacts of sports wagering? Yeah, well, so that's more broadly captured through section 23 of 23N that talks about that. And then in the lines, if you take a look at 23K, section 71 and 23N, section 23, you'll see that a lot of that language carries forward and it's explicit in stating that, you know, largely following the same sort of process as we currently do through section 71. So I really appreciate that. I do think that the research, so just a research agenda, it's an overall research program for the commission to measure and to understand the social effects of gaming in the Commonwealth. And so certainly we will consider that through the sports wagering research agenda as we roll it together with the overall research program, we have some interesting lines of research that I think allow us to dive a little bit deeper into specific areas. So you're very familiar with the community-engaged research and we take some of that same methodology that's far more qualitative to try to understand effects of sports wagering in the Commonwealth. So it'll be not easy, nothing is easy, but we can certainly, as we consider advancing the community-engaged research or community-driven research, try to understand and roll the sports wagering into that line of research. As I mentioned upfront, I think having some baseline data about what are people betting on now in terms of sports wagering and who is doing it and what are their ages, I think that that will be really important to know. An area that I think that we really do need to focus on that we aren't currently doing right now related sports wagering is underage. So our follow-up general population survey will focus on individuals. I can't remember if it's 18 or 21, but I think that we need to take a look at persons under the age of 21, under the age of 18 and what their participation in sports wagering is and what is the social effects of that. And so as we move forward into our fiscal year 23 agenda, I wanna keep all of that in mind. Michelle, Brian? No, so that's an area that I am glad to hear Mark say. And also open in doing that, that daily fantasy sports as part of that will be defined sports wagering under 23N. I know it's different a little bit than DFS, but I would want all of that behavior to be considered when you're looking at the behaviors because that I think is, I don't think the market really separates it in terms of the behaviors, the way the statutes do. Okay. Yeah. And because online sports wagering will have effects across the commonwealth and not just, you know, even more regionalized because of the nature of brick and mortar casino facilities, it's going to be particularly important for any operator to really be engaged for the communities to help on these kinds of issues. You know, I think that that's what you've relied on in many ways, was we started to responsible with gaming, what we've relied on IAB and others in terms of minor participation, but it's all part of your responsible gaming program too, right, Mark? Yeah, okay. Thanks, that's really helpful and I think kind of critical for future discussion. So more on the agenda later. Thank you so much for giving us that background today. And thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. I hadn't considered my daily fantasy sports wasn't on my agenda, it certainly is on my radar now. So thank you. Well, you know, so what was your exact question for that, Commissioner O'Brien? Just as he said, as they move forward and they do underage studies in terms of patterns of behavior, that it be all inclusive in terms of the gambling behavior, not just sports wagering is defined in 23N, but that it encompass the DFS behavior too. Because I think it's hard. Yeah, yeah. So I think there is a little bit of an important distinction because I know Mark, for instance, you include lottery play and things that are outside of our regulatory authority. We would just want to be careful because I know it's under the AG's authority but it's also not considered gambling, per se, because it's still based versus, so just a distinction in that, but you know, perhaps it's still as applicable to your work. Yeah, it is. And just, I know there's a full agenda. There was a piece in 23N, section 23 that I thought was interesting where it specifically calls out an assessment of whether individuals participating in sports wagering are different than those who participate in other forms of gaming or gambling. And I was kind of caught up on that term gaming and gambling. And I think that we, I want to think carefully about how we approach that to make sure that we're addressing what the intent is here. Yeah, yeah, I agree with that. Yeah. Okay, anything further on Mark's really comprehensive report? Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. All right, I'll set Mark. Thank you so much. Okay, Karen, next. Oh, next item on the agenda, I wanted to review with you the public comments we received regarding the sports wagering application itself. We received comments from Vanduul and Penn National. Vanduul, I think it makes sense to review some of those first. We did meet internally on these issues and included Commissioner Maynard, because he had been involved with the application and went through. So we have some recommendations on how to address the comments. But with your indulgence, I would like to start with Vanduul because the first item they mentioned with respect to the public record section on the application, initially the application indicates that there would be a guide with respect to what would be presumptively withheld from public disclosure. The comments from Vanduul indicated they were very interested in that and were hoping to get that guide as soon as possible. We have had internal discussions about what to do with public records. Given that we have a public records request for the scoping surveys, I would expect we'll get public records request for the applications given the history with the casino applications. So we discussed there is this model and there's some advantages to this model because of the expediency. And then the other potential option we discussed if we could alter this requirement or a requirement or putting out this guide and we could request that the applicants submit a redacted version of their application pursuant to the public records law and the exceptions in 23N where matters are detrimental to their business interests or trade secrets could be withheld from public disclosure. So I thought it would be helpful to at least flag this issue. Councillor Grossman may have some other comments on this. We could go either way. There are advantages and disadvantages. We're just looking for some guidance here on how we would proceed with this if we could modify the application or put a comment out on how we would like to address this and certainly open other suggestions in dealing with public records requests. That would Todd anything further on that? I would, no, I think that's very helpful. I would just add, you'll all recall that there is that provision in chapter 23N that talks about public records. So it's just important to recall that as part of this conversation. And it provides that all the applications for operator licenses shall be public records provided that trade secrets, competitively sensitive or other proprietary information provided in the course of an application for an operator license under chapter 23N, the disclosure of which would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage may be withheld from disclosure. So to the extent the commission is of the opinion that any particular material or information fits into that exemption, we can withhold it under the public records law. So this is what we would consider to be a statutory exemption to the public records law. It's specific to applications for sports wagering operator licenses. So I just wanted to add that into the mix. And it's really noteworthy here and it's noteworthy for another future conversation today that this exception applies in the course of an application. So this is a one-time ask. And then from my perspective, unless I'm told otherwise, it's one time. And then the public records law applies because it's really only in the course of an application. That's the language in both 23K and 23N. So I don't know if we need to do a big presumptive guide if we can just say, you know what? These are the three categories that you can get some relief. Public records law provides this or we're comfortable doing the review on the other stuff, Todd. But it is very, very hard for us to try to guess what their trade secrets are, right, Director Wells? So we could suggest that they provide a redacted version and then at least Cary and team looks at just those redactions as opposed to the entire application. Just one version, but the other version, I'm just not as familiar, I'm not as familiar, sorry, with either process. I think we're just trying to look for solutions. So I don't know if folks have other ideas for solutions to help on this front. So that we can be timely in getting these out. Because we don't want this to become a year long production because it really is just about the application. So that's a good point, Madam Chair, and I would just add there, so there are a couple of options, right? One is the one that the chair just alluded to, which is that we could just take in all the scoping surveys and then all the applications and we can, if we get a request for them, we can go through them one by one and figure out what materials may be exempt. That will take a long time, I can tell you right now. And so to the extent that we wanna get these out promptly, so folks can look at what is before us, that's not really a great option. We can do that, and we do that with a lot of different things, but here it may not be what everyone envisions. The other two ways that come to mind are the one the chair also just referenced, which is in as well as referenced, which is that we ask each applicant to flag for us which parts of their submissions they consider to meet this statutory exemption and any other exemption to the public records law, because that does still apply in this case. This is just one additional exemption that the legislature and governor offered in this context. And then there was the third way, which the commission discussed a number of weeks ago, and that is the way that it was handled under the RFA-2 process, which is that the commission in the first instance before it received any submissions went through the application and determined which questions presumptively called for the submission of information or documentation that would be exempt under the public records law. And we just signaled for everyone, those are the areas that we would presumptively withhold upon submission. So that was the way it was done last time. So those are the three options that come to mind at the moment. I think any of them are workable. They all have pros and cons, but I think those are the ones that you might consider. Sats? I have a question about option two, Todd. Thank you, Madam Chair. There's still some sort of legal review on what the applicant would submit, correct? So if, for example, an applicant was too cute by half and redacted the entire application and handed it to us, your team would still go through and check that. We'd have to, yes, with option two, we would still have to spend time going through every application. I guess the benefit right off the bat would be that anything that's not flagged as meeting an exemption could presumptively be released as the applicant is telling us that they don't have particular concerns about it. We would still have to go through the areas that they did flag to see if we agreed with their assessment. And then, of course, it's important just to note, ultimately it's the secretary and to some extent the attorney general that makes the final decision as to a court, as to whether it was all done properly, but we are certainly the first reviewer here. And yes, we would have to spend time going through. So option two takes a little less time than option one, but still more time than option three. Thank you. And we're also balancing, remember, we're balancing interests. We're balancing not just our time and the efforts because that's our job, right? We're balancing their issues around privacy and we're also balancing transparency and the requesters' ability to access these materials. It is really between the two and not just between us and prospective licensee. So we can't forget about the requester. One comment I have on that matter, I would suggest that if the commission does go with the option of having them do the first draft of redactions, is that before we do that, as we roll this out, that I meet with all of them to have a sort of face-to-face or virtual meeting, to have them really understand that the expectation is they are not going to do some kind of blanket review that we are expecting these licensees in good faith to look at the public records law, look at 23N and only redact what is appropriate so that we're not going back and doing all this extra work that is completely unnecessary, especially when we're putting out our best efforts to do this efficiently. And we have other work to get going on in order to launch sports wagering. So they need to cooperate with us in this matter. I like that. Yeah. Does anybody disagree with Director Wells doing that? No, my only thought was, is that something that you stream so everybody can see your conversation or is that so we are totally transparent? Maybe. And there's no confusion as to what was said. Yeah. Maybe this doesn't need to be said, but I just, I need clarification. The redact, under option two, the redaction by applicants or licensees, that is when the commission actually receives a public records request, correct? No, I would expect, correct me if I'm wrong, Todd, for all of them with the application, they also submit a redacted. Okay. Because, and they should also submit with that redacted version, the reasoning behind each redaction. So we have an understanding of that going forward. Is that your understanding as well, Todd? Yeah, I think that's exactly right. Okay, thank you. And we have already gotten a request for, again, as Karen mentioned, the scoping surveys. Scoping surveys, yeah. You know. So there's an opportunity, Karen, to go back to them with this procedure for this, to help things going on, correct? Right. The other option for the commission to consider, because the expectation is that we are going to get public records requests for these, is if we do have these redacted versions, we could just post them on the website. And so that anyone looking for it can just find it and we don't have to deal with the request. That's another option. That is the law. The secretary of state urges us for frequently requested records requests to put the documents right online. So that way, everybody would know what's being redacted. No guesses. It would require so much back and forth for us to understand what is truly a trade secret and also fitting with any other language. So do you need a, I don't think we're voting on that, but you're getting, is there a general consensus to support that arrangement right now? See how that goes? Commissioner Maynard nodding his head. Yeah, that's where I stick to. Okay. With some coaching from Director Wells, Commissioner Skinner, how are you feeling about it? Is that, is that the, you're asking if the consensus is around option two? Yes. Yes. Okay, good. Commissioner Hill, how are you feeling about it? Okay, good. We will need to, in the application, it does reference this. We'll have to work with Mills on an amendment to that. And then we'll also post something on the website about this requirement and we'll meet with the licensees as well. We can talk further whether we do this in a public forum or I meet with them or we record it. So it's recorded, there's a few options there. Let me look into that and we'll get back to you. Okay. So just moving forward on the rest of these, I think we're moving a little more quickly on these. Van Dool in their letter also commented on sections C1 and C5. And I have the application here. If you want to see what that is, I can share my screen. But section C1 deals with employment opportunities within the Commonwealth and section C5 deals with community engagement. And the general gist of their comments were that the legislature did not identify economic development or community engagements or considerations for licensure. And their request is that, particularly for category three license applicants, that section would not be applicable. And we should consider removing sections C1 and C5 out of the application in its entirety. Internally we met, we do believe that it is appropriate and we supported the commission's decision to put that as part of the application consulted with general counsel on that as well. Todd, I'll let you speak to that. But I think that overall the suggestion that we take that out was not encouraged or supported. Any questions on that or anyone feel any differently? No, I certainly do not, I do not feel different. I do not feel differently about this. And I feel very strongly that the C1 and C5 should remain in the application. We talked about this at length and the commission feels strongly about these two issues. And we felt strongly enough that we wanted it in the application. So I would be totally against removing that language at this point. Oh, at any point, Clayton. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner, you were going to chime in? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Oh, I said my piece. No, I've exactly what Commissioner Hill said. Okay, yeah. And in fact, we've also heard from Mark today that it's pervasive in terms of going forward beyond our application. Commissioner Skinner? Oh, okay. I'm sorry, technical difficulty over here, Madam Chair. That's okay. I take any facial cue or anything and jump on it. So my apologies, it's just these little boxes that I monitor. All right, then I think Karen, you've heard us on that. I'm just going to say, I agree with Commissioner Skinner's thumb up, even if inadvertent. No, it wasn't inadvertent. I was just trying to remove it. So that's what I get for venturing in the laboratory for the first time. Oh, I didn't see the thumbs up, I didn't see it. Okay. So the next session and the section from the Fando comments with respect to section six, pardon me, G3, Financial Stability and Integrity. And we also met with our Chief of the Financial Investigations Division on this issue. They're indicating additional burdens for those requirements. We went through those with her. Those really are necessary and we would like to keep those included. They're only asking for annual liquidity leverage and profitability ratios. We are asking for them to do that analysis and provide it to us. And then in section D, they're really asking about what is your plan if there had to accommodate a steep downturn in revenues? And if you had it before, how would you deal with it? So that is something we are interested in. So the request from the team is that we keep that in the application. Any other opinion? Okay. And then the last two brief comments from Fando had to do, they listed that as clarification of certain application requirements. The first one they referred to section B4. I would say that generally, the clarification on that question, we're looking for how ready are you to flip the switch? How ready are you to move forward? That's something we could put some kind of comment on the website. We're working with Mills for any public comments and any responses so that everyone gets the same answer. But that may be something if there's an interest in clarification, that's my understanding of what we're looking for. Any thoughts on that or are we in agreement that that might be a helpful way to deal with that? Okay. So that's section B4. And then the last part talks about section G3 again. And they're suggesting it's vague with respect to examples or narratives that substantiate the applicant's understanding of and experience with internal controls. Loretta may be able to elaborate further, but generally we're just looking for a summary of their experience with internal controls. What could be, what do they do for an audit committee? How do they keep the minutes? What do they do for any external controls over their finances? This is limited to financial stability and integrity. So we were thinking the question was fine. But I don't know Loretta, if you have any other comments based on that discussion we had with Monica. Yeah, no, and that's pretty much what Monica communicated yesterday that these types of responses we're looking for are things that companies of this nature are likely to have dealt with in terms of their financial reporting and their corporate governance. So we're really just looking for some summary information on compliance structure, audit structure and governance structure. So thank you, Director Lilius. So Karen, what would be the next steps? This would be if there's a consensus, you might, we would amend the application a bit. No, I don't know if we need to amend the application. Probably the simplest thing, if you're amenable, this may be another item where we just put some clarification on the website. So we can have a section where we deal with certain matters and we put the sort of answers to questions as opposed to amending the application. Because I think that could get confusing but just giving some answers. And I can have Loretta and Monica put together just an answer to this question for more clarification. Questions for Karen, because I have one more but just wondered if you might have any. So remind me, Karen, at some point I think our reg imagines that holding a meeting or some kind of bringing together of prospective applicants. Is that right? It's at the juncture of application filing where you would come together or is it before the competitive process? I'll defer to Todd on that one. I'm not sure. Where we allow, we could allow the staff to answer questions or help out. Yeah, so that's absolutely right. It's in 218, which we'll be looking at later on in the meeting. It talks about convening a consultation meeting or coming up with other methods to really give guidance on the application procedures itself. So yes, there is that element is built into the race. So we've given the opportunity to do it to public comment and we receive these two. Should we be thinking about commissioners giving, I'm gonna turn to 218 shortly, giving Karen a green light to bring staff together so that they could meet to sort of air these kinds of clarifying questions. What do you think? If I'm understanding that reg provision correctly. What do you think commissioners? Everybody seems to, Commissioner O'Brien? Well, maybe we have the 218 conversation. Maybe we put a pin in that, have the 218 and circle back before the meeting's over. Yeah, I don't see it's an issue, probably is, but just so that everybody's on the same page after 218. Okay. All right, Karen. So that will be helpful too, as well as good messaging through Mills and Dave. Right. All right. Okay. So thank you to Fando. Yeah, thanks. Because that Penn Entertainment also submitted some comments. These, I had an exchange with North this morning. These are more clarification. So these are a little simpler to deal with. So I'll just run through these. I don't think any of these required some kind of change to the application itself. There may be a few of these that maybe we wanna post something on the website similar to a couple of those items that Fando had flag, but I'll run through these. And a big thank you to Penn National for doing a cheat sheet at the beginning of their comments, which made things a lot easier. So I do appreciate it when applicants do things that make it easier for the regulator. So I wanted to thank them for that. So just running through these quickly. On the item completing the application, they're recommending applicants have additional 30 days to provide additional information if requested. That matters being handled by regulation confirmed with counselor Grossman on that. So I don't think there's any need for any change there. The second item was electronic application format. You know, there are some questions about recommending applicants to make only one signed application form. This is a matter where we may wanna put something on the website. What we're ultimately looking for is a signed and document submitted in a searchable PDF document. So we want to be able to have everything signed so that it's all attested to properly, but we've got to be able to search it. We can't be getting documents in that are not searchable. It's gonna make life very difficult on the backend. So we could put some kind of clarification out on that to make it easier for the applicants. When I run through these, we can go back for any comments and make it easier. The other question they were asking, committing applicants to submit both a redacted and unredacted table of calculations for a certain part of the application. Given our prior discussion about a full redaction that they were gonna be asking them to do that now is subsumed by that other policy matter that the commission already opined on. So I think that one's all set. It wasn't asked about existing NDA with the commission. If that information in the application can be covered by the NDA, the answer to that is no, I can just get back to Penn Entertainment about that question. The next one, there is seeking information about the parent company that applicants with the same parent company may cross-reference information in each other's application. Generally, I think the response to that, the application, it's up to the applicant to present relevant information. We really don't want to get into a back and forth about how that works. If it seems to the applicant that they have relevant information that relates to a parent company, they should go ahead and submit it. The next item with respect to B3, the description of the sports wage rate platform for item B3, little b, really we're just looking for an overview of a summary of their operations. I don't know if you want to, and at any point, let me know if you want to see the question itself. But I think we could either put something on the website or it could just get back to Penn Entertainment. But generally, we're just looking for a summary for little b, and then for little e, B3, little e, really we're looking just for who are you connected with. The question is, let's say B3, little e, current integration for sports wage or any experience in their platform, the current integration in use with other wagering operators. So we'd like to know if you're connected with another operator, we just want to know that. So I think that's self-evident. I can confirm that with Penn Entertainment. The next item is under B4, sports wagering expertise. That's the same question that Bando flagged and that's the basic answer to the question or the question is how ready are you to flip the switch? So given that we're posting that on the website, I think that makes sense. That'll answer Penn Entertainment's question as well. The next item is again C1, which it's Bando reference. These are employment opportunities within the Commonwealth, although they had sort of a different approach. They're basically seeking confirmation as to the extent of information that we would be provided. I think for that particular question, we discussed this internally. We're looking for the information about new jobs as a result of the license. We're not necessarily looking about jobs that you already have someone in another state or another jurisdiction is doing work with respect to Massachusetts. This is about job creation and the benefit to the Commonwealth. So that's really what we're looking for. That may be something to put on the website if you want or it can just get back to Penn Entertainment. Is there any feedback on that or are we in an agreement with the understanding that we're really trying to understand how is this going to benefit the Commonwealth for jobs? Okay, so maybe I would just add Karen that any time we can put something on the website for clarification, we should, you know. Jobs as a result. Okay. Thank you. The other question they had with respect to C2, projected revenue. You know, they have this recommendation of the commission requiring a description of the good faith efforts to maximize revenue to