 We're all set, Dave, right? We're streaming. Okay, good morning. We'll get started then. Good morning, everyone. This is a recorded meeting and we'll start off with our roll call. Commissioner Cameron. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. I am here, good morning. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Present. And so we'll move ahead. We have a single item agenda today. Today is public meeting number 369 and it's February 1st of 2022. And I just acknowledged informally that today is the day that we can pause and maybe think of those that we have lost and those who've been affected by COVID as we recognized today was two years ago that the first COVID case was determined to be in Massachusetts. So it's been a long holiday one. But we can get started. We have a single item that was marked up under Commissioner O'Brien and my name, but it certainly has been an effort that the team's been involved in as we explore a really a process question around our suitability, hearings of course, and a very core part of our mission. And as always, we explore and think about how things are done, things that we don't need to change, things we might need to tweak and things sometimes that require an overhaul, all of which is done too in the interest of the Commonwealth and the interest of the commission. So I thought, I mean, we'd get started with you maybe framing the issue and see where we can go today without maybe being too long of a meeting. Certainly, Madam Chair, this is, Brad, this will be the first time that you've had the pleasure of discussing the process. We as a commission discussed this early summer. We talked about how to balance the commission's ability to make decisions on suitability questions with the full record in front of them, but in a way that continued to streamline the process and protect the rights, the privacy rights and the attach to the applicants who are granted the process. And looking at the regs that we have now and the statutory structure, we came to what appeared to be a consensus and a resolution to this question of defaulting to adjudicatory, but having a safety valve or lack of a better word where we as the commission could streamline the process and figure out how to maybe wave more complex processes and go forward with what would probably look more like what you've seen, I think maybe there's been one since you've been here. The problem with that was when it came down to looking at how to actually make that work, there's a question as to whether or not our regs allow us to do what we thought was gonna be the process, which would have allowed one commissioner to say, it would have required unanimity to not do adjudicatory and move to a more streamlined process. The regs don't appear to really allow us to do that. And so the question then became and there were a number of meetings where myself, the chair Loretta Lilios taught Karen, we went through the regs and the different options of executive session versus adjudicatory versus all adjudicatory first, and there are challenges to all of them but we're trying to find a resolution that again allows us to look at the full record but in a way that also streamlined, continues to streamline a process that has been established. I think no matter what we do from here and please the people who are part of the group, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think everyone agree, we need to alter the regs to really effectuate what I think everyone on the commission is looking to do to adjudicate these fully and fairly. The question is, what do we do in the short term? Well, we then come up with a solution. So I think there's two issues in front of us which is agreeing on what to do in the short term. While we work out the regs, but then also what is it that we as a commission wanna do in terms of fixing the regs to make it happen? And that's gonna require probably Todd explaining a little bit more about, I feel like every day I learned something new about some of the challenges with executive session. You think you have a solution and then you realize if you do that, you have to stop, wait 48 hours, post disrupt the meeting, come back. So I don't know, Todd, if you have the ability to sort of talk about very overall broad view of adjudicatory could happen this way, executive would happen this way. Cause again, that 48 hour challenge was something I was brought to my attention very recently. So I think maybe it would help to sort of kind of general foundation for what we're looking at. Sure, I'm sure Brian would be happy to do that. I'd start, I guess by just talking a little bit about discussion at public meetings like we're doing right now and the process that has become somewhat familiar for us to move into executive session. We have never done it in the middle of a meeting, of course. It's typically something we anticipate doing in advance. But in general, as I think we know, executive sessions are governed by section 21 of chapter 38, which is of course the administrative procedures act. And it allows the commission to move into an executive session outside of public view to discuss certain issues if they fall into one of the categories that is outlined in section 21. Because of course, otherwise all commission business has to be conducted in public, i.e. any deliberations that the commission engages in have to be done in public. But the law does recognize there are certain things that a public body like this may have a need to talk about outside of public view. When it comes to things like suitability, the one that stands out is provision one. So it's section 21A1. And that one talks about the ability to discuss the reputation, character, physical condition or mental health rather than professional competence of an individual. Or it allows a public body to discuss the discipline or complaints or charges brought