the Commonwealth. Internally, we met on this question. The consensus of the group was to just keep it the way it is. It is self-explanatory. It doesn't need the qualifier of the good faith effort. It is what it is. So this is, and if you wanted to share my screen, anyone, please let me know. But this is C2F, which says description of methods to ensure that revenues are maximized within the Commonwealth. I don't know if we need to add good faith, but because it is what it is there. Does anyone think we need to adjust that? Oh, Kathy, I'm muted. I think we're okay. Okay. All right. The next item is D2. It's scrolling on my screen here. And this is under the diversity, equity, and inclusion. They're asking about basically their spend beyond necessarily what's in Massachusetts is my understanding within their corporate governance and their corporate commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Our response to that was they're certainly free to add that and that may be weighed. So I don't know if we need to add anything here, but we would be open to receiving that information. But this question does talk about this particular license. Any questions on that? I have a question. When you looked at it yesterday, because I'm trying to remember exactly how the application broke down, do you think that Penn National is viewing that category narrowly to spend alone? Or they're very familiar with, of course, with hiring goals and spend, but are they also thinking about the broader implications we have with respect to diversity and partnering and all of that? I just wanna make sure that an answer on this might not suggest too narrow of an interpretation of that section. Right. I mean, the comment says, as many mobile sports wagering offers implement supplier, diversity, equity, and inclusion goals on a national scale, Penn recommends adding clarity section D2 to ensure the commission receives all relevant information in response to this requirement. So I think what they're saying is, and Derek may be able to help me out with this, they're asking, is this not limited to Massachusetts? Can we include information that goes beyond Massachusetts? And I think the answer was, yes, you're free to add that it may be weighed because it's outside of Massachusetts. Just on spend. Anything on that? Yeah. All right. Now you captured our conversation from yesterday, Karen. We did not limit, we did not say just Massachusetts, minority women, veteran businesses, or your goals. We said, if you're adding something, then that's probably gonna add to your, especially if you do it on a national level, then it's gonna add to your capacity at a national level and you should reflect that in the discussion. But this is all part of writing a good narrative and the better responses will encapsulate that and those that didn't think, but the question is wide open. So I would suggest that you write it to get the maximum benefit and show all the good things you're doing. All right, so just to my question, they really were just asking in that particular section just about their spend and they're proud of their national goals to get it. But they don't see that just being the sole piece under diversity. Fair, okay, excellent. Thank you. And then some of these questions have a similar clarification request. So under E2 Advertising and Promotional Plans, just overall they're indicating that some of this may not apply to certain categories of operators and in any event, and we may wanna clarify that on the website. If there is a question and they don't have any applicable information, they can just respond not applicable to this application and they can just do that. I don't think we need to change our form to say if applicable, we can just indicate something is not applicable, just indicate that on the application itself. And they can use, any applicant can use their best judgment. For example, these advertising plans, one of the questions was advertising plans, can they reference an advertising plan for another type of gaming but say how it could be used in sports wagering? Of course you can, that's what Derek's talking about in drafting a good application and presenting their best information for the commission to consider. So I can add something on the website about if not applicable, please indicate. And I think that should cover these questions. So we've got that, and they also have that for F2, the Know Your Customer, F and F3, Technical Expertise and Reliability, an F1 overall. And then there was F1D, this didn't end up making it to the spreadsheet. This question was, how will the applicant report the information received from the system to the commission? And then they're at the added or how did the commission otherwise have access to the information? They can just enter how the applicant will report the information received from the system to the commission if there is another access grant either by, for example, GeoCoupleye or something like that. They can just submit that on the application. I think that even they were the only ones that asked that question, I can speak to them directly on that. And then the last item was under G2, suitability, individual qualifier integrity and Loretta is on this as well. Our understanding on that was that the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau will let them know who would need to be qualified under the scoping process. So they'll be informed about that. This may be mixing the occupational licensure with the operator licensure. I don't know Loretta if you had a comment on that but I think the scoping process we should take care of this question. I think so in the instance that there is a key executive who is licensed for the property and that person has also been elevated to a qualifier status for purposes of the sports wagering operator license. We would not ask for a new submission of the multi-jurisdictional form. I don't think that's going to happen but if they submitted the same form and they've been subject to ongoing suitability we wouldn't ask them to resubmit the form now. But I do think there's some mixing with the occupational piece. Bottom line, we won't be asking the same people to submit the same information if they've submitted it for another type of licensure qualification before. Does that help? Okay, so that's the general summary and I do know that North is listening to this meeting so I can connect with them if there's any further questions but those are the comments received on the application so I actually think we're in very good shape. We can put some clarifiers on the website. We can put out this request for redacted version to address the public records you press but otherwise I think we are all set. Anything else on that? And we thank both entities for their comments. Correct, commissioners? Yep, very thoughtful. Then the next item on the agenda, Madam Chair and commissioners is divisional updates. You've already heard from Mark that he is working on the studies and going forward with that. He's also been working with, he's gonna be working with GLI on integrating responsible gaming measures into the regulations and requirements. I'll start with Loretta just to give an update on what's going on with the IED and then I'll turn it over to Todd for just an update with the legal. Sure, thanks. Thanks, Karen. I did want to update on the status of the scoping for the operator surveys that were submitted by the 17th. So we received 24 of the online operator scoping survey responses and the licensing division has reviewed all of them. And the team with the help of a couple IED team members has scoped all of them. In some instances we did have to reach out to the operators for some clarifications and wanna thank them for making themselves available and shedding light on some areas. So the scoping process has identified the individuals and entities that have to submit to the qualification process for each operator and the licensing division will be sending the designation letters to the operators by tomorrow. They'll be sent by email from our licensing chief, Kara O'Brien. And in the email I'd like to go through because I know people are listening, I'd like to go through what she will be identifying. She will identify the individuals and entities and she will identify each of the forms that the different qualifiers have to fill out and the forms will be attached to her email. We'll also make sure that all of the forms are on the website. The entities will be required to fill out the business entity disclosure form. The individuals will be required to fill out the multi-jurisdictional personal history disclosure form. If the individual has submitted that form to another regulator within the past year we will accept that form from them. They don't have to fill out a new one if it's dated within the past year. Individuals also have to fill out the Massachusetts supplemental form. There also is a certification regarding suitability that the commission has discussed in the past and that will be codified in a regulation that appears before you today. There's also a certification regarding the payment to federal and state taxes. There is an institutional investor waiver form if any of the entities that have been designated with certain ownership interests, if they qualify as institutional investors the applicants can ask for a waiver. Kara's email also gives supplemental instructions to two questions on the BED, questions number 27 and 30B. So we'd ask for the applicants to pay close attention to that as well. And of course these are all in addition to the general application form which was just discussed. The email will talk about how to submit the application via a secure website and directs that the application be submitted in one packet, not piecemeal. That is our usual practice and we have found that that overall leads to efficiencies. Kara's email will give instructions on fingerprint cards. If folks need fingerprint cards, it'll tell them how to request them. And she'll also give instructions on how to submit the non-refundable $200,000 fee. The deadline for the submissions is November 21st. We do invite applicants to submit earlier if they're completed because we will be performing the completeness reviews and transmitting the applications for preliminary investigation on a rolling basis. So if you have them, there's no reason from our perspective not to submit them earlier. There is also a directive from Kara on the email regarding vendors. We've been getting lots of inquiries from vendors. So I want to address the vendor situation at this point. Kara's email asks the operators to identify the vendors that they will need to go live. The three casinos have already identified their vendors. They do not have to repeat that. We need this information from the category three online operators as well. This is the first step in the vendor process because we want to focus our resources on vendors that will actually be doing business with the operators rather than vendors that just might want to do business with the operators. After we get these lists from the various operators, the licensing division will contact the vendors with further instructions and details on this process. It will involve the scoping survey. Many of the vendors have submitted the scoping survey already for those who have not, licensing division will be in touch with them about doing it. The regulation on vendors that was promulgated and has been filed with the secretary's office does allow for a process that will accommodate the launch dates anticipated by the commission. So our further communication with the vendors will be in line with those dates. And I can update more next week on that vendor process. But just generally we're here to support all the parties to the process. And the licensing division is working very hard to continue to identify how to support each constituency. So I hope this helps clarify where we're at on the scoping of the mobile operators and starting to kick off the vendor process. Loretta, are the applicants informed in writing about submitting either BED or the multi-jurisdictional from another jurisdiction within the last year that that will be acceptable? I can't remember. I do review the communication. I'll connect with Kara right after. I think she's watching. So if it's not, we'll make sure that it is. Okay, all right. I'd just like to comment that I really want to compliment Director Lilios and her whole team. These scoping surveys were just received last week and they just went through all of them and they have all the materials ready to go. That is an astronomical feat and they are doing a tremendous, tremendous job. I could not be more impressed by Loretta and her whole team not only the organization, but the execution. So that's incredible Loretta. So really that's- Karen, thank you so much. I really appreciate that. And I really want to give kudos to Dave McKay, to Kara, to Heather and to Monica because they just, they cranked it out. So- Yep, they really did. I think. Very impressive. Phenomenal job to all. Phenomenal job to all Loretta. And with Kara just joining the team, her experience has really, is carrying her through nicely. Director Lilios, so she knew she had a big first step. Absolutely. Yeah, so thank you to Chief O'Brien. I'll turn it over to Todd, although you'll see from the agenda that in the multitude of regulations that are before you today and they're coming down the pike, that in addition, the legal team is also doing astronomical work and keeping on target and on plan hairs. But I'll turn it over to Todd if there's any other additional updates or what's coming down the pike for the commission. Madam Chair. Before we go to Todd, I want to personally say thank you to Loretta and her team. I know this was a very, very big ask that came from the commission. And I can't tell you how impressed I have been seeing the work that's gone on over the last week. I do stop in and say hello whenever possible when I'm in and they have been busy as beavers. And I just want you to know how appreciative we all are at what is going on. We know it's a big ask. Thanks, Commissioner, thank you. I'm just so impressed and I couldn't go forward without saying thank you. Thank you. Well, we know we have to sustain this for several months ahead. So I don't want to get too ahead of ourselves, but, you know, Understood. So, you know, we're still we're hoping we didn't peak. We do. We know we didn't peak. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. And Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner O'Brien, I know that you join all of us and in congratulating the good work, but it's it's great that it has served as the tool that we kind of imagined for by being right in this way. Director Wells and Director Lillioso. And I think that the what you've accomplished was was exceeded our expectations, but I bet it's a great feeling for your entire team. So thank you. And I think really clear delivery. Everyone's on notice with Director Lillioso. And of course, this is recorded so they can go back and listen to our comments today, too. All right. Anything further, Todd, from you on, I mean, I know you've got regulations coming at a rapid pace so that commissioners are going to be receiving them on a regular basis. Yeah, I know this might be a good entree into the coming topics, although I don't want to get ahead of ourselves here. But yeah, so, of course, our focus continues to be on the regulations. It appears to me that the trains are running on schedule. We're continuing to gain steam here. The framework is continuing to take shape. The application regulation, of course, has been approved by the commission. We're going to be momentarily looking at the evaluation process for that application for the award of the licenses. That's obviously a huge step forward. The licensing framework itself you'll be looking at shortly as well. That's a critical piece of the process, including things like temporary licensure, suitability, the conditions and the fees associated with the awards of the licenses. So that will start, the review of that will begin today. In the near future, the tech standards are starting to take shape. You'll help drafts before you in relatively short order. Those will be in the pipeline, including things like the review of GLI 33, the change order program, the approval of certain technology and all of those regs are coming your way shortly. In the near future, following behind that again are the internal control standards. You'll start to take a look at those regulations. And then ultimately, of course, the sports wagering centric regulations will be coming your way as well. But as of right now, we're running on schedule as we head home. So that's just by way of updates and Madam Chair and commissioners, if and when you're ready, we can jump into the actual regulations. So Katrina is unavailable today. So I'll have her give an update on IT when she is available at the next meeting. And then I know Derek's giving, he's on the agenda later about the project manager update. So kudos to the whole finance department working with other folks within the agency, tremendous job on that. And he had given an update on some of the workings and the finance division. They're really on top of everything there. So I don't know if there's any additional updates, Derek, if you want to chime in if there's additional updates, but I think that your team is all set, correct? Yeah, the team is churning away and allowing me to be present on all these meetings. So it's very good that I got a great team behind me. And as you'll see, we've got our three regs, basically four year consideration out there. You know, we had the first one that came out on taxation. Now we have the assessment, as well as the fees for the application. And we're done with our regs after this, working on setting up all the appropriations, setting up all the revenue sources, bank accounts that'll be needed when the money starts to come in. And that is a large coordination between Doug and John and their teams with the comptroller's office and the treasurer's office. So all that will be ready when the first money comes in. And then we're working on allocated amounts and overhead rates to put onto the direct bills that will be coming out. So that will be coming at a future meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Derek. So that concludes the sports measuring process updates. There'll be any other questions, but otherwise I just want to say thank you to the entire MVC team and the tremendous work they're doing right now. Excellent. Any questions for any member of the team that presented? Or for Director Wells, of course. Hey, commissioners, do you need to take a break before we start with the regulatory practice? Because I think lunch will be a little bit later. Carrie, if you don't mind, we'll reconvene then at noon. Commissioners, does that sound good? A short break right now. Okay, thank you, everyone. I think, Dave, we can take down the screen. Thank you. All right, I'll set it up. I'll set it up. Thank you so much, Dave. All right, we're going to turn now to my screen again. Turn to legal. Morning again. Good afternoon now, John. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. So you have in your packet today a set of six draft regulations that we've been referring to as the sports wagering operator licensing framework regulations. We'll get to 218 as well, but you'll see the section five sort of split into a few sections, but of course, feel free to sort of take the discussion on these as you'd like. This set under A includes 205-CMR 212, which relates to additional information that may be requested of applicants by the commission and the continuing duty of applicants and qualifiers to provide certain information to the commission. It includes 214, which relates to application and investigation fees. 215, which relates to suitability, determination, standards and procedures. 219, which relates to temporary licensing procedures. 220, which relates to licensed conditions. And 221, which relates to licensing fees. So I'm gonna turn it over to Meena Macarius and Paul Commoners from Anderson and Krieger to walk through these in a bit more detail for us today. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Meena. Good afternoon, Paul. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank you for having us. And I just want to start the outset and say as we did last time, excuse me, can everybody hear me? My camera seems to be lagged, okay. That this is like last time a joint effort of the in-house legal team, the ANK team in large parts, as a lot of this has to do with suitability, the IEB. So not only was the IEB busy scoping and doing all that work, they were also helping with these regs. So very much appreciated that and the finance folks as well with respect, as you heard Derek say it a few moments ago. So what we were hoping to do is just a roll call quick because we're using the virtual. I couldn't hear you Madam Chair. What'd you say? Could you do a quick roll call because we're using the virtual? Oh, okay. Sure, yeah. No, I'm here. Mr. Hill. Here. Mr. Skinner. I'm here. Mr. Maynard, my apologies. But thank you for the prompt. I'm here. All right. Thank you and Meena and you are here still. Thank you so much. I'm still here. Yeah, no problem. Thank you. No, that's, I appreciate that. So the, I think the way we want to just go through these today, there are, as Kerry pointed out, six different regs, but this is, I think it makes sense to talk about them collectively first sort of how they all fit together. And then Paul commoners and I will take, split these up essentially to talk in a little bit more detail about each. And I think it'd be ideal if we could get through the, at least the first overall piece and then take questions by Reagan. Obviously Todd, Kerry, Loretta and Karen and others may have input as well, but we'll sort of try to guide you through it. Meena. Yes. Can I ask that once we get into the regulations individually that you capture in your discussion the difference, the substantive differences between the 100 series regulations and these 200 series, thank you. No, absolutely. And actually, Commissioner Skinner, I'll be doing some of that in the overview as well, because I think that's key to how we thought about these and how they're set up. So as we've discussed in the past, the overall framework here is intended to mirror largely the RFA to process under the 100 series under which the commission relied on full and complete applications from applicants and cooperation from applicants in order to be able to determine which applicants were best suited to receive gaming licenses under 23K. The biggest distinction as we've talked about in the past is that here you have a suitability process folded into the determination process as opposed to a standalone RFA one process. And the other two big distinctions are obviously time. You have, are doing this on a different timeline and that there are distinctions and categories that were not present between the tethered and untethered, the category one and two, et cetera, as well as a need to reflect the statutory language regarding temporary licensing and makes sense of that. And so we'll move on. Under 23K, suitability was required as a first step. Correct, yeah. So that is the big distinction. So suitability is folded into here as opposed to not. So that's where you have your biggest distinction. Not time so much. It's suitability was the requirement for 23K at the very beginning. Correct, right, correct. So the regs proceed and Carrie gave the very, the titles for it, they start off with 212. 212 probably mirrors the 100 series most closely. Commissioner Skinner 212 is intended to set this stage for the level of cooperation needed, the requirement that there'd be complete applications, that there'd be responses to information, et cetera. This is sort of a standard. We had considered actually just amending the 112 regulation, but it felt important enough as part of the licensing process to put here. And there are a couple of, it was less cumbersome than constantly referring to 23 and within 112, which has obviously do with gaming. That proceeds next with 214. The order doesn't necessarily reflect the chronology, obviously, but 214 is the application fee and mirrors 114. We'll get into more detail about exactly how it works, but it describes the application fees required under section 7A of 23N. It also has a similar process as under the 100 series to require covering the application fees, application costs, excuse me, to review applications by the commission and actually refers back to the 100 series regs in terms of some of the way those costs are tracked, accounted for, et cetera, so that there isn't an invention of a holding process for that. 215, you'll hear quite a bit about today, is a suitability portion. So in some ways that mirrors the entirety, as the chair just mentioned of the RFA-1 process. However, it sets up a couple of different things. And when we get to this, Paul will describe in more detail, but it accounts for the two forms of suitability review that may be conducted here, preliminary suitability review, as well as the later full suitability, or durable suitability review, and ties closely to the temporary licensing process, as well as a licensing process for different categories. I wanna touch on, you've heard a lot and talked a lot about 218, that's integral to this whole package, and that's coming back before you, although not as a new reg, but with the revisions. That is a licensing process framework, how you'll review, how you'll select among applicants, in the case of on tether category three, et cetera. Then we get to 219. 219 doesn't really have an analog in the 100 series reg, it is where we address the connection to temporary licensing. As we talked about last time in the context of 218, the way that the temporary licensing process is carried out here is as using the language in section six of the statute as currently written to provide a way to allow for licensure pending completion of the remainder of suitability review, essentially a provisional licensure pending that completion of review. And so that's, and again, when we get into the details of it, you'll see a little bit more about how those two fit together, but that's the key to it. 220 also came up in our discussion of 218. That is the conditions of licensure in mirrors 120. The big distinction between the 100 series and the 200 series is that in the 100 series, a lot of the conditions came from external processes or sort of statutorily mandate process, such as host community agreements, surrounding community agreements, impacted live entertainment venues, the MEPA process for physical building of facilities, et cetera. Some of those things may still have some relevance with respect to the physical licensure. On the whole, though, most of the conditions here are likely to reflect issues that come up during licensing and especially in the development of other rules and regulations. The key condition that's captured in 220, and this came up a couple of times, I think last time, is that licensure does not permit operation immediately. Licensure is a first step to operation followed by an operation certificate, which is what that will then determine when applicants can go live. That allows for a few things, obviously the testing and checking of equipment and methods, ensuring that everything is done appropriately. It also allows for the management of a uniform go live date, if that is where the commission continues to be for particular categories. So the operation certificate is very important. The certificate itself is not covered under 220 or what's gonna go in the certificate. I mentioned it just so you know this, it's not in front of you. The proposed sort of the thought right now is that will be section 251, mirroring 151 for the operation certificate. The bones of that are developed. Part of the reason it's not part of this set is we want to get a little bit further along in the development of the operational regs or on technology and safety and security, et cetera, to have a better idea of what should be reflected in the operation certificate regs or not before bringing that to you. So that's just something to keep in mind why it's not here. And then finally, 221 is the application, excuse me, the licensing fee, which mirrors 121. And just like 121, it largely restates the statutory fees, in this case giving meaning to how the $1 million temporary license fee coordinates with the $5 million fee as well and reflects back a bit to the hundred series of how that's paid, et cetera. So that again, mechanically there are distinctions and that one again, appreciative of finances, help in drafting and reviewing that. So that's the broad overview. Any questions I guess at this level or would we do want to just proceed or any other things Todd or Lorette or anybody else want to add? All right. In that case, I believe I will take the first one here or the first two if I'm not mistaken, Paul. Yeah. So let's go through 212 and 214. That's on our page. 71 of your packet is where 212 starts, I believe. Anybody else have that? Okay. So as I mentioned, 212 largely mirrors 112. It is intended to state explicitly the requirements of applicants, licensees, qualifiers, and this is broader than just the operator license, all of employee licensees, vendor licensees, et cetera. Their duties to cooperate and or provide additional information to the commission. I don't want to dwell too far too long on this one, but essentially it puts everyone on notice that there may be requests for additional information from the commission, not just during the licensing process, but to clarify issues that come up for once operator is operating. It importantly, 212.04 in front of you on page 71 provides a continuing duty of notification, especially for anything that might affect suitability that's consistent with gaming and very important for the IAB's ability to ensure that suitability is maintained, not just achieved at the outset. That's followed up in 05 with particulars of things that have to be reported. Those come directly from the regulations, I believe 112 and 115 of what has to be reported to the commission, including suspensions or revocations from other jurisdictions, arrests of qualifiers, complaints, et cetera. So the whole list is carried there. That's what that list of 5A through N, excuse me, are meant to carry over from the 100 series. Can I just ask you, when we talk about timeliness of the response through this, right? Is it business days or calendar days? I believe unless it's 10, so normally I would think it would be calendar, but I just wanna make sure there's no, I believe it's calendar. The reason I am just pausing for a second is I do recall that somewhere in the 100 series regs, the commission has a construction provision and I believe that unless it's otherwise stated it's calendar days, but I would have to just confirm that. And then is that the 200 or do we need to say that in the 200s? That should carry over. One of the things I know we've talked about with Kerry is some portions of, we're also going through the hundreds to make updates. That will probably be one for the construction piece that would have to be updated just to make sure it carries over to all regs in 205CMR generally. As you know, we're also updating, we're also creating a 202, which carries definitions and would also have some of these. So if necessary, we could do that as well. Okay, thanks. I don't know if you were gonna jump in there too on that piece, but. No, I think that's fine. I believe it's under seven days as business days, over seven as calendar days, but we will make sure that's fine. And then the remainder of 212, 212.6 is essentially what happens if you don't do these things. And that again follows the 112. It provides for enforcement mechanisms by the commission. And this is, although the requests or the asks might be coming from a commission employee or bureau, et cetera, the ultimate enforcement comes from the commission in line with other conversations we've had on this topic. So that's really it for 12, as I said, pretty straightforward. And hopefully, I think it gives you the framework and you just, for that enforcement, please. Questions, commissioners? You know, I have one nitpicky thing that might result in an edit. It's the paragraph five, I. Should we add for cause after the word termination since any separation from an employer, even if it's just a retirement or resignation is considered a termination. So what we care about are terminations for cause. So it might make sense to add that after termination. Do we? Is that right? And you, can you show it again, commissioner? It's five I. Sorry. It's at the- It's in the list of things that applicants are required to perform. And that's just been my understanding of the concept of termination. I could be wrong about that. I wouldn't mind- We have HR folks on to weigh in. Rebecca, Lily, I might have time. I can jump in. So, commissioner Skinner, you're exactly right that the for cause aspect of the termination holds certain significance on the employee licensing aspect. So you're exactly right about that. We do like to know about all- Qualifiers. All separations of qualifiers because that can involve a de-designation. We also like to know about all separations of employees because that can lead to deactivating the license. The reason the for cause, the, you know, any malfeasance is a follow-up that we do. I do think this tracks the gaming reg in this regard. We've been finding it workable. So it's my proposal, you know, I did review it. It's my proposal as well to maintain the language as it is, but you're exactly right that the for cause piece is a significant piece that the licensing division follows up with through the practices in communication with the properties and the operators. Yeah. So thank you for that clarification. Thank you. My other question is to paragraph 5K and it is just what is the significance and maybe Director Lillios can answer this one too. What's the significance of the $250,000 number there? I guess why do we start at $250,000 and not something lower? Sure. Commissioner Skinner, I'll acknowledge that the thing guiding my or our inclusion in it is for consistency with gaming. Commissioner Lillios, I don't know if you recall why the number was set at 250 in the hundred regs, Director Lillios, excuse me, it may have come from also following other jurisdictions at the time, but I don't particularly recall in 2012, 13 when we did this stuff. Just curious. Yeah, me too. Yeah, I'm not entirely sure it may also have to do with SEC reporting is what I suspect. I know we knew at one point, but I can't recall now it's something we could look into and try to get back. And it's been so many years later, so it might be worth looking into, right? So, Todd, were you gonna chime in? Are you thinking you have a recollection, Todd? She's trying to do some quick research. I think Loretta is absolutely right. I think there is significance under the SEC rules of that figure, but I can't say different. If we could confirm, that would be my guess too, probably in its day that it hasn't changed as it shifted. Maybe this, then we could shift over and update it. Unless Paul, are you chiming in? No, okay. Any other questions on this one? Well, just on Commissioner Skinner's earlier point, I think it's fair that she wanted to insert for cause given that it says, or other discipline. So what I'm hearing is that we always wanna know about terminations, whether or not their discipline related or not generally. So the word other is a little bit of a flag for you, Commissioner Skinner, so. Yeah, that's what I heard too, particularly with respect to the qualifiers, which I wasn't thinking about. Yeah, I know we wanna hear if they're terminated, but I understand why you wanted to insert for cause there. Give me, thanks. Okay, moving forward. 214. Okay, thank you. So 214, as I mentioned, is the process for receiving application fees and for additional fees for investigations. Much like 114, it starts by reciting essentially what's in the statute for application fees, which is a $200,000. It makes clear that that application fee is non-refundable. Then the rest of 01 again mirrors the 100 series, except of course that the fees going to the sports wager and control fund. Just one note in case other very keen eyes to pick this up. The sports wager control fund is actually established in Chapter 23N, Section 15. There is a missed reference in the legislation itself where it refers to it as being in Section 14. So if there's some confusion of why it says 15, sometimes in 14, it's actually established in 15 and that was a mistake or typo in the legislation. The additional fees for investigations, there is just again a laying out of a process. And I will note, we continue to have a slight formatting issue that keeps popping up between word versions and we're working to fix it. That six at the beginning of 214.02 will become a one and so on, but the process here is to ensure that this is a self-funded process, just like with gaming, meaning funded by the industry. The actual methods for establishing costs of the commission here and the sort of schedule of costs actually is exactly the same as 114 before both the bureau and finance were comfortable with this approach. And again, otherwise it reflects the process in the hundred series of under gaming. So any questions on that before I turn it over to Paul for to begin the 15 series? Any questions? How's that then? All right, thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. 205CMR 215 merges 115 and 116 from the 115 hundred series, which are suitability determinations and scoping and determination of who's a qualifier. So I'll start with the, with 2501, which is suitability determinations and then move on to 2502, which is qualifiers. So you'll see at the start, there are two subsections that deal with different standards. Pardon me. Please skip ahead to packet page 81. There were a few amendments following conversations with the IDB to the version of 215 originally placed in the packet. And I'll be working off of the updated red-lined version of the regulation. I'll just go back Paul. All right. Is everyone with me on the red line? Yeah. So a durable finding of suitability under 2501.1 supports the award of a full license. The process, the considerations, the standard of the showing that has to be made by the applicant all track 115 quite closely. There are some tweaks to the language to account for items that are in 23K that are not in 23N. So for example, the language about the nature of the bureau's investigation is somewhat simplified because there were specific statutory factors under 23K that the bureau had to investigate that are not present here. But the structure and the standard of review, the evidence under consideration is all the same. A preliminary finding of suitability under 2501.2 can support the issuance of a temporary license. This is a somewhat narrower set of evidence but the same set of considerations. So this contemplates that the commission's decision would be based primarily on certifications of suitability, sorry, attestations of suitability by the applicant and the qualifier described in subsection A. And an investigation by the IEB covering key materials such as the self-disclosed licensing history, a self-disclosed open litigation and an open source check, which is covered in 215.02B. This does not exclude the commission from considering, this does not exclude the IEB from reporting or the commission from considering other matter that conceivably could come to your attention during this process, but it permits the commission to make a suitability determination sufficient to support a temporary license award on the basis of this more limited review. I'll pause there. Can I go check in with Director Wells and Director Lillian? So are you satisfied with that, Director Wells? Now the only thing I'm looking at, and so we're looking at, I'm just making sure I'm on the same page you are. So it's on page 2501.2, correct, this preliminary finding? Yes. I'm just wondering. Page 82, are you looking at page 81? 76, so it says here, notwithstanding any provision, the commission installed the scratch may determine in accordance that an applicant or qualifier is suitable in accordance with 02, if of a, I'm just wondering if there should be some qualification that applicant or qualifier is, maybe it's something to the effect of preliminarily suitable as opposed to a final finding. So that's what I hear you saying. I don't know if we could add that word just to make it clear because they're not having a full determination of suitability until all these investigations are done. I'm happy to do that. I will also say that the, I think the only other cross-reference to this section is in the provision providing for temporary license awards in two 1807, which refers specifically to what the commission can do if it makes a suitability finding in accordance with 011 and what the commission can do if it makes a suitability finding in accordance with 012. Okay. I haven't carried those words over because I, in part because we hadn't put 215 before the commission yet. We wanted to make sure that the structure and the word choice worked for everyone. But we can definitely carry those through into more places where they're permanent. Great. I'm not clear on where Karen just read from in the regulation. I can share my screen. I'll just show you. All right. It's a scare on two. Can you stop? Hold on. I'm not showing the right screen. Hold on. In the middle of a number of a very dense series of cross-references. I'm looking right here. So this is 215. And it's just because it says in the heading, preliminary finding of suitability. So I think it's all set, but just in an abundance of caution. They may determine an applicant or qualify. It's right here. What says is suitable. I would suggest the old version. This is not the updated version. Right. But it isn't changed. But page. The reference is still the same. 81. Yeah. But I think it allows for a full suitability review, but with the exception that the commission may. Provide for. A suitability review. That's just based on the attestation. Right. Am I reading that wrong? Yeah. I think that with the attestations, they are preliminarily suitable. They are not fully suitable just based on attestations. I think that's my only point, which I think is the intent. But can you make your screen bigger? Yeah. Hold on. And then just tell us again, how you're proposing to change that language. Here. It's section two. So. Right here where it's, I don't know if you can see my cursor. Applicant or qualifier instead of saying is suitable in accordance with this. I would just say is preliminarily suitable. So there's no question. Aligned with the heading. Right. Exactly. Exactly. Okay. And we're happy to carry the word preliminary. We're preliminarily through where it's relevant. And Paul, that is the language that we used in the other, right? It's consistent. In 218. I guess it's like, don't quote me on numbers. We haven't used the word preliminary in 218 only because we hadn't put this regulation in front of you yet. I can carry the word preliminary through there as well. 218 currently says refers to suitability. In accordance with this subsection. You can take that screen. Yeah. I'm trying to figure out how to take the screen down. I'm not seeing them. Not sharing your emails with us. Right. Exactly. Sorry, I don't. Pardon me. Findings of suitability in accordance with the subsection. So the meaning is there. If it would clarify matters to carry the word preliminary or preliminarily through. We can certainly do that. Yeah. I think because I asked that question when we talked about 2018 the last time and the answer we got was, Oh, when you see the other 200s, it'll be clear. But the fact that we're still asking the question. I don't know. I don't know why it's not showing up. I don't know where it is. So I'm going to, I'm going to keep. Is there anything else on preliminary? Yeah. Oh, it's behind me. All right. I don't know why it's not showing up. I don't know where it is. So I'm going to, I'm going to keep. Is there anything else on preliminary? Oh, it's behind me. We're just having a technical issue. If you bear with us. Yes. Of course. And then I just want to check in. Thank you. Loretta. And Loretta, did you have anything on that? You also. I like the insertion of the word preliminarily. I do think that the. That concept is captured in the existing regulation, but it drives it home. What we're doing on that point. And that's important to me and my team as well. So I like the idea of inserting the word. Okay. Excellent. All right. Anyone else? Yeah. Loretta, did you have anything on that? Okay. Excellent. All right. Anyone else commissioners. Moving on to subsection three. This is the considerations laid out here. Are. Consistent with what was in 115. And subsection five. Two 15. Oh, oh, one for is based on the grounds for denial or rep suspension or revocation of a license laid out in section nine of chapter 23N. And subsection five simply explains that the process used for suitability determinations under. For sports wagering is going to be consistent with the process that we're going to be doing. So. Consistent, not precisely the same because again, there are odds and ends mandated by chapter 23K that don't apply for chapter 23N. So I feel like there's a catch all. In 23K. That I just, I'm not seeing here. I'm pulling up Loretta or somebody might know what I'm talking about. I'm going back to the wind hearings and I'm thinking about qualifications and suitability. I can't put my finger on it, but. Commissioner Brian, do you mean with respect to who needs to be qualified or, or. No, meaning a finding of suitability or lack thereof. In the statutory language rather than. Yeah. So you're saying because of course the red might not include that statutory language. But what I'm hearing from Paul is that with respect to at least the red. This red follows. In subsection for. 23 with a 23K version precisely, right? This is no right. But of course we don't have suitability laid out in 23N. So I want to make sure anything that stands totally in case doesn't get lost. If it's not in a right. If we can apply it. Right. Yep. So. So we have a 23N and that's the qualifying. The suitability section include anything that. Pardon me. So subsection. I may not be following some something, but subsection four tracks the grounds for revocation of a license under. And section nine. It's the next section. Right. So you're thinking. Oh, no, the unsuitability. That's what you were thinking. I'm talking about suitability, but what which subsection? Sorry, I was looking at 23k. I'm sorry. No, I'm looking at 215. Is it subsection three? I think it's three because we we didn't talk about the new B that was added. We jumped to three. So I think I'm talking about subsection three. So you think that there's some broad language that you'd like to see if we could include it somewhere? All right. Yeah, I'm just so I'm just saying I just want to make sure there's nothing in 23k that didn't necessarily make it into a reg that we're going to lose by only mirroring the 100. And then we'll have to decide if it actually can go. Correct. Because it's a different law. Um, can we would it be OK if we proceeded? Oh, so I guess what I'm looking at is 7b. So I'm looking at 23k section 12b. And it talks about the Bureau. Bureau determines an investigation an applicant has failed to. And then there's a number of criterion or any other reason is determined by the commission as to why it would be injurious to the interests of the Commonwealth in awarding the applicant a gaming license. The Bureau shall cease any further review and recommend the commission denied the application in terms of that's the suitability section. So I guess it may it may vary will be in the 200s and I just haven't seen it. So that's interesting. Chapter 23 and section six assigns the same grounds for denial of a license to the commission and the commission's discretion that section 60. And not to the Bureau and not to the Bureau. Yeah, 23 and a silent on the Bureau. I think we've all noted. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So um, so and and so I guess I'm wondering. Is that does that become an issue for subsection four or is that subsection three in this we want to make sure everything that's in 23 and right. So three looks at what the commission shall evaluate and consider. So it was in there, it would be in there. Yeah. So we should make sure to take that language and put it in as a question. Right. Because it says shall it tell Dean them unsuitable if they are one of the qualifiers and then it doesn't have that catch all in three or four. Each of which appear to put the onus on the commission to act. So subsection six, Paul, do we have it all captured here because that's really critical. Um, section six E, I believe we imported into 205 CMR 218 because section six E appears in the section of the statute dealing with the commission's license award decisions, which is what 218 captures. I don't think that any of the considerations laid out in section 60 are excluded from the commission's consideration by this. I'd love to not have to have the argument though, you know, and just have it in the reg in both places because I'd hate to be in a position of, well, you didn't put it in that one. And I have a vague fuzzy memory of having a conversation about that because there was it used to be a preamble to the regs in the 100s saying, oh, these are the sections of 23 K that we're relying on to promulgate these regs. And they were not all inclusive. But I don't want to necessarily do the opposite and say it as all inclusive because I'm going to miss something. The statute will always roll. So I believe the simplest, the simplest approach would be to go to The cross-reference, the reg. Well, to go to subsection three E, whether the applicant or any qualifier is ineligible to hold a license under a given set of subsections and simply add an MGL chapter 23 in section 6E. Right. I would feel better if it said that. We can certainly make that change. You couldn't remember what subsection 6E. Thanks, Paul. Are there any more questions on 2501 suitability? I have a question, Paul. In 2502.5, the references to 1504 and 1505, are those intentional? Yeah. Should that be 2504? Those are intentional. Those are the regs that set out the process for suitability determinations in the gaming context, and we intend for the process for making suitability determinations in the sports wagering process to be consistent with that process. And Commissioner Skinner, if I could add, when we say process, so the substance is all in 215 of what is being looked at, but the actual procedural framework is in the 115. So if you look at 1504 and 1505, it's effectively what happens when the Bureau's done its process and gives its recommendation to the Commission that makes a suitability review and any rights flowing out of that. And that's why we want to keep those consistent rather than create a new process. You have that language available because we don't know what that says. Sure. I have it in front of me. Unfortunately, 23N is silent on the Bureau, so I just want to make sure that I understand what the process is. Sure. I can walk through that very quickly. Madam Chair, if you would like. It's actually 1504 and 1505 are a grand total of five or six paragraphs. I wouldn't read them, but after the Commission has received the Bureau's report, it shall provide a copy to the applicant or qualifier, and the Commission shall determine whether to initiate a process for a public hearing or a judicatory proceeding. So it gives you some discretion there. And we actually have a new policy on suitability hearings that maybe this is the time for that right to be updated. I wondered if it was the same right, right? We only do suitability hearings in a judicatory hearing. So that's possible that that policy would simply dictate that that's the choice, but I'll leave to. I think it's under reg review or something, right? To update a ton on that process. Yeah. Okay. I wondered if it was that reg. Okay, go ahead ahead. And then it mentions. Reg is a confusing reg gentleman. It really is for us. I mean, it has a lot of a lot of a lot of discussion. Yes. So okay. So theoretically, let's go through it. Assuming a judicatory hearing continuing. So assuming in a judicatory hearing, the rest of 1504 has a paragraph on one of the judicatory proceeding looks like referring back to one or one another for public hearing, which sounds like it won't be relevant in the way that you're moving forward. The, and then 1505 is after that proceeding, after the proceedings in 1504, the adjudicatory proceeding, the commission shall issue a determination of suitability. And it lays out a negative determination, positive determination, and then has language that may not be relevant because there's a partly won't be. It's a host, the host community language regarding want to have a vote after suitability termination is obviously not relevant in 23. Well, I mean, I guess the commission is going to raise a good point to say those, you know, it's really relevant here. So you might want to clean that up a little bit. Right. Commissioner Brian. Yeah. All right. So just one indirect, the lilios are really well informed on that shift it's mainly so that we can do our adjudicatory hearing in public, but we have the option to do anything that is really sensitive in private because we wouldn't want the forum to hinder commissioners ability to comfortably ask critically important questions to suitability findings. If the cases that the commission has decided all suitability findings are going to be in adjudicatory proceedings, I think what may make sense is just very simply importing the language from 1504 that you will do in adjudicatory proceeding with the brief language in 1505 to say that you'll issue a negative or positive determination into the 215 regs rather than referring back. I don't think we were aware that the commission was no longer even considering the public hearing option. So we want to leave it there as a possibility, but if you're no longer using it and don't want to use it, the commission could decide to do these all that way. Obviously, there may be logistically, I don't know which ones easier out defer to commission and commission staff on that. Thank you. Coming up to date, Todd. Yeah, I think as you're pointing out, we do need to do more work on 115 and we certainly want to be clear here as to what the process will be, particularly where the suitability process is part of the review for the award of the licenses. So this certainly does need to be clarified. I suppose at this juncture, we could, it would be helpful to get a sense as to or just be certain that the commission envisions that the suitability review as part of the sportsways, measuring license awards would be conducted in an adjudicatory proceeding or not. So keeping in mind here that there's the preliminary review part, which is a little bit different than the full suitability review that will be conducted after the initial award of the licenses. You may be more comfortable reviewing the preliminary suitability piece in the public hearing, but we would just want to know what the intention is now so we can capture that in the regulation. We obviously don't want to get to that point in the proceeding and then have to figure out what the process is going to look like. But my take from the discussion at this point is that you would like to see all of it done in an adjudicatory proceeding, which we can do, but we would have to write in to the sub fives that that's what the plan is. And I think that we always talked about that there are ways to keep that streamlined so it doesn't become bureaucratically cumbersome, but we reserve the opportunity to be in public. And at any point in time, so the commissioners want to thank you, want to provide, ask the questions that are actually protected questions. We need the opportunity and we don't have that opportunity in any kind of a streamlined fashion to ask those questions. Unless we go into an executive session in an executive session, those questions can only pertain to, I believe, the individual whose facts are being questioned. So if there's a fact that relates to a third party, we are lost at how we can ask the question. So given that suitability is so core to our function, I would say that I'm hearing you, Todd, because you're probably thinking, oh, you know, it's really going to be more cumbersome. I think we've found it could work pretty efficiently, with an understanding that we have to do a notice, but the notice could be pretty streamlined. And I don't have to read in as much material as you give me, I'm sure. For each one, we could do a consolidated read-in. And maybe that we just figure out a streamlined version. But my recommendation would be to stick with that process. But it is new to the other. Commissioner Hill, were you engaged at that point when we decided? What do you think? I'm still digesting all of this, Madam Chair. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, before we go to our newer commissioners. No, I mean, I think we hashed a lot of this out over a number of meetings, and I believe Commissioner Skinner may have actually been here as well by the time we ultimately voted. I believe so. And we did agree. And then we went into, yeah, and then we went into a series of them done just that way, a judiciary, a streamlined as we could make it. And on a couple of occasions, went into private deliberations so that we could ask the questions we needed to ask and then come back out. Commissioner Skinner, I remember now, because I see your comment at the time, I won't quote you, you could do that if you want, but how are you feeling then? Do you think, do you imagine it could work in this case? And we would be able to really ask all the questions comfortably? I envision that we would proceed as discussed and decided at one of my earlier meetings. I think it was actually, could have been my first, where we just entered into a to introduce this subject, at least, you know, with the then commission. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard, and forgive me, it feels like it was longer ago, but it wasn't. It was the spring, certainly. Commissioner Maynard. I'm comfortable with deferring to the commission as it's set in the spring in that process. I know that it was sounds like it was well thought out. The only thing I would add, Madam Chair, it's important that everyone envision what this will look like in practice. So when the commission is reviewing the applications, we will have to either pause the review to conduct an adjudicatory proceeding on the suitability or conduct the suitability piece of it before you start reviewing the application so you can make that determination and then use that finding as part of the application review. But it's important just to recognize that there would be two separate proceedings, one adjudicatory and one in a public meeting when you're reviewing the applications. When you think about what we're going to be getting in front of us in Lovato, what we're going to be getting, you understand, you went through this this is that more process than we need when you know what we are looking to preserve. You know, one item that Todd and legal would be in a better position to address is whether there's a distinction between this preliminary suitability piece that's attached to the preliminary temporary license and the full suitability and that by whether conducting an adjudicatory hearing in connection with the preliminary piece could in fact be extending rights that would not otherwise be available in the you know the sort of plenary durable suitability piece. I appreciate that because that's what I'm wondering in the relative suitability portion of the applications we evaluate that. That's not we also had a full report from we're not going to have a full report on suitability at that point from IEB, which is what I understand is that process that you know is just outright. So we have some report from IEB right and this is what you know what this is what I'm confused about because I think Todd said that commissioners would not have a suitability report available at the time it's reviewing the applications and I might have misunderstood that. You'll have for the preliminary suitability you will have a preliminary report from the IEB summarizing some self-disclosed areas on the applications and summarizing an open source check into the applicant and the individual qualifiers. We won't have on so sorry go ahead. No that's okay so we just talked about suitability review in 2502 and there was language added in 2501 sorry not 02, 2501 now I'm confused with the revisions. I'm sorry it's 2501 to be before the commission may determine that an applicant or qualifier is suitable. That is the right paragraph that identifies what I expect the preliminary report to look to look like. Well but that so I didn't envision so that first sentence to me requires a maybe doesn't require well yeah requires because it says the bureau shall conduct an investigation so I would imagine that there would be a suitability report following that but I don't read that as the preliminary suitability review. The following sentence talks about how the commission may exercise its authority to only require a preliminary review. That whole section is in the preliminary finding section and then it does actually say right after that the IEB shall submit a written report to the commission which will include recommendation. There would be a report and there would be an investigation. The question really is how does the commission want to review it? Do you want to do it as part of the application review at the public hearing or do you want to carve it out and review it separately at an adjudicatory proceeding? So the question is there's no question about the ultimate suitability report. I think we're hearing that that's definitely good you know we've that's what we've been dealing with on suitability. So now I'm trying to get my head wrapped around what's going to be in front of us Loretta because it's a competitive review. There's not going to be any other background documents right just what's in front of us. So that's what's going to be public and in front of us. So we we can't know things what used to happen is we knew more because we had read the full report that wasn't public and we couldn't ask questions comfortably in public. The adjudicatory hearing allows us to go you know we were I think I've been clear on the record it was never compromised. When we recognized that we wanted to be able to ask more piercing questions on a particular suitability report we changed the process. I never felt like the process didn't work up until a point. So for this we wouldn't this is during the competitive review which is a public meeting. So we only have it in front of us. So it doesn't necessarily negate the possibility that one of us may have a question that an applicant may feel is you know rising to the level of what we would normally step into. Minimizes it but doesn't eliminate it. The application in our regulation didn't include that that language from Indiana maybe because it was illegal where you know um anything that could be considered embarrassing or whatever your application doesn't protect you from you know protects us uh but I don't know if they they I think all bets are off right in terms of whatever's been submitted. Um and what's in front we can't have access to anything other than what's in front of us. Is it helpful or am I going to stand up down the hall? Unless aren't we taking public comment what if something comes up in the public comments because we're only asking IB in the preliminary to do a very basic open source self-reporting etc what if something comes up in that in those hearings that raises questions how do we deal with that? Well I think it's important just to recognize that one of the criteria that the commission will be evaluating we'll get into this in 218 momentarily but one of the criteria is the suitability of the applicant so presumably you will have conducted whatever proceeding it is relative to the suitability of the applicant before you are conducting the review of the application and that applies not just to the category three untethered but also to the other applicants as well you would need that information so to your point Commissioner O'Brien I believe you could take into account when you're deliberating over the applications itself any public comments or what have you so in theory you would have reviewed the suitability determined that the standard has been met the applicant is suitable but that there could be other factors that would be relevant when you're weighing the suitability as part of the overall application and I think that's built into 218 the 215 gets more into just whether you are suitable or you're not suitable 218 allows you to consider the overall suitability and so you could definitely include things like that although did we just say we were going to take that and rep cross-reference it into 215 I'm sorry we're going to you're going to the overall the catch-all phrase that I was looking for that you're talking about the suitability yeah we're going to cross-reference it into 215 yeah I think that would necessarily hinder what I just said but because that I mean that ultimately goes to whether the applicant is or is not suitable and presumably to get to even really you're reviewing their application you would have had to have found them suitable if you find them unsuitable then there's obviously a problem but assuming they are suitable that would mean that there are no elements what is the language that would lead you to a finding that awarding the license is injurious to the interest of the comment I would build on that with two more points the preliminary finding of suitability section sets out what the commission may act upon what is what is sufficient for the commission to make preliminary finding of suitability it does not exclude the IEV from reporting to you or for you for from taking account of other information that arises through other channels I would also add that the commission retains the ability to request additional information from an applicant and if a public if for example during public comment a public comment raises something that would create serious suitability concerns about an applicant that is not otherwise identified in the IEV's preliminary investigation or the applicant's certification forms the commission or the IEV can request additional information from the applicant on that matter then I guess it circles back to the question and then in what form so at this point and I might be off because I'm losing just mark of I think I'm just going a little bit this is this is preliminary finding of suitability Paul so when those the two sections that commissioners can erase that a process related to 23k that suitability that was required upfront full suitability upfront and so it it it did this public hearing public meeting there are a lot of choices of words there that were confusing adjudicatory hearing that was presuming full suitability so those two references that commissioners can erase may not actually work here and so because the preliminary finding of suitability only I'm thinking about this correctly only will be applicable during our during I guess our evaluation process for cat one cat two and cat three so should we yes not worry do you see what I mean I think we've got caught because I think that triggered this inquiry because we're looking at the 23k process that doesn't really work here because well except we agreed to sunset this preliminary process right and then it will shift over to the more traditional process once we get through the bedding stage so then it's very long but that's what I'm saying is do we have a separate do we need to address separately the hearing or adjudicatory process then if I could be heard a moment I actually had not thought that we were talking about a two-step process now like a suitability process and then an evaluative process I thought that this preliminary suitability was part of the evaluative process that's what I'm trying to say in the matter I really needed information on suitability largely based on self-disclosures and so it's really a tool to help you identify is there anything jumping out that's a self-disclosed disqualifier self-disclosed problem and you know will help you compare to the whole pool right and I agree with all that that's why I turned to you aren't we just going to be getting the information that's part of the general application I think so and timeline as well if we have first a suitability process and then an evaluative process that would be problematic about it we're not talking what you're saying what you just said is your understanding was is the understanding I think what threw us was the reference to the two sections that that Commissioner Skinner brought up because it that process as outline doesn't work here because we're going to be in an evaluative stage I just make a clarification here so this regulation 215.012 does relate only to preliminary findings of suitability but the regulation as a whole relates to both preliminary findings and the ultimate findings so that section where those two sites are is referring to you know quote-unquote durable suitability or the final suitability phase at least that's my understanding of how that section was drafted and we can compare Kerry if I could add to that I think this is where I was starting from Madam Chair is that the the reason although I'll admit I didn't know that you had settled on only adjudicatory processes the reason we want to leave an option open is because you are going to have two different types of suitability happening here preliminary and not and preliminary and full let's or suitable just straight-up suitability and the process is different for the two right Nina it well it very well could be was leaving the flexibility that you might have an adjudicatory process there's actually there's a couple of different permutations I'm sorry I would make a suggestion here that it gets revisited so that the preliminary what we called in our in our application the relative suitability that we will make a preliminary suitability finding on that relative suitability section that's all we're going to have and that's in an evaluative process the final suitability you I think it makes sense to why you would reference the the two process that you the two earlier sections that you did that makes sense it happens to have changed and you didn't know that but I think we're going to be confused if we don't kind of delineate the two preliminary and final suitabilities am I wrong no I think you're right and if the commission has wants to would have to make a decision I think if you're doing it in the red the commission have to make a decision of what that looks like and it sounds like you you are and that's fine my one other I don't mean to add another complication but there is one part of the reason to leave you flexibility is that amongst your suitability findings you you do have a group of the category ones who might who have been found suitable under gaming and might be found durably suitable now or at least some qualifiers might be if not everybody not temporarily suitable and so whether you want to subject them to an or subject yourselves to an adjudicatory proceeding or not so that's that's why we had left us we're trying to leave as much flexibility of the commission to do it that way or not but under understandably we we we can certainly split it out into the temporary versus durable and what happens with that knowing that the temporary may not be a separate process at all it's just being folded into the 218 process we can make that clear is that is that sort of capture where you're going I would only I would only note your words subject us to an adjudicatory hearing I think we found that we are pretty nimble about holding them in my you know well you know well let me let me add one other piece and I and perhaps you're right I apologize for that particular war choice but there are rights that come out of adjudicatory hearings that don't come out of other processes and if you have a record with that that is simply an attestation from an applicant followed by open source information or and open source information having that go through an adjudicatory process which then could be arguably appealed as a 30 appeal it's it's not it's not much of a record for either party so that's it's just sort of an ill fit but that being said but I'm that is that then Nina are you still thinking of an adjudicatory hearing three the final suitability are you still in that even for category one it's still an evaluative process in category two it's an evaluative process in category three it's a competitive one I'm not sure I'm they're all they all have to file applications correct but I don't see it where it's it's not it's I think it's a different process and I I don't think we're imagined that's why I don't think we're thinking adjudicatory hearing for that process now for that for the preliminary value because it's in the evaluative it's an evaluated process we only can we can only look at the materials that we submit to us it's not like we're going to ask them to provide witnesses and all of that it's an evaluative process I feel like I'm saying more than I should because I might be really off track here no I don't think you're off track at all I think that we're at a point where the commission should kind of understand kind of the distinctions here and make a decision and kind of what I'm hearing is that as part of the preliminary suitability finding if you will that is part of the application evaluation you are comfortable making that decision at the public hearing not admit a separate adjudicatory proceeding meeting which and that's perfectly acceptable because these applicants don't have any constitutional rights that attach at this juncture it's an initial finding suitability they're not entitled to an adjudicatory proceeding which is why 115 has written the way it is it gives the commission the ability to make a decision how it wants to do it but in this case it seems written in the context of final suit yes that is absolutely absolutely that's so let's set that aside we can we can reword the provision we're talking about to clarify certainly that the preliminary review of the suitability will just be made at the public meeting as part of the application evaluation and I think that's entirely appropriate and Todd and Todd what the commissioners would be reviewing as part of that preliminary suitability determination during the meeting where we're evaluating applications is the attestation and the IEB's report that will be based on you know not a full suitability review but whatever publicly available information there is along the lines of what's outlined in 2501 I think three right right absolutely that that's absolutely right and to the extent you're you're wondering what are we going to do about any sensitive information that may be in there well the answer is there's going to be a lot of sensitive information in other areas too so it's not solely limited to suitability there are ways that the commission can discuss all of the information contained in the application holistically without invading any privacy or trade secret type information so that's that's a separate issue but yeah so you would have basically the IEB's reports and the attestations to review as part of the application except though Todd if the IEB reveals information that might be particularly sensitive or you know might require an adjudicatory hearing much like we have had in the past right and then you know us voting to go to executive session I mean wouldn't we have to allow for that during that temporary process and this gets back to the chair's question as to whether or not that fits within this preliminary process and just to clarify that Mr. Skinner I think Todd raised the question about you know there are the stakes of that full-suitability report does lay out the constitutional stakes and that was what we were concerned with also we didn't what you're concerned about and this is where I don't have a solve what we're concerned about is we we will have to be in a public meeting because it's part of our evaluation process right we don't have an exception to go into executive session so we we don't have a method to get to be able to ask questions that are awkward sensitive you know privacy related and I don't know if I don't know if anybody can think of another avenue but I the adjudicatory hearing we didn't go into executive session we just went we can go public private in the adjudicatory here okay so we just said we'd like to go private we weren't in an executive session so in executive session I don't think I don't think Todd that we think that there's a a mechanism or unless you know is it during is there something an exemption for an application process no it would have to be limited to I don't have it right in front of me but there is one executive session provision that might arguably apply relative to discussing one's reputation essentially but they would have to be present or allowed to be present with counsel and there are restrictions on what you could discuss there but there may be some way to get into executive session to talk about something like that but if not then again my question is how do we deal with information that IEB may yield in during their preliminary suitability review you would just have to talk about it in public yeah and that might include that the applicant just might end up being fully suitable but based on the information available at that point you can't you doesn't pass that preliminary test and so isn't that approach though inconsistent with what we talked about I think maybe in March or early April in terms of going to a judicatory hearing route I think that's because of the difference between preliminary and final yes I understand but I think we've I think we we have to address I mean we have to no I I I see the tension yeah I see the tension yeah but it is it is and because we're in a different proceeding we're in that evaluative you know process and it's a public meeting that has to be and Madam Chair I wasn't disagreeing with you on that point earlier I think the part I was maybe fixating on a little bit is there there is a and it's important to keep in mind that the evaluative part is slightly different even within one process than making sure that there is not a basis to find an applicant or their qualifiers unsuitable under the statute that's not a necessarily competitive process it that that's a that's that's what the at the stations really get to is not is not really a comparative criteria at that point and that's why you might be able to and to Todd's point I can envision some some executive session purposes but admittedly they're narrow and they come with restrictions and they kind of have to arise on a case-by-case basis whether you could use them if you're using an open meeting process for the sake of the regs drafting of the regs I I wonder if it makes sense for us to hearing this discussion take this back and to try to separate out the two processes and it sounds like and I go just looking for confirmation on this starting with the the easier one the suitability a full suitability determination that that would refer back to the 100 series understanding that what is in there may have changed since it was last read and and there may be an update to 115 that's needed as well for the temporary I think we need to think a little bit more about when in the process the commission reviews the the recommendation based on attestation and open source and what it does with that that piece of it at that point can I just have one clarifying question meaning to your your your your concern about what I'm hearing is that perhaps during the preliminary finding on suitability IEB could come back and say there's a bunch of concerning stuff but I didn't think IEB was coming back and saying we find them unsuitable because they won't have enough information to make that finding but they but they on a comparative basis we could we would be able to give that weight but I never thought that at this juncture there was ever going to be a finding of suitability or unsuitability and so that's why I didn't have your worry because in Loretta and you're are you nodding your head or my I am I'm in agreement with the way you're just discussing it describing it except Madam Chair and Director Lilio so if there's enough concerning information that you've discovered you know I might want to have the opportunity to question the applicant about that concerning at first I'd want to know what the concerning information is and I'd want to question the opportunity anyway to question the applicant so whether or not yeah so whether or not we are making a suitability determination I think there's still information that you know we we should consider not having in the public forum just for purposes of the evaluative process well I can let you know this piece because this was discussed at length over many many meetings during the full suitability and and Nina and Todd can explain it better I believe all the adjudicatory hearings and the full suitability discussion are all public that's right they they asked every Pearson question in public there was lots of sensitive uncomfortable information discussed in public that's just how it was and I think what we were thinking of at the preliminary stage would be either someone that very obviously would be it's very limited it'd be someone that very obviously falsely certifies or attests for instance they say they meet all the criteria but we know that last week they were they had their license revoked more that's that's public knowledge it's it's a you know easy matter of fact to determine that that's when they would might might not be found suitable upfront do we have that in the checkbox or something on the application or is in the reg already where we we would make that finding then or don't they just get this is there just a is it a you're out the application you know a lack of truthfulness is an automatic disqualifier that is usually discovered through a verification process and we will not be doing independent verifications for this part of the process so the type of thing that might be helpful to you in this part of the process is you look at the summary of the self-disclosed compliance history and when you weigh you know one company's compliance history coupled with the fact that they self disclose that yes they have you know they have been assessed fines but they've always paid them right away you know compared to someone else who is you know has has more robust fines and is in arrears that may be helpful to you but the lack of truthfulness would be difficult to establish at this preliminary stage and I think that we're we're we're close here right I think you know Commissioner Skinner's feeling of pain we can explore the we can explore explore options from a public meeting or asking any questions that come up but in terms of I think we should probably move on I think Nina you've heard us and need some clarification on this this is really such a critical evaluation and the ultimate finding a suitability for the category ones and category twos and then you know final up to sevens Director Wells do you want to add anything while you're sitting there thinking about this process yeah I mean I think I agree that the smart move right now would be for the team to go back and you just move on with these marries and looking at the number of rights for the day and I know you've got a lot on your plate okay let's continue and madam chair before uh before we do my apologies I have to step away for just half an hour so I will leave you with with paul and and the rest of team for briefly okay we're probably going to need to step away yeah let's go say we're past the lunch break time anyway oh you had a good point to just end or did you have some other I think pausing between uh 2501 suitability and 2502 persons required to be qualified as a natural place to break thank you all right so half hour lunch break pushers and team does that sound good thank you appreciate it um we'll be back at um let's make it up to a thank you jordan how's the weather down your neck of the woods in west roxbury beautiful I call that self of here right so down down where you are but it's spectacular up here it's it's beautiful I just walked outside during our brief break and enjoyed a little bit of the sunshine hmm kind of get chilly this weekend though they say how is it so is it um I don't know how close you are to the ocean and if there's a breeze or makes a difference uh the breeze today is very strong actually and I think that's the front that's going to be moving in the cold air actually the leaves are blowing let me say that by the way a crow flies I think I'm about a mile and a half from the ocean I'm about six and a half or maybe maybe six so by the crow so I'm uh we don't get the same breeze here but every now and then on a on a clear day I can smell the ocean from here I'll see if I can send you a