against an individual. So that's the one when it comes to suitability that seems to be the most applicable here. And the limitation, if you will, of moving into executive session for these purposes that of course, the commission would have to ensure that the discussion is related to one of those subject areas, which it probably would. But depending on the uniqueness of the situation we'd need to ensure that it fits comfortably within those confines. Procedurally speaking, to move into executive session of course, notice is required. So the statute itself, section 21 requires that the individual who will be discussed be afforded 48 hours prior notice of the proposed executive session. The provision does allow the person to wave that 48 hour timeline if they agree to that. And then if the commission is in executive session to discuss a particular individual, they have the right to be present during the deliberations in executive session. They have the right to have counsel or representative of their choosing present for the purpose of advising them, although the person is not allowed to actively participate in the executive session. The person would have a right to speak on their own behalf and to cause an independent record to be made if they so choose. And so those are, and then the other thing that's important to remember is that the person could cause the executive session to be conducted in public. So the provision is designed to ensure that person's privacy, but if they don't feel like there's a need to protect their privacy, they could require that the discussion be held in public. So of course to do this, we need to ensure that it's publicly noticed and what have you. So it's hard, not impossible, but hard to just pivot on the fly in the midst of a discussion right into executive session. So that's something we would just need to think about and make sure we plan out in advance if we anticipate something like that happening. Todd, on that point too, so juxtapose that with the adjudicatory process in terms of sort of the same scenario going out where it sounded like adjudicatory was a little more nimble in terms of being able to shift over. I think that's right. So I'm happy to just kind of contrast that with the adjudicatory proceeding provisions for a moment. And so of course, we're all familiar with 101.01 of the commission's regulations. Those deal with adjudicatory proceedings before the commission. And specifically as Commissioner O'Brien is asking about, there's a provision in here that allows the commission to close a proceeding to the public in certain circumstances. It's based on a case that involved the sex offender registry board where the court weighed in and said that there are some circumstances where you can close an adjudicatory proceeding. Of course, adjudicatory proceedings fall outside of the open meeting loss. So there are slightly different considerations of separate body of law and statutory requirements that govern those. But notice and things like that are still required here, of course, but the one provision specifically that talked about closing the hearing is 101.01 and then it's paragraph seven. And it says that any adjudicatory hearing conducted under the rules may be closed to the public at the request of either party or on the commission's own initiatives in order to protect the privacy interests of either party or other individual and to protect other things like sensitive technical information and things like that, or for other good cause shown. And then the reg provides that such a determination rests in the sole discretion of the commission. And I think your specific question was whether the commission in the middle of a hearing essentially could decide to close the hearing to the public. And I believe that you could, if you're in the middle of an adjudicatory proceeding and something came up, you could in theory cite this provision and close the hearing to the public. And I guess the other nuance they're taught is for us to go into executive session for exemption one, it needs to be related to character, but it sounds like for adjudicatory sort of the sensitive nature of some of the questions, not necessarily character related could be the basis for going into that closed session. Is that accurate or am I wrong on that? Yeah, I think that the adjudicatory language is a little bit broader in that it covers just general privacy interests of either party. It's not necessarily related strictly to one's reputation or character. I think reputation and character and complaints and things like that certainly fall into the personal privacy category, but personal privacy may be a little bit broader. For example, financial related issues and things along those lines. Right, right, okay, yep. Question? Can I just interject a little bit? The other piece on the executive sessions, minutes must be taken, is that correct Todd? That's right, absolutely. Gail, you had a question, Commissioner? I did, I did. First, I'd like my recollection of our discussion and consensus. I believe that was last summer, Commissioner O'Brien. I don't recollect it the same way you do. I'll be honest. I recollect that we were looking for a way to trigger an adjudicatory process if necessary. And how would we do that? Would one commissioner be able to do that? We were looking for a mechanism in a case where we thought we had to handle it differently than a public meeting. So that was my recollection and that's certainly what I was consenting to as part of that consensus. It was not that every single one be handled as an adjudicatory matter and that then we find a way to handle it differently. So that's not my recollection of that meeting. So I just wanted to clarify that. Secondly, Todd, with your description of both a process for either an executive session or an adjudicatory process, what's to say that we couldn't, you