little bit today yeah okay Dave thank you all set thanks so much Dave okay we're returning and beating after I'm still not able to turn my video on it says the host has stopped it is that you or it probably was me sorry I'll I'll get you back I realized I didn't pop there you go thank you I didn't properly for the record called today's meeting to order the number which is a significant number public meeting number 399 so we are reconvening public meeting number 399 thank you everyone for the lunch break and we're going to get started again after our virtual roll call from Commissioner Bryan I am here thank you good afternoon Commissioner Hill I'm here and Commissioner Skinner I'm here thank Commissioner Maynard I am here excellent thank you all right Paul where do we begin now so we resume the bottom half of page packet page 83 thank you so the first subsection here subsection one lists identifies who a company's qualifiers are largely tracks the section five of chapter 23 and which lists the individuals who are required to be qualified for licensure there are some tweaks where we do not precisely track the language of section five to reflect the experience of the IEB and the practicalities of this review so you can see for example that in subsection one a three we've deleted the language who has the and who has the ability to control the activities of the applicant that's based on the IEB's experience that as a general rule somebody in possession of 10% or or the common stock of a company has sufficient ability to control the activities of the applicant that we want them to be qualified it also makes establishing that presumption also makes the IEB's life easier by not requiring them to make an individualized determination in the first instance for every 10% owner and it the commission's residual discretion is pardon me the IEB's residual discretion to waive a particular qualification requirement for a 10% owner who cannot influence affairs remains intact in a subsequent section most the general structure of this tracks what's been done for gaming and what's been done in racing in the racing application we just we break this out by the types of corporate entities and the types of owners or managers that they might have the IEB retains and the commission retains discretion to require other individuals who don't fit the precise categories described here to meet suitability requirements as qualifiers the waiver let moving on to the bottom of packet page 84 subsection three waivers is structured quite similarly I don't pardon me I don't recall whether it is identical to the comparable section in the 100 series the point here is that institutional investors and in rare circumstances other individuals may have may not actually have or intend to exercise control of the applicant and there should be a certain amount of discretion to take them out of the licensing process language in 23 and a slightly different on that correct director leos is that the issue or no 23 k gives an absolute maximum of 15 percent for institutional investors and states even the statute states even if they exercise no control if they're at more than 15 percent the institutional investors cannot be waived that 15 percent absolute limit is not a provision of 23 and so what we've done here is we've maintained the 15 percent threshold but the applicant would have the ability to seek a waiver for an institutional investor regardless of the 15 percent so we're maintaining it as an initial threshold but the waiver option remains available we would then do an analysis of control thank you um subsection for the process for qualification of new qualifiers is consistent with the 100 series the comparable provision in the 100 series as is subsection five initial internal review of determinations which is the process for people who have been determined to be qualifiers who believe they should not be called determined to be qualifiers to effectively appeal to the commission any questions for Paul all set all right onwards to packet page 89 or pardon me 87 and 219 temporary licensing procedures as Mina explained earlier this is designed to track these specific process set out in the statute for the issuance of temporary licenses um that process contemplates a specific request being given to the commission and the check being cut and so here we walk the here we set out those steps we walk the applicant through those steps that specific statutory process is why we cover this in a separate reg with that rather than embedding it in 205 cm r2 18 um the steps i'll come back to it 1901 in a moment um because to 1902 should be straightforward these steps are meant to be ministerial because all of the hard decisions have been made in the 205 cm r2 18 process that's why the deadlines are relatively short although with understanding that the commission has going to have plenty on its plate uh as will staff we've still given a matter of weeks rather than a matter of uh we still given everyone weeks to work with um 201 eligibility to request temporary license i just want to point out one thing about how that's working um so there are two sub paragraphs here a and b these are cross references to um these are cross references to the sections of 218 where the commission can either find an applicant preliminarily suitable and beam them eligible to request a temporary license or find them durably suitable and issue them a full license um of course we need uh a person to be eligible to request a temporary license if the commission has deemed them eligible to request a temporary license um the reason that we also that this reg also allows somebody who has been awarded a full license to request a temporary license um is to give the commission some flexibility in a policy discussion that may come up in future regs um that i don't want i i'm i'm i don't want to go into in full depth now um because this the only consequence of this structure is that the commission will have the option in the future um if temporary if the commission is interested in having temporary licensure uh be an option to bypass any individual requirement for the issuance of an operation certificate um in the short run for example occupational licensing which will be likely an extended process um you could issue a temporary this will give you the option to issue a temporary license to an entity that has received a full license award so that that entity can begin operating under a temporary license while the full suitability review and the remaining operation requirements are pardon me while the remaining operational requirements are being met this is particularly i particularly have in mind category one applicants who are well known to the commission and for whom you may be positioned to make a full sign finding a suitability earlier missions paul i'm not sure i followed that line of discussion um could you could you just go over that again certainly uh it's it's moving it's involves moving parts and regs that you haven't uh that you haven't seen yet and i um i'm sure i could have explained it more clearly pardon me um there may be applicants whom the commission is prepared to deem um fully suitable earlier in the process particularly category one applicants who are well known to the commission um if the commission so you might those um the main the main function of this reg is that the main function of this provision in this reg is that if there are operational requirements such as occupational licensing that the commission uh would like to allow operators to bypass using to bypass so that they can become operational sooner and there are applicants who may have been deemed fully suitable uh on the same timeline that other applicants are being deemed preliminarily suitable the commission should have the option to pardon me the applicants who are deemed fully suitable need the option to request a temporary license to have the same ability to bypass those those operational requirements so why wouldn't the regulation have been uh drafted with the requirement that the applicant also obtain the operational certificate move forward i i think so i karen if you could help me out here i think what we've talked about is the temporary license as and then sort of a secondary process being the uh the uh what is it the certificate of operation so you're muted karen but i guess my question is why wouldn't that that certificate process that certificate of operation process be drafted within this regulation well i think it's if we're just looking operationally there's a couple things to bear in mind so talk let's just use the competitive process of the untethered category freeze those licenses will be preliminarily picked so the commission will whittle it down to up to seven at that point operationally two things are going to happen the i e b is going to do the investigation into the individual qualifiers that preliminary investigation and also gli is going to do uh the check of their internal controls house rules uh all the processes to give the operation certificate i did talk to kevin malaly about this the other day if we if the commission approves the internal controls that should be part of the of the licensing so technically there's a preliminary decision about who would get these licenses but the temporary license would not actually issue until the certificate of operations is granted they will be simultaneous but they are two different processes does that make sense it does but again why wouldn't we embed that process into these regulations well i can jump in on that one if i may caron mean it touched on this a little bit earlier the reason it's not here before you today is that we haven't yet crafted the technical standards and the house rules and all the things that will likely be the subject of the operation certificate so we wouldn't be able to present to you an operation certificate section with any type of precision and those will be forthcoming but they weren't ready yet and that's why it's not before you but you should certainly be aware that that is an important part of the process that comes after the licensing of the entities so that that's the answer to that question i think it's also important to recognize and paul touched on this as well but just to make sure we're all on the same page here this whole temporary licensing section is important of course because chapter 23 n talks about temporary licensing and we have to assign some meaning to that um and make sure it's worked into the program that we are rolling out here this is the proposal under which we will do that where we're we're saying that essentially once the commission makes a licensing decision if the full suitability review has not been completed which is likely particularly in the case of the untethered operators that we're not going to award a full operator license to them instead it makes them eligible to request a temporary license as the statute described and talks about and to do that you have to go through the steps that are laid out in this regulation which include the payment of the million dollar fee and a finding by the executive director that the house rules are in place and she makes a recommendation to the commission so there's a couple of moving parts here but i think it is important to understand why this temporary licensing regulation is in front of you in the first place is this that clarify any of this it does thank you and i do remember me not touching on that earlier could you just remind me when we can expect those other regulations those companion regulations and i guess i'm wondering at the end of the day whether it makes sense to hold these off for review or for vote anyway until those other regulations are before us well we certainly do have to circle back with the suitability the the previous suitability section that we talked about anyway with respect to 2019 specifically i'm referring to yeah i know definitely one that we're talking about now yeah well i think for reasons that we can talk about it does make sense to move the whole package together just for administrative reasons and i i don't think there's necessarily any downside there to the extent the commission though can is comfortable with certain parts of this and can authorize its approval to move through the process that will be helpful just so we don't have to bring it back those parts of it back again but with the understanding that we wouldn't file it until you have approved the whole suite of regulations here as to when the the suite in front of us today the suite in front of you today and that could include the operation certificate piece i know we we do have a working draft we haven't really had an opportunity to work through that yet i think it's in the pipeline though and i don't know paul if you have any other insight into that but i think it's coming relatively soon it should be coming relatively soon and i i would add we haven't looked at uh 220 or 218 yet today but both 218 and 220 both make clear that operations only take place subject to an operation certificate mr skinner could i understand more clearly what your objections are on this one so that you know i'm trying we'd love to keep on moving things through so what is it that you're concerned about most of maybe we can come up with a song i'm just i would want to see the certificate of operations process laid out in connection with the temporary license piece and so that we can consider those as a whole but i but i don't tot i hear what you're saying moving the package the suite of regulations in front of us today forward but why couldn't we why couldn't we take a vote on the sports wagering application fee um regulation 214 for example for um 221 the license fee why couldn't we do that separately if we were we were ready to okay all i'm suggesting and kary can jump in on this is that for filing purposes with the secretary it will be helpful if we can file them all together i'm not saying you can't approve parts of them separately but just so we were understanding one another um and we can get into more detail on this and kary can offer a lot more color to what i'm saying um it would be helpful if we file them all together commissioners skitter if i commissioner oh sorry commission hell were you leaning forward or no okay mean us sorry sorry i didn't mean to jump in uh mad chair but on the operation certificate in particular i just to reiterate something i think i may have mentioned earlier part of i think that the the drafting of the certificate of excuse me the reg itself is not terribly cumbersome it follows 151 oh three and we've largely done that i think the one catch where i would be careful about waiting to promulgate all of these regulations this this package of regulations until you've finalized the equivalent of 251 which is the equivalent of 151 is that i think there's been a discussion at past meetings of making sure that applicants know what the application process looks like as they're putting that in and the operation certificate ties back much more so to the operational regs um again testing testing requirements etc so i i think as paul said we're only you know we're not talking about much longer before you see it but at the same time it it may be worthwhile to keep that one with things like testing technology etc because that's that's really what it reflects it's the final sign up yeah i hear you and i'm not suggesting that we hold off on on taking a vote on the entirety of the package but certainly 219 i really would like to see what that certificate of operation process is going to look like so commissioners how i'm going to take a little bit of a straw ball here commissioner skinner forgive me i want to keep things moving along i'm hearing that there's a need for a different reg honestly there's probably lots of regs that are all going to be all folding in together um down the road um is there anyone who's uncomfortable with them the the reg as written here as you know i know that there may be another part but we're going to have a chance to evaluate the part but as it's written here is there anything that's concerning so madam chair i i said specifically asked to have a chat with kary and katelyn on 219 for exactly the reasons that commissioner skinner's talking about because when i read it on its face i had concerns you know they pointed me to some of the other sections that address some of them and i hear what commissioner skinner is saying i shared those limitations i think in terms of trying to move forward it might be helpful with instead of this is forthcoming i mean it's my understanding that we were supposed to get those kind of today um the operations certificate regs are supposed to kind of hit review at least internally for us um so to buy the end of this week if the staff can tell us whether or not they're still on track for that how much behind maybe that is that would be helpful and then um i hear what they're saying about i'm not done madam chair sorry they're saying about logistically for the secretary of state's office sort of batching these together um but if we're talking about waiting a week can we still batch these together and is there a chance the operation certificate is rolled in or is that not realistic on the timeline commissioner brian could i just ask a precise question what what i don't understand why what is wrong with the reg as written so the two concerns that i had where it does not make it explicitly clear within the four corners of that one that you need the operation certificate now if you go further down there's discussions i think it's 220 that they flag where it does reference that and so that gave me comfort but in terms of what commissioner skinner is saying in terms of the actual details of what that's going to mean what that operation certificate requirement reg is going to be um i think i don't know and i don't want to put words in your mouth commissioner skinner but i don't know that's certainly you're yeah you're exactly right and just to clarify i there's nothing in 219 that i am uncomfortable with my request is just to review 219 in conjunction with the certificate of uh uh operations regulations particularly because as commissioner o'brien pointed out there's nothing in that in 219 that explicitly says you know you may be granted a temporary license but you can't operate until you've got this other piece figured out you know approved so that's really not that language yeah absolutely no we absolutely can have paul and me now i'm trying to find this as we're talking here i know we had that that language exists somewhere i'm trying to very last paragraph of 218 todd it should be in red line in 218 yes i knew i saw it somewhere okay um let's go across the page number or add a few extra words it's okay you know i have it at 118 118 yeah so it says shall not conduct sports wagering till it meets all all applicable requirements of 23 and in 205 cmr it doesn't specifically say operation certificate but i assume that would obviously i was i drafted that um someone more expansively out of the concern that if we mentioned operation certificates the exclusion of something else right as you said we don't want to open the door to that conversation right well let me just add one other thing this is really just for administrative purposes just so you understand you can't really not limited to well you can't technically file a site to a rig that doesn't exist and so that's why we're kind of hamstrung here a little bit as we're moving parts along in different stages and that's so ideally where you see it says just 205 cmr it wouldn't say 205 cmr 251 or whatever it's going to be but they probably wouldn't accept the filing so we that's why it doesn't say that yeah can we presume it that um the um the certificate is going to be a defined term you mean in the definition section yeah it's going to be a defined term could we reference it here and make sure it's just not the only um that it's not exclusive to anything else and and call that a solve and move on would that work if as long as they know i'm hearing my fellow commissioners say we want to make it clear it's abundantly clear i seriously yeah that you're not going to be able to operate with a temporary licensure um license unless that's our policy decision right Paul absolutely what is it with that policy decision um even is that really what we're saying here now um thank you speaking so for subsection four it would read any temporary license of the subject to conditions according to mgl chapter 23 and in 205 cmr 220 including not limited to an operation certificate is that the kind of thing you're thinking and that's Paul's thinking because Paul's thinking hard right now and i can tell but we're missing something i think um i would want to give a a little bit of thought to whether the operation certificate is best described as a condition or an independent requirement um so it would it could either be in that paragraph that subsection four or a new subsection five that would look very much like what you just saw in 218 um but certainly there is a way to incorporate uh to incorporate that idea without hamstring the commissions without either creating vulnerabilities or hamstring the commission's ability to put requirements elsewhere i would just want to think a little bit about the overall structure of um this universe of regulations michael skinner do you have a suggestion other than passing it down you know where i was what i was going to say you know um kicking the can i'm looking for solves i'm looking for ideas well i mean but i don't have the same worry so i mean no i don't have the same worry to say we need to put it off no i'm i'm saying kicking the can like you know just loosely i'm not there was no um i don't have the same worry so i'm not i'm not really thinking of a solve may i make a suggestion about the order of uh discussion i'm wondering if it would be helpful to put a pin in this for the moment move along to 220 um and see whether and and assess the commission's comfort once 220 has been fully discussed does that make sense everybody and and and i mean it wasn't meaning especially just getting next week and i'm just hoping to try to operate on it today with a solve so i'm looking for solves i understand the request to to push it down um all right let's go to um hit stop the beginning of page 89 is that right that's correct um okay so these are uh these are the conditions that will be inserted on all licenses um the commission must pardon me the operator must comply with all terms and conditions of its license of course it must comply with all terms and conditions of its operation certificate it must comply with chapter 23 n uh and all rules and regulations that the commission found whether in the 200 series or elsewhere it must make its payments in a timely manner it must maintain its suitability um and it must conduct sports wagering in accordance with its approved system of internal controls uh and in accordance with its house rules and you will see again we do not have as specific 205 cmr sites as we would like because we know that we'll get dinged if we try to file these with cross references to um to regulations that do not yet exist um it also the commission also retains the flexibility to impose uh any other license conditions that are appropriate um in 2202 we add the additional condition for temporary licenses the temporary licenses are of are of fixed duration they will either expire when the commission makes its supplemental that is durable finding of suitability or they will expire uh in one year if the commission makes the durable finding of suitability within one year or they will last five years which is the lifespan of of an ordinary license and there's no reason that a temporary license should last longer than that Paul you said earlier that you didn't like the idea or you needed more time to assess the idea of including the operations certificate requirement in in this particular section as a condition because why pardon pardon me uh I wanted I would want to assess whether in 2019 uh subsection 04 we would describe the operation certificate as uh as a condition or whether it's simply an independent requirement this I am I am comfortable that this that this regulatory structure makes absolutely clear that an operator cannot operate without an operation certificate I will try not to use the word operator three times three times in five words again in the near future um but if it is uh if it is ultimately if the commission ultimately decides that there should be additional language in 2019 uh adding another express requirement that the operation certificate be obtained I would just want to think slightly about uh how best to phrase that okay so just on a bit of a non-sequitur but related to the section we're talking about Carrie and Caitlyn you guys describe this to me in terms of my unease with the um or shall expire after five years um that just seemed like a really long time to be operating on a temporary license I feel like we would have to be in quite a bit of a chaotic state if we couldn't come up with suitability in that time I remember getting off the call feeling a little more comfortable with that so I don't know Carrie's still here or someone can talk to me about why a temp would have to run as long as five years I am here though I only have to defer to Caitlyn on this because I think she answered this if she's here I think she answered this question for you there's Caitlyn hi guys thank you uh so Mina and Paul can can correct me if I'm wrong here but I think that was just a truly truly outside situation um because licenses uh would be uh issued for five year periods and so this would give us the ability to go the full five years if it in sort of a really unprecedented situation where suitability took that long but I don't think anyone would expect that it would take the full five years so it's just not setting a deadline prior to that five-year general term and anyone can jump in if that's not accurate so I guess that's what and I wanted to ask Loretta's feedback on that because to me as a commissioner would have to make the determination I mean I could be gone at that point right so it's like you go five years and it's like a totally different body um whether we should really be settling on something two and a half three something shorter than the five it just strikes me as excessively long um but I'm happy to hear what Loretta has to say and other commissioners have to say yeah um so we have used that language in the vendor context of that the the temp wouldn't expire until the term of the first term of the license it is a three-year term for the primary vendors uh so I also would not expect you know we've got resources at our disposal that we can you know after this process we can expect to move right into the full suitability process right so we're not planning on the five-year process but there is a belt and suspenders approach like if something were to come up that were to take a lot of time uh you know that that's available to us that needs to be evaluated in conjunction with that when a company does receive a temporary license they are still under the obligation to be making the routine disclosures to us so it's not like the temp issues and we don't see any ongoing information until we do the full we are monitoring ongoing disclosures and real-time matters so actually right so that's what's what's interesting to me is when you say we you mean IED and I've been here five years almost at this point and there've been a couple of circumstances where everybody working as hard as they can I still feel like as a commissioner I get a suitability put in front of me that's a little stellar than I want and so maybe baking into this is after a certain amount of time there's got to be an update from IED something else that addresses the fact that I as a commissioner would want some sort of update prior to five years running on a temp license yeah and maybe I'm the only one but yeah now I agree with that commissioner Ryan particularly since all it takes for the temporary license to issue is that bulk recorded suitability review that attestation process which is not sufficient to carry out your term yeah well one thing that this reflects and commissioner Ryan's brought up a good point is that it really puts everything with IED and 23 and is a little different because it's kind of in the commission you know a little bit more the role of the commission so this doesn't give us any discretion is there any way to address commissioner Ryan's point by because here it would be