know, we get a case two weeks in advance. We know if there's an issue. Typically, IEB has asked all the right questions. The questions are answered appropriately, but if in fact the licensee wants to push someone who IEB has identified issues and a commissioner is not comfortable, why couldn't we at that point post for either an executive session or an adjudicatory process at that point? Why does it have to be in the middle of a meeting? We then decide we need to close something off. I'm just missing that point altogether, how, why we'd need to wait for that to happen. Commissioner Cameron, I don't think we need to wait necessarily. I think to the extent things can be anticipated, we could certainly plan it in advance. And that would probably be the preferred course, for sure. Could we play that out a bit though, Todd? How does that information? So one individual commissioner goes to staff. And then since that comes back to that question of how do we implement, we're trying to figure out a way that if one commissioner is uncomfortable, we go to that mechanism obviously that's most open and exploratory for that person. The rub is, I believe, even the CMR that Todd was even talking about is the decision of the commission, which historically means a majority vote of the commission rather than one person. I think you and I recollect the meeting the same way, Gail, just for saying it in opposite ways in terms of the plan was if one person was uncomfortable, it was a judicatory. But we would try to streamline to not unless that happened. The problem is the way it's all written, it functions in the opposite way, that the commission has to decide to do a judicatory. So how do you implement it if one person objects, you still have to then bring it in front of the whole body to have the body have a majority vote on it. So that's sort of the circle we're caught in of the way the statute of regs are written. I love the idea. I'm kind of amending a reg if that's what we need to do in order to accomplish that mission, which is we're looking for risk here, right? We wanna be a risk-based kind of agency. We don't wanna add a layer of bureaucracy if it isn't necessary. But when there is a necessity, I am all for finding a mechanism in which we can get there as a body. Now, we have in the past made decisions based on one commissioners recommendation acting on behalf of the commission. So I am not, hey, listen, if either IEB recommends that we have a process because this is a complicated or problematic applicant. And then we, I suspect we could do that in an agenda setting or maybe it's a public meeting. The one before where we just say we have a recommendation from IEB or a commissioner and we'd like to set whatever process we think is appropriate for that particular applicant. Just not sure why that wouldn't work. Well, because again, the regs don't allow for that right now. Well, I agree that we need a reg change. Yes. I agree that we need a reg change. I think there's two things. I think coming out of today's meeting, which is one, given the regs we have right now, I believe we're going to have to do a judicatory for a period of time and then figure out, and we also need to have a conversation about what do we want to change in the reg to implement what we're talking about, which is a full review that allows for us to get home. I'm going to disagree with you with that. I just don't see the need to go for every applicant using a judicatory process. I don't see that as the right mechanism. I really don't. I think as a practical matter, Gail, I agree with you, but as a matter of how the regs are written right now, it's very difficult to go forward and implement what you and I remember from last June, which is going forward unless someone has an issue with it. And that's what we're struggling with. That's what we as a commissioner are struggling with. I think we can get there though. I don't see why that's so problematic. How do we deal with the fact that what the regs say right now in the short term and then what is it that changed to make that happen in the reg? Well, I don't see where we've been doing anything wrong, the way we've been doing it, frankly, that we should change the way we do every single one right now in order to accomplish where we want to get. I think we can have an immediate process with a reg change. I don't see why that is very difficult to do. I think we've identified the issues and we can get it done quickly is how I look at this. I really, I actually don't think that the process that we have been following because of the need to change the reg, I don't think we can continue to do that and comply with the reg. But I remember- And I've heard all the legal opinions about this matter and I actually think what we've been doing now is just fine, they're illegal and we've never had a problem. The only problem we've ever had is with one major investigation. So when I look at this as a risk-based kind of a, and that's so important as a commission to operate that way, I believe. So I'm not, I don't think there's a need to add a layer to this of bureaucracy when we haven't had a problem. If we had a couple of cases that backfired, I may agree- It's not a bureaucracy though. It's not necessarily bureaucracy that we're talking about. It's talking about there's a risk balance too that commissioners have to be able to see the entire record and discuss it openly. And then the applicant has to have their rights preserved and have their privacy preserved and their sensitive information preserved. So the question is, how do you do that in a way under the current regs? And the reality is we don't have the entire record in front of us in the format that we've been doing it which 99.9% of the time because of the clean report, it's a non-issue. And you don't have the, and you don't think we have the ability right now to, in that one tenth of a percentage of a time to have IEB recommend an adjudicatory and we handle it that way. But the statute says it's up to us, not IEB. That's the wrong. Well, why can't IEB recommend it? We have a meeting, we were in a public meeting, we say, okay, we agree it should be handled in adjudicatory and we handle it that way. So that's the question, how do you do the regs in a way that allows the commission to make that call? Because IEB makes the recommendation and they can absolutely do that. And I'm sure they would if they had a circumstance where they said, we feel like we can't even make a recommendation one way or the other. And I'm thinking along the lines of the wind hearing that we did in 2019, there was no recommendation and that was in adjudicatory hearing but ultimately it's up to the commission to decide that. But what's wrong with us deciding at a public meeting and then say two weeks later, we have the actual process. So this is what we talked about. And this is the reg change we talked about. How do we do that? Because that was sort of conceptually where I thought we were in the beginning of the summer but the regs don't necessarily allow us to do that right now. And so the question is- I don't think the reg allows now for us to vote on an adjudicatory process. I think the reg has written right now would be having, it's supposed to be in a adjudicatory process, apps and other things happening. But I'll let- Or a public hearing. Or a public hearing. In the conversation. Right. Which is how we've been doing it. No, we've been doing a public meeting. Meetings, which are different. And it's not a distinction without a difference, unfortunately. Well, I do see it differently and I, like I say, I've heard all the legal opinions and I think we could do this quickly. I think we could make the reg change we need so that everybody's comfortable. But I guess the piece that I am just, I'm just not in favor of handling all of these. I just, I think it sends the wrong message. We wanna be a transparent agency. We wanna be risk-based. And I just, I think it adds a layer that we don't have to do. To be clear right now, I wanna make sure that we understand an adjudicatory hearing in my mind would be conducted in the public just like we do the REITs. We did the REITs in public. I know, but that's an awful lot of work on a qualifier and I just don't see the layer. I just don't see it. I really don't. I think we'd be an outlier in gaming agencies. I think in licensing agencies, that's not the way these things are done. And I think we're an outlier. We're an outlier now because we conduct them in public anyway. I mean, we're an outlier. So I don't wanna compare it to other jurisdictions, but I do think what Commissioner O'Brien's raised is that we have a lot of questions still. And right now we can't operate the way that we have been without- That's your opinion, I disagree and I've listed all the- We got a regulatory change. I mean, I think that, you know what Todd, I'm gonna ask you, can we continue to do, are we in full compliance right now if we continue to do as we are doing under our regulation? It's the exact same thing we've been doing. Are we in compliance? Well, I think there are certainly a couple of tweaks that would need to be made to ensure full compliance. For example, there is a provision in the regs that require the qualifiers consent to conduct the reviews during the public hearing. So we would need to start doing something like that. We would need to make sure that there are a few other tweaks put in place to make sure we're in full compliance. That doesn't require a reg change. Todd, did you say public hearing on purpose? That's what the regulation says. So we'll have, then start holding public hearings, right? So that means that we need to allow the public to participate and we need to include comments. Is that fair? Not necessarily, the regulation contemplated that you would discuss whether and how to receive public comments, not necessarily that you would automatically. I don't know what that means. That's worth anywhere. So that's another thing we have to resolve then. That's in paragraph three of 115.04. It says the commission will issue a notice in advance of the public hearing, stating the date, time and place of the hearing and conditions pursuant to which the commission will receive public comments. So to Commissioner Karen's point, Commissioner Karen's point, she's quite right. The great news is that we've conducted our, we've had, I've participated in one significant adjudicatory hearing on suitability matter. That was the wind matter. I know she participated in others earlier on. They were adjudicatory hearings. We've also had some that were more streamlined where there was no objection to a description that they were clean reports. And we relied strictly on the report that was before us. So all has been, all, we've met our burden. I believe strongly we've met our burden. There have been questions raised that where complexities arise, our process may not accommodate us to be able to fully deliberate on the record in front of us and ask every question that we want because of privacy issues. I agree. And I always thought that that would trigger an adjudicatory process. It was always my understanding that when we had a case that, and by the way, most of these cases, as we know, IEB notifies the company of the issue and they pull the qualifier because they don't, they didn't realize there was that kind of an issue. Our IEB is that good. I believe that they identify those issues. We have to have the process in place for if that doesn't happen. So the question is, imagine an example where it doesn't happen, how are we calling it? Or that we don't align or that we don't align with the IEB. I mean, it's hard because we've got Loretta. I always try to divorce myself with Loretta. If that's happening, Mr. Joe