you know let's say we don't have director Lilio set the helm you know and it's 15 years and none of our faces are here right what's best for the commission in common law I'll go ahead I was going to jump into you I thought I missed that I think there are a few things to I think there are a few things to recognize first is that the commission the commission receives information from the IED after the issuance of temporary license that indicates that the applicant was never or has ceased to be suitable the commission has all of its statutory and regulatory authority to suspend or revoke that license I am I certainly see the reason to um although I defer to Loretta on process to build in some ongoing reporting on temporary licensees I would be inclined to put that requirement in somewhere in the universe of operational regulations rather than in the universe of uh license issuance regulations because I think that that that those ongoing reports really speak to to existing operators rather than than incoming operators um I heard that under the statute the temporary license is only good up to a year or until a or until both sort of ability and okay so so what we're saying is up to until then I guess I always thought it was going to be shorter than a year yeah I know uh you know and so and so they give a million dollars and so now there's a built-in thing about all the things that can go wrong in terms of the suitability review the full suitability review meanwhile the operator is in market five years just to be clear with still one million dollars still only having paid one million dollars and the truncated suitability so thank you so not not fully suitable one million dollars five years not a million dollars each year right one million dollars gets to play in the sports market and at the end of the day well you know they were suitable that's great news we didn't have a big risk end of the day not suitable then they got five years in the market for a million dollars so how do we how do we make this a practical problem go away should it be five years guys madam chair um I joined commissioner brian and commissioner skinner and and seemed like you and and sharing this problem um if anything I'm not you know I'm going to try to be consistent here I mean there should be a deadline in which full suitability should be complete and just to that point commissioner we could plan out and we can plan for resources what we can't plan for is when we find an issue you know that needs to be peeled back and interviews conducted potentially subpoenas issued you know those are the kinds of things that it really can extend the time so maybe an option would be to because I certainly here in Kathy when you talk about the you know the fee as well the five million dollar fee you know maybe scaling the five years back uh some to a four year or a three year with a an escape valve that the IEB can ask for permission you know based on some kind of briefing at the same time we want to be cautious because if there is some kind of investigative issue matter that's going to cause us to need to do more work um yes of course we would keep the commission apprised but we need to do so in a manner that will preserve your impartiality for the period when the full suitability is performed and you can hold your hearing in a in a way that's uh limited to the information that you get in the hearing and from the from the report to be fair to to the licensee so I think there's a way here to address the uh the concerns um but you know just speaking pure deadlines as if it's just a matter of uh you know completing a certain kind of work uh can can sometimes miss the mark when it comes to uh the unpredictable things that can can come up in an investigation. Commissioner Maynard. Director I I want to be clear that's not what I was getting at I'm really just looking for the target and then of course I don't think anybody on this commission would if you came to us and said you know we need additional time without going into anything that would compromise us making a decision long term that we would not grant that additional time but there should be a target date right and and uh and to Commissioner Brian's point I like the idea of of getting some regular updates along the way too. Great so is it even to your point is it you know something like you know and I'm thinking like split in the big like two and a half years I mean three even still sounds long to me and I know you guys have way more entities than you were sitting with at any time even with the RV ones um but if it were somewhere in that two and a half three-year range and then something is baked into this reg that allows for extensions no greater than a total of five that the IEB can come and ask for um on an annual basis semi-annual basis whatever it is from us you know that way it's really you can give limited information and even to your point you know we have new information it's going to take us at least X to to run this down so we need another six months on the 10th okay yeah yeah I like the sound of that I mean I would ask to suggest the proposed the three years I'm just mindful that in the gaming context it was hundreds of contract investigators full time there was no other work that was had to be performed right and it was you know 11 uh 11 applicants I think 11 or 12 applicants uh and took you've got more than Karen yeah took well over over a year and now we've got you know we're in a building stage of staff where you know regulating existing casinos will be regulating you know unlike um you know gaming the suitability was done and then there was the construction process that kind of gave us time to build here license issue and we're enforcing right away yeah I mean unfortunately you had 23k first if you had a 23n it would you know it's just this is just a different law but your point and this is another one I'm going to put on the record if I understand this Mina in fall because of the number of potential operators um you know assuming you know the whole you know the seven final have been picked the up to seven rounds been picked I think it's about 16 potential um that takes a lot of time to do the full suitability so when we talked last week Mina about if the temporary licensure language went away we wouldn't have this one million dollar problem at the at the beginning so if we keep this language in here and it doesn't get addressed somehow through the magic of something they could be operating for not just one year at just a million dollars but possibly two years and now we're saying a compromise of three years and unless we give a good faith extension which commissioner maynard has proposed so we're not getting that five million dollar application fee for a long time and that's unfortunate for the common law if the legislation if that's six language went away we could start to collect the full application fees right Mina correct yeah I think that's exactly right the you know that just to be clear the reason it says five is so that no one could argue it's seven or eight or whatever happens in the world which I cannot imagine happening with director Lovellios at the helm but in a different world um but that is entirely the the reason for for that oh I'm not worried about the five years I think we've already solved that yeah I think we're good but in terms of the the five million dollars absolutely I mean I think that's you're stuck without the statute at the moment yeah without their language sorry go ahead commissioner I apologize I know is there language Mina in 23 and that would would prevent the commission from attaching conditions to any extensions of the temporary licensor license excuse me so as IEB is presenting and requesting an extension just giving an update as to the status of their investigation should the commission approve it is there the ability to also attach conditions to that approval one such being the payment of you know another million dollars you know or whatever the fee is proportional to the amount of time the temporary license is effective commissioner skitter I would say as 23 and is written now that would be a difficult it would be a difficult proposition I think there are some conditions you could impose but I also can you know I think see see a challenge that someone would say that's adding a financial amount and turning it into more than a temporary license isn't there and I I tend to agree with the chair that this is something best resolved by clarifying the legislation I could see a condition about limiting a full operator license in a way that they have to do further suitability for instance and converting it from from the preliminary to a full suitability subject XYZ conditions more easily than I could see conditioning a temporary license under section six okay I don't have 23 and in front of me so I'll accept that but I just okay thank you thank you so I think we've got some just some clarification I think you heard the discussion on that last piece was there anything else Commissioner O'Brien on that point that you know I mean in ideal world I'd like to do it annually but I also recognize even before I raise the comment that the sheer breadth of the numbers in the work doesn't make that realistic but I would like you know you know I heard the red ass for three given the whole context I could live with that with the understanding that anything up to the five they'd have to come back to us to ask for approval to extend and then even then I'd like an update you know if it's not done at the end of the year even if they just I don't want it not brought to our attention that they're still out there and either we have a lot of business in front of us that will continue to be in front of us so baked in there and that could be operationally that IB comes back with us annually for the status of all of them and in particular has to come for the board for approval to extend attempt beyond three so is it up to three though I mean is that where you're comfortable with or do you want to make a different proposal I'd like it a little bit shorter but I'm also hearing Loretta with the sheer amount of work and I trust your judgment in terms of what's I don't want to add more work to IV I am struggling with the fact that the risk averse part of me is not really thrilled with the truncated suitability that launches this so I'm trying to balance that with the practicality of the level of work that's going to have to go into this number of betting whether it's two and a half or three I feel more comfortable splitting baby at two and a half myself but I hear Loretta on the three so I would defer to my fellow commissioners on what the comfort level is across the board as a grandmother I'm having trouble with the splitting baby well you don't have to right you'll I don't want to think about okay so commissioners help my commissure O'Brien out where do you want to go I would go I would look at three years okay for sure Maynard I have to defer to what the director is saying I will say to Commissioner O'Brien's point the way I look at it is this way this temporary process has to happen if not what I'm hearing is that it would take three years before anyone got a license to conduct sports during a Massachusetts so I look at this conundrum kind of going the other way so but I hear you it would make me more comfortable the shorter it is on that temporary process that's a good point um Commissioner Maynard it it got put in in the statute contemplates the truncated process so okay so you've got some guidance some three years plus a requirement for the bureau to come back to the commission and again so we're saying no event greater than five um will like how are we phrasing it saying they have to come back at three and they could ask for extensions up to five are we capping it at three or up to two right up to two additional years is that what you're saying right oh just trying to make sure we're all on the same page with it's the languages there a year till it goes in but at no event greater than then you know three unless i.e. comes before the commission with good grounds for continuance but in no event shall it be more than five I mean it seems a little in no event comes in there twice but is that that's all what we're agreeing to is that a fair summary yep okay that sounds good can we move on then and thank you that's really helpful thank you thank you at director lios okay madam chair I apologize I need to step away I believe me and I was planning to take 221 thanks Paul all right so this brings us to the last one which I is a again very very similar to 214 in in the sense that it starts with the recitation of the fees it does call out this this point that the chair made the temporary licenses licensees pay a million full licenses pay five million and that there's a credit of the one million towards the five so that that's the first two sections essentially as noted I think last time we spoke about 218 the process contemplates a payment of the license fee immediately on award of the license rather than the operation certificate so the money comes in sooner unless the commission determines otherwise there is also a process to make sure that the other regulatory costs of the commission are covered similar to the gaming model in 23k again this is taken right from in this case 121 I believe 120 as well Derek and among others have had a chance to not more than a chance to look look at this Derek and commissioner Skinner reviewed and and weighed in on this as well so this one I think is fairly straightforward but happy to take questions any questions so you want to do you want him to walk you through it are we all set Derek do you have anything you want to comment on oh I just want to say thank you to commissioner Skinner as well as Mina and the NK staff and our internal team for reviewing this you know I think they cleaned it up nicely I think they followed the statute as well as referenced our budgetary process that happens in 121 so I think it's a pretty clean pretty straightforward reg the one piece that you know you do want to pay attention to is the fact that there is that one million dollar contribution that we have to assess to the public health trust fund that would be born by all licensees except category one sports wagering licensees and they already have to pay five million dollars to the public health trust fund which is why they were not included in this process and not included as part of the statute and it's prorated is that how it works yes and and we have language in there so it's prorated as their share of adjusted gross sports wagering receipts and similar to what we did with with gaming prior to any operations going on or actual gaming positions being open it's based on their anticipated adjusted gross sports wagering receipts which is what we asked for as part of the application so having that is very helpful and then we can adjust backwards after after actual receipts come in Mr. Skinner anything you want to add no I think Mina and Derek covered it I see John has turned his camera on so we should include him in that long list of folks we need to thank for their work on this rank excellent no questions commissioners all right excellent we'll move right on Mina to page now Carrie that's the full set under the operator licensing framework friends I don't know if you want to discuss 2018 before you sort of make any other decisions on these or how you want to handle that um we're moving on to that was the last of those do we need to revisit anything Mina I don't think so Madam Chair I do think I know Todd wanted to was going to guide Todd and Kerry we're going to guide you through the changes to 2018 which obviously fit in the middle of this but that but I don't think there's anything else on the new ones from today so from what we just went through you're all set yeah thank you for all the feedback appreciate it thanks and thank you for the great work thank you okay Todd and Kerry okay well let's jump right into 2018 of course these before you are amendments to the draft that you took a look at last week we're starting on page 105 of the commissioners packet that's the clean version of the draft and you can see the red line version at page 112 of the commissioners packet I think it might be again helpful just to walk through the clean version and I can try to point out the edits that were made if that's helpful so you don't want to go to the red line for that well we of course we can it's a little bit trickier to navigate but then they can see the natural language that's on page that's 112 because we spent a good deal amount of time on this last week yes yes so let's start at just an 01 real quick only because it came up earlier so that's the section that talks about addressing questions about the application procedures whether it's by way of convening a consultation meeting of the applicants or taking inquiries and then posting answers on FAQ on the website or what have you the only adjustment in light of the conversation today that I might recommend is that we add in in addition to sports wage during license applicants add in or prospective applicants because they may not have submitted an application yet and we just want to make sure that we cover that that's just a little detail that could be helpful if there's no objection to that now we're on to 02 so this is a section that was amended a little bit it was reorganized and ultimately it's it's fairly similar but it clarifies that the commission can extend certain deadlines for entire categories of applicants or just parts of the application that's in reference to things like the scoping survey and other parts of the application that fall into different groups or whether it's just part of the application itself just adds a little more flexibility into the process for the commission to address any issue that may arise in the course of the submission process it does not paint the commission into any corner just gives you additional tools to navigate including if things like a certain category of applications will not be ready by the November deadline the commission is able to extend that deadline set a new deadline deal with it in any manner it sees fit so that's the whole purpose of 118.02 is to establish that there will be a deadline but that the commission has the ability to extend it or modify it. If I may interject just on a practical level in my reading of this I think that should we get an inquiry and we at least have one inquiry about if you've missed the deadline can we still apply and my response to that applicant or any future applicant saying that is that if you have missed a deadline you must petition the commission and that would potentially be you know heard of the public meeting so I just want to make sure I'm in line with what you're thinking is with respect to this if someone for example had not submitted the scoping survey by the 17th deadline I was going to respond by saying you know seat 205 CMR 218.02 you must submit a petition to the commission it's the commission's discretion whether or not to allow that to proceed then is that everyone's understanding does that make sense and Todd way yeah so no I was just I'm sorry for my silence I was just reading through the language to make sure that's covered so I believe what Karen is talking about is discussed in it's it's 128.02 it's 1a so we want to make sure that that circumstance would be covered there so that's an application submitted after a given deadline this past the commission may decline to take any action or particular action on that application until it's made the final licensing decision so that was intended to be flexible to allow you to accept it or not to accept it then there's 118.02 which says that the commission has no obligation to accept a review an incomplete application submitted by the deadline or an application submitted after the deadline except where it's permitted otherwise and you know we might actually want to clarify if the commission wants broader discretion to accept an application that's submitted late but doesn't meet any of these requirements if you want to still take it we might want to be even clearer as a practical matter if there is an applicant they're not going to that has missed a deadline they're not going to want to submit a potential applicant they're not going to want to submit the $200 application fee if it's just going to be denied because they missed the application I understand that so that's why I'm thinking they would petition the commission in advance if they have missed a deadline if they get noticed from you that they've missed a timeliness deadline right um based on the application it sounds as though the commission last week we spent a good amount of time on this wants to be able to have some flexibility of making a determination so we need to come back to us under this reg is that right commission uh yeah rather than um director wells we haven't afforded her the authority to say you know what didn't make the deadline and commissioner brian do you feel differently oh okay i was agreeing with you sorry okay good thank you all right it's 211 it is um 211.010 that's referenced in 218.022 is that the extraordinary circumstances yes i believe that's right that allows for okay commissioner brian's nodding so thank you yes yeah so i'm sorry go ahead here and um executive director wells her team receives receiving and keeping track of timeliness and so she'll come to us if something doesn't make a dip so that they get some kind of a determination from us so they can rely on one thing or another right and we'll need to be timely on that karen all right thanks i'm notified okay um okay Todd sorry sure um so moving on to 218.03 i believe this is page bottom page 112 in the commissioner's packet um you'll see that the title was adjusted based upon that discussion for starters instead of administrative completeness it was changed to administrative sufficiency and an effort was made to capture the commission's um sentiments from last meeting so you'll see that um the first adjustment is that it's made such that the division of licensing is the entity that will take on the administrative sufficiency review the second thing and this is in paragraph well it's actually labeled as three in the red line but it's two in the clean version it expressly describes what the division of licensing is going to be called on to do and what parts of the application it will be called upon to look at as you'll see for starters it looks at only those parts of the application identified in 211.01 c through f those are the so-called suitability documents the multi-state the the supplement and the scoping survey and all that stuff it does not include scoping survey is a isn't it no is that right i'm sorry my point i guess is that it does not include yeah it doesn't include the actual application doesn't include the application that's your main point right yes it's basically just all the suitability documents so you gotta make sure to read three after two yes and that the division will only be looking to determine whether all information or materials required to be provided in response to each questionnaire request has been submitted that's all they're doing it's not a substantive review or anything along those lines just checking to make sure everything is there that is the point of this sufficiency review the process then moving into again what is labeled as paragraph four in the red line but three in the clean version gets into what happens if there is a finding of insufficiency and we say that the division shall notify the applicant by email and the email shall identify the deficiencies b says that the applicant shall then have the right to submit the supplemental or corrected information to cure the deficiencies within 14 days you'll recall the part that part of the conversation that where the commission was inclined to make that a right as opposed to a discretionary decision as to whether they be allowed to cure so under this language the applicant has a right to cure within 14 days and then in paragraph c there's a description as to how the 14 day period is calculated and it depends on whether the application deadline itself has passed and that if the deadline has not passed it begins the day after the deadline passes and if it's before that it begins when the notification was sent so it there is a way to calculate the time by which an applicant would have to cure any deficiency those are the substantial changes to this section let me just pause there see if there's any comment or whether that captures the essence of the conversation from last week nice job any questions comments Todd can you what's the rationale for substituting the word sufficiency for completeness I don't think I understand it yeah I think it was it's really just a matter of nomenclature I think there was just concern that completeness suggested that there'll be a very thorough review of everything and it was just a way to signal to not only applicants but internally that it's really just a very high level review to ensure that everything's there so that I mean that's that's it there's really not much more to it than that I would add one other small point which is that when this was drafted as completeness the review would be of the entire application the review is now to ensure that certain parts of the application are sufficient to permit the IEB to do its job yeah I didn't I didn't have that confusion relative to what you just laid out I understood completeness to be exactly what sufficiency is to be honest so I was just calling it I was just wondering why we changed the word and what effect that really had it seems to me none yeah it doesn't have any legal effect I think it was just summarizing the conversation yesterday or yesterday last time about because it seemed to be a term of art for those of you in the licensing world I think I anyway maybe had some concern that because there wasn't necessarily going to be the meeting and the sit-down and the calls etc that maybe people might be used to we didn't want there to be misunderstanding about what that was and I think that's why we went over to sufficient I think bureaucratic was another word that was thrown out there but I think that's why we made this shift away just to make very clear this was not the entire application and the normal process people might have had before yeah and I'm just suggesting that we you know that was accomplished with the additions to 218.033 in clarifying that the licensing division is only reviewing those particular pieces of the application so how many objections to sufficiency I don't have an objection madam chair just to clarify I'm just okay thank you just wondering if we needed to to to move on it okay thank you I agreed with commissioner bryan's point I think it was hopefully to add some administrative clarity because of different processes within the organization okay what do we got next all right so we're on to 218.04 and I just wanted to make an administrative note as we're going through here there are I noticed a couple of places in the draft where the numbering is slightly off including here under 218.04 then the first one in the red line is identified as number six and I think in the the clean one it's identified as number five it should actually just be number one of course so we will make those edits there's a couple of other places you'll see throughout the draft and I just wanted to flag for you that I caught them that where the numbering was slightly off but I got that stuff but please if you see anything feel free to jump in just to make sure okay so now on to 218.04 the the only real adjustment to this was to edit it to make sure it reconciled with the adjustments to the administrative sufficiency language otherwise it's I believe exactly as it read the last time you reviewed it period any questions okay 218.05 is substantially the same as the version you looked at prior there were a couple of questions about certain language that reflected the chair and the ability the chair would have to direct certain things and we realized that that was a probably a holdover from language it's in chapter 23k so really the only difference that you see in this version is that we remove the language reflecting the chairs role in everything. 