Schmoe, who's gone crazy and saying something, making a recommendation that is maybe too conservative, just crazy conservative saying, you will never be deemed suitable and that's true. It's in the commission's, really? Now, just imagine that scenario. So it's harder because then that person might say, well, wait, I'm absolutely wanna go in front of the commission. So we have to have that plan. And right now, right now, it's really one, we are restricted in our current process from asking questions. Well, because they, these applicants that we've had in front of us have been, in my opinion, non-controversial. And again, I agree. I agree with you entirely, Commissioner Cameron. I agree with you entirely. I feel as though the ones that we have had in the past, we have nothing, all of us have been fully informed and have been able to rely on the record in front of us. I absolutely agree with you. I felt in the windmatter, the adjudicatory process was there. We were able to flush out with all of the applicants and interested stakeholders and parties. We were able to ask questions broadly. It was full, it was public, our deliberations for private. And I say that to remind, I know Commissioner Hills looked at the transcript. I know that in one case, there was a recommendation, I believe, Karen correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a reversal. It turned out that the commission under the adjudicatory hearing did not deem them suitable. Because that was an adjudicatory process, that was final. I wanna make sure it's clear that currently we haven't had this issue. But if there were in front of us questions that are more nuanced about privacy, right now we can't ask those questions in the public meeting, and I emphasize meeting because of privacy issues. So we have to be cognizant of that. So if we decided we wanted to do that, there is a tool. We would pause for 48 hours or more and then we would trigger the executive session that Todd just described. Now let's play this out. Now that individual comes in because they're really fighting for their suitability because we know how important that is, right? And let's say we go with a positive. We've heard it all, even though IEB had some concerns and they fairly raised them, but they were kind of, some of these are gonna be harder for IEB for us, we're all human. And they say, we all decide suitable, that's probably gonna be done and the minutes will be out there and you will have discussions and we'll still be able to protect the privacy interests through our minutes. I believe that's right, Todd. But let's now play it forward that we really have decided not suitable. At this point, the individual's rights have not been protected fully. And that's an important piece for us to understand because they would have a right to a full adjudicatory hearing with us again if they appealed. They could decide, all right, I don't want my reputation tarnished anymore. I don't love that being our default thinking because it doesn't feel like the right sort of, personal rights and due process rights. So we wanna have a process with that in mind. It would trigger, and I'm looking at Heather, I think I'm right, but at their, that I think Heather told me or told us in some forum, it's we have to offer the adjudicatory process as an unappeal, we wouldn't have to give it. Is that correct, Heather? It's not that we think she's on. Hi. It's not that they're guaranteeing, only if they wanted to appeal, we would have to repeat, correct, on the adjudicatory process. Yes, I believe so, that's how I understand it. And I've read the race to determine that if there's something that's going to be lost or denied, then the adjudicatory proceeding. So then we would repeat because they wouldn't be able to appeal directly to the superior court, but we would have minutes, we would have already fleshed out to be clear what's happened in the executive session isn't a sworn testimony. I do hear Commissioner Cameron's concern about additional bureaucracy. It is not certainly my intent to add layers of bureaucracy. In fact, the process I'm imagining as an adjudicatory process seems more streamlined rather than, and it would be, we open up with public meeting and we kind of do exactly what we, but it's in an adjudicatory setting, but it's the public meeting a single agenda. I guess you have to do that for an adjudicatory hearing. We would open up and in many ways we would rest on the reports like we have been when they're clean, like Commissioner Cameron, I promise in your future to quote you and say, as Commissioner Cameron would have said, this is a clean report, and then be able to rest and not call witnesses and not have to, but if we wanted to ask questions, like even those little clarifying questions about privacy, we could say, but I've got a few questions I'd like to ask, can we go into private? We'd ask those questions and then make our decision, come back into public and be over. And that's the adjudicatory process I'm imagining. Clean. I guess I just don't ever see an adjudicatory process being used in that mechanism. When there's no issues, there are no issues. It's like, you don't really have a question to ask. That's just the same process we would use for all of them and it would be kind of. But I just disagree. I can't, I don't, it's not, it's not what I think of as an adjudicatory process. It's not how I've ever seen them used. And I just, I think we'd be, I just disagree that that's what we should be doing here to use an adjudicatory process when someone is, is so clean. There's, you know, they didn't miss a day of kindergarten and we're a whole adjudicatory process. I also agree with what you're saying that we don't want to make it unwieldy and burdensome. So I think if, Karen, I'd like to turn to you and come out commissioner to Brian to finish her presentation. But I would ask commissioner Cameron, perhaps that as much as I've been really working to figure out on, you know, the, all the alternatives that one of the alternatives we also entertain is must the adjudicatory process be as burdensome as all of us are sort of thinking or worried that it might be. I, because I too share that concern. I don't want to add unnecessarily. I also would like it to be a fair and equitable process. And one concern I have is that our deliberations may not be as full and natural when we don't want to sort of trigger thinking about somebody who really has a clean report that it might, you know, nobody wants to raise their hand to go into executive session because we don't want to add that process. You know, it's well, couldn't let that be done ahead of time is my question. I know when I read a report two weeks ahead of time if I have an issue and, and customarily what we've done over the years is call IEB and say, did this question get asked at that? And I, I see nothing wrong with that process because I need to be sure about what I'm voting on in a meeting. And, and I, I think all that. That's one way of doing it. The work of IEB does, frankly is by asking those questions. And wow, these investigators did ask that question I had in my mind. And, and I came to appreciate the work they do. They are the fact binders. And I just, I just, I'm just struggling with I'll be honest with you. I'm struggling with for every single report making it an adjudicatory process. I just think it's not the right way to go for us. And I think, yes, we can fix array so that we, we make sure we're complying. As I said, we haven't had a question about anything to date. And I just, I just think it could be IEB recommending it which in all probability they know when there are issues or one commissioner, I'm fine to trust all my colleagues if there's one commissioner who, who would like to handle it in a more formal manner, I'm just fine with that. I support that 100%. I just think we could do a reg change pretty quickly and move on with this. But that's just my opinion. I'm happy to listen to everybody else. Just another point of clarification too. I'm going back and re listening to our conversation back on June 24th about it until there was one other distinction that we would have to change in terms of the public hearing. And I just needed a comment on whether this also applies to adjudicatory which is public hearing would mean we would have to make public the redacted version of the report at the time that we post and then solicit public comment with the redacted public report out there. We have not been doing that traditionally. It's obviously someone asked for a public record. There is, you know, redactions done appropriately and it is produced at that time. This would be a more proactive publication to comply with the public hearing language. Is that same requirement out there for sort of the advanced disclosure of the redacted report does that also apply to the adjudicatory process? No, I don't believe you have there's any requirement that you post publicly any of the evidence and then adjudicatory proceeding. They're still public records. Talking about like, you know in terms of the ministerial aspects of these there is arguably a more streamlined aspect to adjudicatory because you're not publishing the redacted report as you have to do for public hearing which we have to do basically to go forward right now. Just something to point out procedurally that you did flag that when we talked about it in June and I just wanted to bring it up again. Can we, I know the team this has been a difficult one for the team to deal with. And I just, is there anything we've heard from our general counsel? I'd like to just ask Loretta if there's anything you can shed here with regard to IEB's role and the work that's done on the front end and how this would affect anything. Did you have anything, any thoughts on that? For Commissioner Cameron and Commissioner Hill I really only had the one two by two with you that was I didn't really share any insights at that time with you. I have had many more conversations and two by twos with the chair and Commissioner O'Brien. This notion of adjudicatory hearing, we're talking about it two different types of adjudicatory hearings in this conversation. One type, the typical type of adjudicatory hearing that we think about is a creature that is created that protects the right of an individual. So it protects the right of a qualifier who is denied or has this qualification or license taken away from him. That right to that hearing is triggered by the request of the qualifier. That doesn't seem to be what we're talking about here. What Commissioner O'Brien and the chair seem to be putting forward is creating an adjudicatory process that allows the commission the process to do the work and effectuate its responsibilities in the way that the commission wants. There's nothing illegal about doing that in my view, but whenever you create a process that is not demanded as of right, you're creating a process, you create the potential for challenges to that process. Although we've talked about doing those types of hearings in not a burdensome way, and we do follow our regs talk about following the informal rules under 801 CMR, the Commonwealth Rules to Hearing, so they are informal rules, but an adjudicatory hearing is an adjudicatory hearing. It is evidentiary, it is adversarial by nature, and there are rights that come out of it. What I also hear is that the need for the commission to have the ability to do a more robust discussion in the context of these open meetings, which have made it very difficult and impossible for the commission to deliberate on details of the factual findings that have been put before you that come out of the investigation. And it seems to be that the, I'm happy to hear that there's consideration