218.06 so now we're getting into the actual evaluation again we made sure to change the administrative completeness language to administrative sufficiency moving through there's not there were not too many edits but there are just a couple of things I would point out in light of the conversations that the commission has had today the first is that in paragraph four and I just want to make sure it's yeah so paragraph four talks about that the commission will deliberate on this license application in a public meeting so that's where that part comes from these are the suitability discussion that was conducted earlier relative to how those findings will be made this is why that was relevant because it says here that these applications will be reviewed in a public meeting paragraph five we went through this a little bit last week and there's been no change but I think it's just important to point out that in the introductory paragraph here in five it just notes that ultimately the determination revolves around whether the license award would benefit the common so that is essentially part of the standard that you were looking for when you're weighing all these other factors does the award the award of the license benefit the common goal and that's where we get into each of these criteria that the commission of course previously addressed and voted to move into place the one that there's just a couple of other notes again in light of the conversation earlier today paragraph b gets into the economic impacts that was discussed and the commission unanimously agreed to keep that in there but this is how it's reflected in this reg and in the application itself and then I just wanted to move down to paragraph f so that's the suitability piece this obviously is the parallel or companion provision to 215 that we discussed earlier this is the part where the commission includes a suitability review as part of the holistic application review and this is just how it factors in to the ultimate decision otherwise I don't believe there were any adjustments to paragraph five so paragraph six is still part of the application review process but six gets into just considerations relative to the untethered category three applicants and it recognizes the fact that there will likely be a competitive process I just wanted to pause in one word in paragraph a so just to be sure we're all looking at the same area so this is the bottom of page 116 paragraph a and in section six paragraph a it says that the commission shall take into consideration the following things and that is an important piece of language just to recognize it doesn't say may it's a shell the commission shall take into consideration the variations between the applicants as they relate to any other applicants or licensees and how granting any particular application or combination would maximize the overall benefits and minimize overall harms the risk of the commonwealth I just wanted to point out that that is a shell and ensure that that is indeed the commission's intention and a and k you're fine with that in terms of discretion that you'd like to give us is that good I think there's still a great deal of discretion embedded in that shell excellent thank you otherwise there are no other adjustments from the last version you saw paragraph b which is on the top of page 117 it just talks about the competitive process we've gone through this last time but that's obviously a critical component to the untethered category three review okay commissioners questions for Todd nice job right that was a lazy discussion to have to put that all together so thank you sure so well now we're we'll get into the suitability piece and this gets into a little bit of the nuance that the commission has discussed today so we want to make sure that we're all comfortable with the adjusted language I believe it reconciles nicely there are one or two edits I might recommend to you as we go through this so paragraph seven talks about the supplemental suitability decision that this is the part where you get into a post preliminary decision so as we talked about in the 215 context there are two kinds of suitability reviews there's the preliminary review whereby the commission's decision is largely based upon the attestations and the open source review and the litigation review and then there's the supplemental suitability determination so after essentially the licenses have been awarded the IEB completes the review and is now coming back and that is what paragraph seven gets into here so it's after deeming the an applicant eligible to request the temporary license the commission may make a supplemental determination of suitability and B gets into the findings the commission could make either essentially that the applicant is or perspective or licensee is suitable in which case you shall award the license or they're unsuitable in which case you shall deny the license at that point so that's why paragraph seven is important because it recognizes the idea that there will be a preliminary suitability finding in some cases not necessarily all cases 218.07 gets into the actual decisions that are made so paragraph A I will propose just one edit based upon the discussion that's already taken place it says that the commission may find the applicant suitable in accordance with 215.012 I think you want to insert there the word preliminarily before suitable just to clarify this provision that was part of the discussion from earlier so we would read that the commission may find the applicant preliminarily suitable in accordance with 205 CMR 215.012 and deem the applicant eligible to request the temporary license now I just wanted to pause momentarily I think Paul or one of us discussed this last time and the reason why it says this instead of just that the commission will issue a provisional license is it just reflects the language in 23 and section six that talks about temporary licenses so it's a little bit wonky admittedly but it it really is the best way to just acknowledge the language in the statute so it it says essentially that if you find you essentially you'll select the seven or up to seven untethered category three licenses once you do that it just makes them eligible to request a temporary license which of course we would expect it would do and then we have a process for that in which case you would then award the license but once you make those decisions selecting the up to seven out of the pool of applicants it just makes them eligible to request a temporary license and that's why it says that just so we're clear paragraph B is a little bit different this is a situation where the applicant has been found suitable so it's most likely to be one of the entities that is presently licensed by the commission where you were able to find them already suitable and it says that in that case you can just award the sportsway during license subject to condition so they don't have to if they've already been found suitable completely they don't have to request a temporary license they can just be issued the full license with license conditions and that's what B talks about C of course then talks about denial so this is any entity that you do not want to award a license to for a variety of reasons and this can be in any category but it is sets out the reasons why a license application would be denied and it talks about that this is what Paul was talking about earlier the reasons set out in chapter 23 and section 60 it includes chapter 23 and section 9 which layouts specific reasons why the commission may or shall deny a license application but it also includes second 205 CMR and this is important because there are other reasons other than the fact that someone may have been untruthful in you know the presentation of its application etc why the commission would deny an application and one of them is the most obvious one is the untethered category three scenario where you will necessarily have to deny a series of applications most likely for reasons other than the fact that someone was untruthful or something along those lines it would just be that you have determined essentially that those applicants or award the license to those applicants is not in the best interest of the common and for the other reasons described here in the licensing criteria and that's why it's important in this paragraph C that we're talking about that it includes not just the statutory reasons why you would deny a license but also the regulatory reasons described in this regulation which you will definitely make use of to deny certain applications so I think I just want to add one clarification on that where yes where there is the denial or just one failure to advance that's something different if somebody is disqualified because of one of the statutory factors let's say it's lying no deception again based on our earlier discussion I think every all of us agree we don't ever have to find anyone unsuitable at this juncture that's a good thing there's that's not what our job is at during the evaluation process they just don't get to they get denied the application is that right Todd yes I think that's exactly just by to contrast it from the last rfa1 process so that that's exactly your point yeah right yes they could just be part of the review we don't have that burden oh Paul are you thinking of um I was just going to say with the statute that you've been given many of the grounds on which you would find unsuitability are also as we recognize grounds to simply deny a license that's exactly right yeah good that that's a burden that we don't have to deal with right okay and that's with respect to category ones and twos I mean in terms of yeah category threes um for any for any category um yeah same thing deny the application all right okay so that brings us to uh 218.08 I believe so this on page 118 of the commissioner's packet this is largely unchanged with one notable exception and we've already talked about this a little bit but this is paragraph four here is brand new and this language was included essentially in recognition of the operation certificate discussion that we had earlier it also covers other stuff too that you basically can't just begin conducting sportsway during operations until other prerequisites are met we might include in light of the previous discussion here at the end where it says and 205 CMR including having been issued an operation certificate just to be crystal clear as to what the intent is here but otherwise that's why that amendment was at okay so that actually I think brings us through 218.08 I want to pause for a second commissioners we have another read that um it's going to we'd be carries next read correct on some confidentiality yes okay well actually I want to make sure we talk about voting on the first set did we decide that you're coming back with revisions so no vote on the first set the meaning under 5a all of um one through six yes I think that's right specifically the uh the suitability issue but there are I think a couple of other edits and then commissioners can we vote on the license evaluation reg that Todd just brought us through or do you want us to delay all the votes until next week but I'm afraid we're going to forget what we are voting on yeah I wouldn't even call it delaying I mean I don't there's certainly no delay I don't want to forget because we will have to go through it again well we certainly won't forget we don't have to worry about that but um actually I'm not talking about you Todd I'm speaking about when we go to take a vote next week commissioners might forget what they are now voting on again and we might have to walk it through again and we don't that's probably not the most efficient process is there any reason why we couldn't vote on the day because it's we just went through it if everyone's comfortable with a couple of minor edits I just mentioned I think you could definitely vote on it today if everyone's comfortable and we could just hold the filing of it until you've reviewed the rest of the regs next week that's a does that impact you in terms of emergency evaluation um emergency regulatory process carry no that's actually ideal particularly where all of these regulations cross site to each other so we ideally would file them all together anyways okay so if we vote it doesn't matter this week versus um okay so while we have just had this review do I have um a motion on this one we're talking about 218 only is that correct furniture yep 218 yes please in the in the language is the um sports weight ring license evaluation right uh but we would be voting on 218 today but they they wouldn't be filed until next week did I understand carry correctly um we would hold the filing yes until uh you've approved the rest of this fleet of regulations so that we don't have to remove any of the citations that would be the alternative given that they are that there are a lot of cross citations we'd like to keep those in so like I can't prevent a motion but I would prefer to hold and and consider them all to vote on all of them together if that's the case so what I'm actually wanting is a compromise is do we do this small business impact statement and vote on the actual verbiage that we've discussed today and that when we do everything else there is included in that emotion for doing this by emergency and going forward with the promulgation process that'll tie in with all of the other um two hundreds that we've talked about today carry does that work uh sorry I may have missed a piece of that could you say that one more time so what I'm prepared to do today is move on the small business impact statement and approval of the language in 218 is discussed here today do we hold on voting approval for the implementation on an emergency basis till we do the cluster next week that we finish talking about today so that they're all going together at the same time you certainly can I don't think you need to the emergency filings you know they go into effect when they're filed not when they're voted on so I can certainly vote on it today and we just wouldn't file it until we have the full set but of course either way is up to you I do just want to make one note that I think as of right now there's no meeting next week the next meeting would be the following week got it okay um unless we decide to convene one but um in order to get this work done uh maybe just on the single reg the one that we passed on today um I would like I think it's really good practice for us to vote when we have had a review unless there's substantial changes as in case of five um you know whatever yeah I know I mean I feel comfortable on 218 today I didn't know procedurally and especially commissioner skinner talking about logically doing the multi-other where there was better to hold off on the implementation timing but it doesn't sound like there's a difference kind of will go in when it's filed not when we vote can I have a motion then um certainly madam chair I move that the commission approve um getting ahead of myself I'll start with a small business impact statement I move that the commission approve the small business impact statement as well as the draft of 205 cmr 218 the general sports wagering application requirements standards and procedures as discussed and further edited here today second any edits or questions okay um commissioner o'Brien hi commissioner hill hi commissioner skinner hi commissioner maynard hi and I vote yes thank you okay so yeah well sorry yep and madam chair I further move um that the commission authorized staff to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the common wealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process and further that staff be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process okay one clarification is included the edits um Todd suggested today right I did that at first I did that okay that's what I thank you okay any further questions or edits okay commissioner o'Brien hi mr hill hi mr skinner hi mr maynard hi and I vote yes so five zero thank you now I have a process question for us all but is Joe Delaney here Joe I don't know if you're listening let me go scoot next door let me go find him hold on hilarious come on okay I'm Joe so we have we have one more reg um that's um about um every uh public comment made regarding a reg that we were we had planned to rescind and then um we have um a couple of matters uh for commissioner updates um and then we had planned to hear from our the quarterly reports from mgm we have a 430 stop because we have one commissioner who um really needs that today and so we want to we want to comply with that it'll have been a long day in any case so are they still available or have they called it quits for the day Joe um I think let's see Dan Miller he's I see him on I'm not sure if he's hanging on every word right at the moment uh he usually does there he is every word every word hi Daniel so you would be ready if we did a couple of things Carrie I don't want to postpone your reg but I am thinking of this mgm presentation commissioners should we honor mgm um maybe take care of these couple of shorter matters and then uh Daniel do you anticipate about 20 minutes or so is that what you're thinking yeah maybe slightly longer just because it's two quarters together but but not by much so about it okay half an hour so okay um commissioners feedback please I mean if if we needed to strike something for a 430 I although I hate to have it go off but kerry's reg doesn't seem to have as much of a time import as the others kerry's are you kidding no that's fine whatever whatever works for you well excellent kerry excellent thank you so much um commissioners how do you feel about that okay um what do you think anybody else I'm not seeing it I'm not hearing a big no so thank you and legal it gives us a little bit of a break from regs it was really important put them up front and I'm glad we did but now I just want to make sure we attend to a few other matters and kerry will just have to um put this on for the next the next day and we'll look for whether that's an intermediate shortly okay no problem if I possibly just for one minute there are just uh since you voted on one of the sports waging regulations there were just a couple of really brief administrative issues related to reg filing and I just wanted to make sure the commission is aware of uh based on a conversation with the um the supervisor's office uh so it just really really brief if that's all right I could just fill you in quickly on that right now that would be great all right uh yeah so um so we did speak with the um the supervisor's office about some of these issues since we've had you know regs coming through for emergency filings and they did let us know we just want to make sure you're aware of this that um when we file an emergency uh regulation or essentially what happens is if there are intervening regulations that have not yet been uh allocated to anything um in the register they publish those pages as reserved sections so we so essentially right now we filed for example a 202 we've filed a 240 so all of those intervening sections are currently filed as reserved which is of course fine um just the one the one sort of technical issue is that when we come back and we file one of those sections with content there will for a period of time be two existing regulations of the same number there will be the blank section and the section with content until the first emergency has expired the new one will supersede the old one um but they will both exist in published registers at the same time so I just want to make you aware of that um because that was passed on to us from the supervisor's office um I think you know it's fine we'll keep doing what we're doing but just wanted to make sure everyone was aware that that is the case that there will be an effect at certain time um and because of this issue they did request and Todd touched on this as well that when possible we file bundles of regulations rather than script snow regulations so we'll work on you know trying to do that moving forward too as we present them to you and possibly waiting on a filing until we have a whole bunch took file as long as it doesn't affect any dates or anything like that so um so I'll fine but just wanted to make sure you are aware we had spoken to them about that any questions carry just remind me when when you say before they expire when when do they expire the reserved pages if nothing's done it's 90 days from the date of the emergency filing so it will depend where they fall you know if we have one emergency that we filed and we don't end up filing the content for 60 more days then they'll only overlap 30 it just will depend and then of course once the permanent ones go into into effect they go with emergencies that we've gone um and we only have one remaining but and then are we queuing up these for the public comment so we the 90 days is all taken care on the others so we have the permanent process oh yes of course yeah as soon as we file the emergencies we're getting the permanent promulgation process moving okay all right thank you so um I know that probably there were some parties who are interested in the regulation that we were going to be addressing today under 5c but what we have decided to move forward on commissioner updates right now under section six and uh if by america we are able to uh get through we'll add in or if um if a commissioner who needs to leave decides it would be okay for us to proceed that would be okay too but i just don't know what everybody's end of the day is i know that we have folks externally who are waiting on these matters so we're going to skip right now to section six uh so we received a letter from draft kings asking the commission to reconsider our folk allowing retail sports wagering to launch at the end of january ahead of the universal start for online sports wagering at the beginning of march and to allow retail and mobile operators to go live at the same time this letter came to us um uh and it was directed to commissioners commissioner um commission held i believe a september 22nd don't quote me on the day around table as you know inviting all sports wagering entities that have filed an nli participate in that's just this new sports wagering market to provide their input on two specific questions you recall the two questions one concern the first one concerned the temporary licensing process and the other requested input on the sequencing of launches requesting each speaker to address how their organizations felt about a staggered launch where retail sports wagering betting would be stood up in advance of online sports wagering we all heard the comments and they were widely reported on with one clear exception the online operators did not object to a staggered start provided all online operators were launched on the same day so called universal start um only draft kings objected and at one point i did allow them to clarify their objection on the record to make sure that they were clearly heard the commission at a later date voted to support a staggered launch provided that the respective dates be at the end of january and the beginning of march this letter from um i know director wells has reviewed it i believe legal has reviewed it we don't see any changes in facts and circumstances since our vote that's for the commission to also assess but today for commissioners to go forward on this request i would need to mark this matter up on a future agenda um with proper notice to all stakeholders indicating an intent for us to vote we did not do that today today i'm really seeking from us since as to whether you want to even revisit our vote or are we all set to continue to move forward on based on what we voted on in the past so i need a little bit of input who would like to go first i certainly would not mind going first madam chair i i don't think we need to revisit this i think we had a very good conversation back when we voted on this um i i continue to look at reports throughout the um nation and other places regarding a staggered launch and i feel very comfortable uh with what we did was the right thing to do um just to remind people and i'll be very quick um the mobile betting it takes place uh in most jurisdictions 80 of the time and you know that weighs heavily on some of the concerns i think that may be coming before us but i think people are concerned that we might be giving a leg up if we do this staggered launch i don't agree with that not with the reports that i've seen so i i personally don't think we need to reassess what we did a few weeks ago um that's one person's opinion um i think we we i think we've really discussed it enough that we don't need to dispense it again thank you commissioner o'brien your audience um yep i agree with um commissioner if first procedurally there's nothing in this filing that's new or correcting a record they spoke their mind in the 22nd we were all aware of it when we took the vote and usually motions to reconsider based on either newly new information or some change circumstance i don't see it here at all and for what it's worth i did take issue with the representation that our entire discussion about the timeline was so we based on the timing and the possibility of producing regulations in a timely fashion there was a tremendous amount of files of discussion on all five of us and concerns are expressed about responsible gaming etc um and for both of those reasons i don't think there's any reason to be taking a vote or going any further on this other than what we're doing today thank you mr skinner commissioner maynard thank you i'm sure i don't sorry i don't disagree with either commissioner o'brien or commissioner hill i'm fine with with going with the consensus on this mr maynard i do want to make this comment during our long lengthing meetings that held from thursday to friday we thought a lot about what we heard at the round table i believe the chair brought it up and it was a part of my friendly amendment to the motion that i am concerned about the equity issues that exist if we do not tie these untethered category three license procedure to the category ones and then of course outstanding as the category two i still have those same concerns as we speak but to be specific i'm worried about the information that can be gathered at a kiosk in category one that could be then handed off to a tethered category three that would perhaps give someone a leg up and that's something that i would like to address later on as we keep moving through regulations but i want to be clear i do believe that if we open this matter back up it could change timelines completely it could actually create a bigger problem for any applicant who wishes to start by march even we could go past the march date if we're not careful for those reasons i would rather stick with what we did during those many many hours of debate and where we fell but i am concerned about equity issues i am concerned about giving someone a leg up and i will work with my fellow commissioners if you're interested in finding ways to level the playing field after everyone is is operating okay so so in other words the staggered start the end of january for retail and um universal online start with some considerations that you want to explore down the road through regulatory structures what you would recommend but otherwise not move on this particular request that is correct so given that i i um you know one thing i did want to note is that if anybody is wondering about mr maynard suggesting that it might be later i would argue that that this letter argues for them joining the february date the end of january date because they make note that and i think in the last paragraph that you know by not having a universal start uh there the commonwealth is missing out on some remedies so it wouldn't be logical to say let's push it back um because that would just be lost revenues further into the year so um i would i would argue that i you know i read the letter completely i didn't see any new um circumstances or any um point of clarification that that um we needed to address i felt as though uh the form was really really helpful and in that form informed our decision we did as everyone's noted it was a lengthy one so we won't move we won't move forward on this but we think um we think uh um the perspective applicant for the interest okay then we're going to move on to item 6b and that is important to the commission as a commissioner update because it's about our evaluation process so darryl can you update us on your your good work that you've been Karen noted it at the top of the top of the day not the hour absolutely yeah so good afternoon commissioner uh madam chair and commissioners i know that i'm standing in the way of um mgm and dan