of the executive session for that purpose that would allow you to have a free discussion and point out that in addition to the exemption under character and reputation, which I think total agreement with Todd that these kinds of things would fall squarely in that exemption, there's also an exemption allowance for compliance with other laws, including FIPPA, including general constitutional right to privacy laws. So it's my view that the adjudicatory process is that the commission would trigger, is allowable, but should go into it with open eyes and understand what it is and what it isn't. But it's something that the commission is asking for, not something that the qualifier is asking for, which is the usual context that you see adjudicatory process. So Loretta, do you ask them now what they want? Well, we don't ask them, they see the report and we don't ask them. Certainly, if we go forward with a reg review on this, I expect somewhere or another there's going to be a reg review on this, putting those rights out to them more clearly is something that should be considered in any reg review. But right now we do not say to them, hey, this is going to an open meeting, do you want to have an adjudicatory hearing on it? That right would not be triggered unless there is a denial. And can I just play that through? So right now in our public meetings, if Commissioner Cameron were to say it's a clean report and I said, well, actually I think differently because I happen to see something that was alarming to me in my sensibilities. I think typically Commissioner Cameron and I see suitability on the same line, but let's imagine that scenario. And let's say I'm able to convince two other commissioners. At that moment, we decide to go against the recommendation of IEB for suitability. At one point I was told I couldn't vote it down, but in fact I've been told maybe I could vote it down. So what is the answer there? I think the distinction there, Chair, is it can get voted down three to two. And that would trigger the right to the person to come in and say, you know what? I want to come in and offer evidence of my own. Also the person, when the person gets the IEB's report, right in our statute, it says that the person can ask for an adjudicatory hearing to challenge any of the findings made by the IEB. The person could challenge the findings and ask for an adjudicatory hearing. And have they ever done that? Have they ever done that? No. Because you've been giving them the IEB report along? There has was a period that we were not giving them the IEB report. They are now getting the IEB report. Okay. And so when they got the IEB report and that triggered the challenge, is that how it worked? They see the findings. You know, the IEB's report is... Oh, yeah. We didn't have a recommendation in that one. There was no... Okay, yeah, that's right. There was no recommendation in that one. And then earlier there were recommendations, but the when just happened to have no recommendation, but they had the findings. So they had to challenge it. So then they said, let's go into an adjudicatory hearing. That's what they said. Or did the commission decide to go in the adjudicatory hearing? On the wind matter. I mean, I'm... That was, you know, there were aspects of that matter that don't align completely with, you know, the individual qualifier process that's coming before you. That's a separate reg and different than ongoing suitability of the licensee. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out that one versus the, you know, the sort of streamline ones and what might be in between. So what I'm hearing you say is that we don't have the affirmative right to convene an adjudicatory hearing. No, I didn't say that. I think you have the authority to do it, but it's a different creature than the, the 30A hearing right that belongs to the individual. Can you, can you tell me what's the difference between the informal adjudicatory and the formal adjudicatory? Either you or Todd. Discovery is allowed in the formal rules. Informal. What's the informal? Informal does not allow discovery as of right. You need to ask for special permission for good cause for discovery. That's, that's one of the big points of, of the informal rules. And so just do you know, if you have a, can you describe to me, Karen, like what the informal could look like? Do you know? Loretta, you're talking about 801 CMR 102. Is that it? Yes. Yeah. So that, you know, that's where, you know, I do not feel myself out as an expert, Madam chair, but that's where, you know, I think potentially some experience in this might be helpful because I hear different perceptions of the adjudicatory model. What may be helpful is to sort of either through our own, you know, initiative, you know, in the short term getting some experience with these or, and also seeing what other agencies do with this informal adjudicatory process. Because it seems as if we have a bit of a disconnect as to what is the extent of this process as, you know, can we just rely on the papers and does it feel like the same thing? Or is it really involved? And I think it would be helpful if we were more educated on that, to have a final decision on what we end up doing. Just to be clear, all of our hearings are conducted under the informal rules. I can't fall into the formal rules. Okay. Whether it's before the hearings. Right. Yeah. We have hearings all the time in front of hearing officers. It's the, and those are all under the informal rules. They are. Okay. Okay. So, but the commissioners have, they don't participate in those. They haven't seen that. The ones we've done before the commission have all been under the informal rules too. I mean, only one time in my whole career have I seen one done under the formal rules. It does happen, but it's pretty rare. So remind me on the read matter. Loretta. That was, we held