meller being able to do their quarterly report but this is a uh somewhat important topic i won't say any more important than anything else we dealt with or we'll be dealing with um but on the public meeting on october 13th and then again on october 20th the commission um talked about the idea of getting a vendor to help with um project management skills and that portion of the evaluation of um applications coming in for sports wagering licenses on october 24th the commission assembled a procurement team to draft a quote or a request for quotes to put off of a statewide contract specifically prf 76 the management consultant services contract and that team was um caron wells todd grossman crystal christian jacklyn noelle john skelly and me and we all came together to review the material and the information we heard during those two meetings um while we cannot share the whole quote because that would be putting it out ahead of time um before it hit what we did want to share with you are some of the key items to make sure we are hearing um what you were saying and give a chance for some clarifications or additions before we actually do post it so what we have for you is the procurement timeline uh the basic scope of services are evaluate our proposed evaluation criteria and some questions and skills that we will be evaluating the vendors on the first piece of timeline it is very truncated um we are putting it out we are hoping we can post it tomorrow um based on the number of comments we get today um put it out for two weeks have a have no question and comment or um in-person review period give ourselves one week to evaluate those um those responses as well as give the vendors the ability to give us a best and final offer if they want to come down on the initial rate that they put in um we'll think that they have a better timeliness based on an extra week basically to look at the information um and then we will we would put out our anticipated vendor and work out a statement of work with them so that they can begin working with you as the commission to put your total timeline together as well as work with your evaluation skillset by november 23rd which is two days after the applications are due um we do realize this is a short time period but um as i go further down i think we've built in some areas to to accommodate this uh so for the for the scope of work um you know the bullets i won't go over every single one of them but the bullets are basically you know you have to create a roadmap um you have to create a tool set with the commission and this is where you would be meeting with them now what we asked for is that tool set to be put together within 14 days of the statement of work that is going to put a lot of stress on the commissioners calendars because they'd be working directly with you and that's that whole scoring and score sheets and how you'd be going about evaluating processes uh and evaluating these these recommendations um that would be contingent upon your calendars but we could always change that up we put 14 days that the consultants know we are putting a hard charge on this and we expect you to have your team available and if you can't be available you won't be able to have a good score on this on this um engagement the next piece the procurement evaluation criteria um we put the qualifications as a bit of personnel so we'll be asking for their their resumes we asked for their uh in past experience we asked for the quality of work and some you know examples of how they've done that in the past um their cost of services which are basically already on the statewide contract as hourly rates but they can always go down from there so this will be a good example um where they may want to show us they really want this work um the commitment to diversity we've set as 25 percent of the evaluation and we plan on using the same language we've used in the past where it's not just supply diversity plan but also show us what you're doing with the composition of your team so we use the language similar to what we used on the um independent monitor contract which i know we like that that language because it captures both areas um and the reason we set it at 25 percent is because we do see this procurement being over 250 000 for these services and we um we are following the guidelines that the new supplier diversity offices set that any procurement over 250 000 and any in one given year should set at least 25 percent of their score to the diversity component and then we'll we'll have the best and final offer which will be considered as part of part of that scoring criteria and then the last piece that we would like your consideration of are the procurement questions and vendor skills and we have set for all those bullets above um you know one person being a project management first um professional um the ability to start right away high level familiarity with chapter 23 and um ability to review and assess complex and lengthy applications keep ability to do key performance indicators and score against those program evaluation and then when we put an expert in geospatial analysis what we're thinking about there is not that they have to be great at necessarily geospatial but able to kind of drop pins on for you so you see where they would go in a in a array where their services are going to hit in massachusetts so if they said that they're going to do these economic development opportunities or they say they're going to be able to create job you can see that by applicant and how it would do across the commonwealth um so that's that's what we're thinking about and it's more of a graphical representation for you than a real true in-depth geospatial analysis um those though all of those bullets above a maximum of two pages not for each bullet but to answer all of those bullets above then for questions one through four um how they would approach ramping up and getting the service and deliverables in place propose a state strategy to scale up or down um any past irrelevant experience and then how they would deal with any conflicts or if they have any known conflicts looking at the um people who have filled out the scoping survey each one of those questions would be limited to two pages in response for a total of 10 10 pages so that's how we think we can get through um this tight timeline that we've laid out and that's you know in the group we you know i have to say thank you to john for pulling the initial rfq together sent it around a week in advance for everyone to review it came together had a couple hour meeting internally to really hammer through these i know the legal team did a quite a bit of review on the scope of the work um took a look at where our limitations may be um so i mean it's just it's in order for us to get these services and not impact the timeline this is our recommendation yeah i think this is excellent i want to congratulate john and team i know christful had to get up and all the others she mentioned so thank you i know that this was a a big turn around a big ask i think it's really comprehensive so the one word that you use several times in speaking to us and it seems to be a word that um a and k it um it sort of is is careful about using and not using is scoring or score you use the term review and assess my um as i imagine how we're going to manage this process i think the one major challenge i i feel where at greatest risk is is is is that that process of scoring however if it's little s whatever it is um but how do we get through the um if it's the assessment if that's the way we're using assess for score um i guess that we're asking them if that is true like ability to review and assess complex and lengthy applications i think that's really an important trait for them then it's now translated to guide an entity to review and assess or score whatever so it's actually not only their ability to do it but how do they teach us how do they guide us in a public forum with all the um the great caveats that a and k and i'm sorry that i didn't get a chance of thanking k before they left um a and k as well so berik that's all i've got i was excellent thank you okay so we'll update that bullet and we did have that under consideration and we may have better language in the actual rfq which we couldn't share that's what i wanted and you know we really contemplated that under that third bullet of the scope of services that we had um that we had highlighted this is with that tool set that will help you guys get your scoring cards or review sheets or whatever you're going to use to make your best value determinations and uh figure out who these who these finalists will be and we do have a little more language around that but i can make sure that we um update that in the question to really point out it's not just that you have the ability to do that but you have the ability to guide a public body on how to do that and i'm going to be taking notes all along the way so on that so thank you um any other comments like on this commissioner skinner commissioner maynard commissioner no commissioner brian here we go no just dark just to make sure that you know you said this is what needed to be done to fit into the timeline do you have any concerns at all about us missing out on anything or doing anything inappropriately though truncating the process so i don't because it's off of a statewide contract and if you look at the vendors on the statewide contract they're really big um and they're really um really in depth and we do have some smaller vendors on there too um so i think where we where we help to make up for where we might be precluding some of the smaller vendors that might not have the resources is under the diversity piece where there's a 25 component there of the of the total score so did they anticipate partnering at all is there any chance some of the smaller ones would partner with bigger that's allowed under this process they absolutely could okay and that's how they would get there if if they're a bigger prime vendor and you know they're not a minority of women owned a veteran owned business they'd have to partner with with other um the vendors to help out what was our turnaround on the independent monitor process there we we posted so we had a lot more internal time i think we've met for a month internally yeah draft the scope then we posted it for 30 days and then we gave ourselves 30 30 days to review before we so at the end of us um yeah but that was almost okay to do though that was a long process and that wasn't a state contract that wasn't state contract no and the scope was a lot bigger too yeah and in the price yeah yes um but i um i couldn't remember it it felt efficient but it was um it was a nationwide search and in the results reflected it okay excellent thanks john we we're very lucky to have your expertise no other questions oh that's really nice john um any other questions for john or derrick adam k i just want to echo your sentiments um excellent work done by the team thank you very comprehensive right okay everyone else all set all right then um i think that will move to um keep delay me thank you madam chair commissioners um so today we we have mgm here to do their both their second quarter and third quarter reports if you remember back over the summer we had some scheduling challenges so uh we decided to have these two reports done at the same time and so without further ado i'll turn it over to daniel miller and dusk kim from mgm and i take a few other folks here from mgm as well to give their presentation hi joe thank you very much for the introduction uh good afternoon madam chair good afternoon commissioners good afternoon mgc staff um it's always a pleasure to appear before you and and give you a presentation um and i but i have to be honest that unlike my good friend and colleague dan miller i was not hanging on in every word i had some other work to do so i was jumping in and out but i heard as much as i could of the today's hearing and on behalf of mgm uh springfield i thank the commissioners i thank the staff for the incredible pilot's work you are doing to get sports betting launched as soon as possible mgm is no different than most people with a vested interest in how this plays out we are it's top of our mind as well as yours that we get this started as soon as possible obviously in the right way so i am very thankful for the hard work that you are doing to make sure that we launch this on a timely basis but also that you are making sure that we're dotting our eyes and crossing our teeth so thank you very much again for the wonderful work that you guys are doing my colleague dan is going to actually do the the deck presentation because uh i am uh not very good with technology and i i'm definitely would mess it up so uh dan will you start scrolling through the the deck okay so here is our um q2 uh revenue and taxes um as you can see we're doing very well uh year over year for the same months we are up from 2021 so we are very pleased with the way things are going next one then same thing with uh q3 again year over year we are ahead of the game from last year and so we hope we can keep this going forward the same information just summarized into uh you know um uh it's formed that shows you the comparison q1 i mean 2021 to 2022 and as i had stated previously you can tell that we are ahead of the game for the most part um uh from last year to this year this isn't just a little bar chart that we showed uh to show you that uh our ggr post covid is actually surpassing our 2019 ggr so again uh it took us a little bit of time to ramp up after covid after the pandemic as i'm sure every other business similarly had issues but we're very happy with the progress we have made and we again we hope and we we're we expect to continue to grow our business uh going forward q4 and into 2023 can you go back to that one one more time then i'm sorry i i just wanted to highlight um one item so a question has come up and i know that in in the past that there has been questions about the table games that we have uh opened to the public uh we have right now uh 48 uh table games that are currently open during our peak times which would be basically friday and saturday the nights we have 36 of those 48 tables open uh and of those 36 tables our occupancy is about four per table uh we have at least with respect to the blackjack tables we have up to five so we are definitely uh seeing that we are at where we need to be you know in order to accommodate the table game demand that we see on a day-in day-out basis here at engine spin field as for the lottery sale we're very happy to report that we see year over year increases in lottery revenue um 29 percent overall in q2 and 25 percent in q3 so we're very pleased with that as well and again just a year over year comparison of the lottery sales on the diversity spend uh we are working very hard we are constantly monitoring the ability for us to generate more mbe's wbe's and so we are obviously not where we want to be but you know we are always working hard to try to increase our diversity spend and so we expect we did identify recently a women-owned business or a minority-owned business that we think will be able to help us with some of our sourcing and so we expect that this number will go up for q4 so so so stay tuned we expect this number to arrive in q4 with representation local spend as you know we we we attempt to spend a lot of money within the our local area in in springfield in western massachusetts and i i think we're doing a pretty good job of doing that so thank you then next one so here is our compliance um i have spoken then and i have spoken with uh the iab staff about our underage uh consumption you can tell from 2019 uh when we had a lot of underage gaming uh to 2022 you can see pretty much almost eight more than an 80 decrease in q2 from from 2019 to 2022 so clearly we are not at zero but i think that we have made significant progress reducing our underage gaming by in the more than 80 percent uh quarter from 2019 to 2022 so we are very pleased and we are working very hard with your iab staff on making sure that we maintain this you know progress that we have made so can i ask a question in terms of specifically what are the vulnerabilities to why you're having issues with the miners have you identified what some of those are the biggest challenge that we have is is our open floor plan as you probably are aware commissioner uh that with with input from various stakeholders including mgc uh and your springfield has an open floor plan which means that that multiple sources of entry points are available across the floor for for all of our guests uh so for example mgm national harvard where i originally came from has two uh two points from which you can enter the casino floor north entrance south entrance entrance both manned by you know obviously security podiums so it is impossible for somebody to physically access the floor unless you go through a checkpoint that is not the case here at mgm springfield and that is the reason and and the reason why was that we wanted and is it everybody else including mgc wanted this to be a family friendly venue and so a little bit of the tradeoff for having a family friendly venue is that we can't police every entry point which is basically the entire casino floor so so there is that little bit of um you know underage getting access to the floor we were working very hard to try to minimize it as i said working with your ivy staff on on ways and ideas to reduce that but that is primarily the driver for why we have underage miners on the floor yeah i'm going to be curious to get an update prior to the next quarterly in terms of efforts that are going to be made be it making it less porous on the floor more security whatever it is i'd be curious to get an update before the next quarter on this topic of course Brian to your point this is you know gus before your arrival mgm did have to address this through a fine substantial fine and i'm not sure if there was a subsequent one um you know the numbers if you look at 2019 are are significant but when we look at you know real numbers 5741 and 18 that's a lot of a lot of miners so um i i know there's been the open floor has been an issue i know that there's been resistance to doing certain you know guardrails and fencing and ribbons and you know ropes but i do think uh michelle brine it would be good to get and maybe hear from ivy how they're coordinating what ideas are coming up with right because you just said gus like you can't get them all and i think i will speak for commissioner brine she'll speak for herself but i've watched her and one is too many right so okay commissioner commissioner i'm in and chair um yes absolutely we are you know as i said we partner with the ivy on coming up with ideas and ways to reduce that but uh you know the reality is that it is an open floor and it would be almost impossible to reduce the number towards your eye and that is a reality of the situation what are you going to do when those youths come in with their their cell phones i'm sorry what are you going to do when those youths come in to your establishment with their cell phones in terms of but their phones to start betting on sports wagering we will we will come up with a plan to deal with that commissioner and then chairs uh again uh you know this is very new to you it's due to us we're still working through the procedures and the methodologies so we can come back to the commission uh with with our proposals uh next time around right well i'm just it's a you know when you say it's a again speaking for commissioner brine i've taken her meat always on this she's our public safety expert so thank you so here you see here is our employment numbers for q2 and q3 you can tell that we are always we typically meet our minority and veteran numbers we are um we were at 41 percent in q2 we dipped a little bit to 40 40 percent in q3 but i'm happy to report that so far in q4 we're back up to 41 percent uh for women hires can can you can you go back did you jump oh yeah sorry did we jump ahead or there we go and i'm sorry guys this is obviously a further explanation from the previous slide but broken down more um manager and then supervisor level and above with the with the same information it's fine thank you so this is a slide we just uh put in here to to to show the commission uh the efforts that we are uh expending to increase employment to to to um have our reach to the to the population to come work with us um you know obviously the the low unemployment rate here in massachusetts uh 3.6 percent or they're about makes it a little bit of a challenge to try to recruit um uh employees team members to join us but we think we're making a good effort uh good headway um we've shown a fairly large increase in q2 q3 we gained about about 19 employees from q2 q2 q3 so we continue to push hard we continue to market ourselves we continue to drive efforts to uh to bring team members on on to our property and then of course we um we continue to engage with our community on outreach and special events water drives for the hot days for the food drives uh habitat for humanity and uh we for the first time i think um the city of springfield uh had a a a prime parade which mgm springfield was very happy to participate in um and so we all we continue to engage with the community and continue to be a member of our community and we're excited about all the things that we're doing here um can you go to the next one then so here is again uh we had the watch party for for the fourth of july uh we have our fourth anniversary celebration where we had some of our community leaders come to the property and celebrate with us our fourth birthday and we had our springfield the Puerto Rican day parade again of our participants and so you know again mgm is very excited and very happy to be such an integral part of the springfield community and as commissioners as you know our game sense we moved game sense to a better location to a bigger location more lights uh more space for the game sense uh team members to to engage with our patrons and so i think you've seen it or at least some of the commissioners have seen it we're very happy with the way it turned out and we're very excited about the fact that you know we have expanded our game sense facilities to make sure that we deal with responsibility and responsibilities and the space that used to be where game sense was is now an extra amenity that we have added the roasted bean which is an mgem branded coffee shop so we are very happy with with having created an extra amenity for our patrons with respect to our external developments the two big projects that the commissioners are well aware of are the 31 elm street project and the demolition of the civic parking garage across from mass neutral center governor baker lieutenant governor palito were out actually uh to uh to uh basically kick off the demolition of the parking garage and and lieutenant governor palito and governor baker actually also took a tour of uh the 31 elm street project so uh again uh we had great support and great help from you know the governor's office on both of these projects and really kudos to the mass convention center authority for everything that they're doing for the city for the civic center garage and we are more than pleased with the way uh things are working out right now here in springfield and then for entertainment both for q2 and q3 you know we have our um war comedy club going we have activations at symphony hall we had chelsea handler and jl j leno we've had john molaney uh at um at symphony at mass mutual center and the one of course we have a few three music fridays out in the plaza but the one item the new activation that i wanted to highlight was with the success of our local hockey team the thunderbirds we started having watch parties in the plaza great support from the community great support from the mayor's office we are happy with the you know the the reception that we have gotten and we we will continue to do these watch parties for the thunderbirds games and then we hope that they continue to have wide success wild success in uh in their play and we're the season just kicked off last week i believe and so we're very excited about continuing to partner with the thunderbirds make sure that those who can't go to the games get to watch the games on the big screen in our plaza and as i said more more shows going on and one thing i want to also highlight is that we had the largest audience ever for our three three music friday when aqua net played i was there uh i can't tell you the incredible energy uh in the crowd i i literally i was trying to walk to the crowd just to get a sense of how the sound was everywhere and i had to walk like a crab to get to the crowd it was so packed and everybody was having such a great time that we're dancing singing and just really enjoying the atmosphere and so we think that you know free music friday has been a wild success for the community and we we have hope and continue to have those going forward next year as well that is our presentation for q2 and q3 and the commissioners or chair if you have any questions i'm happy to answer them questions great community engagement which i like mr hill very nice yeah very nice something i care very deeply about it was nice to see the increase in the activity that's taking place there thank you and that band and that band is awesome i don't know if i should have said that publicly but they're great you keep us informed on that commissioner hill um any other questions i know you're working on on hiring i think i heard from from um boos that you're hiring going to hiring fairs still working yes chair absolutely doing that as well and just by way of you know information you know we actually have obviously as you know um diversity community that we meet with on a regular basis and we've engaged with them about you know other avenues that we can explore to engage job fairs any kind of needs that they might have about you know diversity that we can participate and so again as i said before we are looking at every opportunity to increase our employment includes our expenses then just one addition to that um that is that we do have weekly hiring events in our hotel lobby here at mjm springfield where people can be offered a job on the spot um you know depending on outcome interview application process um and then you know just to add one further thing uh we we have hit upon a new marketing strategy that is mjm springfield and western massachusetts is where fun comes to play well we're going with mjm springfoot is where fun comes to work as well so excellent Joe anything you want to wrap it up with no i just want to uh thank the mjm folks for being so flexible with us um uh scheduling uh meetings has been a bit of a challenge at times so thanks for uh for for hanging hanging by for us again we're happy to will be flexible i know that you know sports betting is top of mind for many people and we're just as excited about the possibility and so whatever we can do to make the commission's job easier on this score we're happy to do it and i think the only other thing i'd like to say is just that you know that 31 elm street we're really excited to see that project finally underway and uh i'm going to be following up a little bit with the city and seeing if maybe we can't get a tour or something uh out there um you know before the weather gets too bad although i know schedules for commissioners and others are a little a little difficult at this point so we'll see what we can do yeah i thought we were going in before full on demo started i'd love to see where it is now very good thank you yeah thank you so much and thank you for waiting we appreciate your patience thank you okay commissioners um i want to um adjourn the meeting on time um so if i could have a motion to adjourn unless there's some other business that we need to address right now i would move to adjourn madam chair second all right um and we'll go back to the matters that we had to um that we'll readjust next week or the next meeting okay commissioner brian hi commissioner hill hi mr skinner hi mr maynard hi i felt yes thank you and thanks again daniel and gust very nice to see you thank you everyone great great day full reports great great work it can't be uh for all of you we just appreciate every effort you're making um we just appreciate karen's leadership and we thank each and everyone because you all make really big impact so thank you so much thanks everybody