that publicly or was that private because of trade. Stuff. All public. The report was fully public. It was all public. So Brad, that's a good reminder you've done that. I can't remember if you've done one of the more streamlined suitability hearings or not. Have you? Where we, you haven't. No. So. The read matter seemed pretty streamlined. But it went really well. The point, I agree. It went really well. And frankly, if it, if it were done in an open meeting, it would not have looked much different. Yeah. But what, what the, the point I'm trying to. Make is that by doing it in an adjudicatory proceeding, setting it up that way, giving the notice requirement, having witnesses. The, the. Doing it under those rules. Gives the individual or in that, in that this case, the company, certain 30 a rights out of that hearing. To go to superior court that you wouldn't have. Had it been done in, in a, in another, in another setting. But they always have the right to an adjudicatory hearing. If we deny, they have that right. If you deny. So, so in other words. I want to make sure that the commission. The five individuals that don't include Hill Cameron, O'Brien, Judd Stein, and whoever, you know, five years from now, 10 years from now. It's not about us. But it is about the commission's ability to fully delivery on a full record and ask every question they want to ask. And preserve the rights of the individual's privacy. And make sure we make a full and wholesome decision on this issue. It's not about us. It's about our vulnerability. Which is core to the mission, core to the integrity of the gaming. Industry in Massachusetts. Our mission. In fact, this few. Any other, maybe the granting of licenses. More important decisions. I agree with commissioner Cameron. I'm the most practical person. I can figure out how to make a soup in 10 minutes. I make the soup in 10 minutes. and effective and good. So I don't look to add burden and I do not in any way question the work of our IEB. This is never about our team. I trust them. I trust that my commissioner, I trust them. Their work is thorough. Loretta has a team with impeccable qualifications and work. And I understand their recommendation and give them due deference. But the process, it may be that we have different process. I understand that. I hear that and I'm not saying I don't. That I will not entertain that. But I do know that we have encountered at least once an issue where we could not go freely into our public meeting and ask every question we wanted to because our process doesn't currently allow it. The problem just disappeared in an organic way and it didn't come to us in our meeting, which was just the luck of the strong. So I ask that we figure out, we have some suitability reports that are sitting on the shelf. We need to get to our job. Loretta, would you be able to put together for those some kind of a process that would be in an adjudicatory in nature? So we could get going on those while we explore what might be the best process or processes for the future. Is that something we could do? And Karen, I'd like you to add into an Eileen on that. Because Karen, I know this is really your team and it's operations combination of NETO and IEB. That solution eliminates the issue of whether or not there is a concern over being operating outside our reg. It would also give us some experience in this model. Seems like it's permissible and that may inform us when the, you know, come back before the commission. I think staff needs to get going on this right away for the benefit of the commissioner. So that they get what they want. But I get that this is just a temporary interim solution until the commission figures out where we go from here. The commissioner interrupted you. Yeah, thank you. And that's fine. No, I think you, I actually- That's fine. I think you are going to interrupt me. I have a habit of doing it. So I'm never going to call someone else on that. Listen, I'm just going to disagree. I think if there were five new commissioners here they'd say what the hell did this group do to us? That we made every single suitability and adjudicatory process. I really believe that would be something that would be really burdensome and unnecessary and not basing what we do on a risk-based model. It's using for someone that's really clean. It's putting a whole process in place that I can't be convinced. I'll be honest with you that it's necessary. So yes, of course, people can put it together but I think we need a consensus that that's the right way to go. And right now I'm not convinced that the way to go is to take every single case and make an adjudicatory process. I think we can comply with the reg and do what we need to do and quickly change the reg so that everybody is satisfied and everybody feels like they have the ability to ask their questions. I never ever thought that we'd handle a case that was controversial or problematic in a public meeting, never. That was never, the 10 years I've been doing this I never thought that's how we'd handle a matter. So, but nor did I ever think we'd handle suitability at the numbers that we've had in the past and adjudicatory process for every single one. Never anticipated that. And so I'm just, all I'm doing is respectfully disagreeing with the process. That's fair and we may end up taking a vote but let's see, Commissioner O'Brien. I mean, I think the two questions I have are one that's already been asked and then the other one is if there isn't consensus on that one needs to be done on, if we did adjudicatory temporarily while we worked everything out to get any backlog done and if there isn't consensus on that whether there are changes that would need to be done to comply with the language in our regs hearing versus meeting, posting the report redacted that sort of thing. That all needs to be worked out as well. And so to me, the shortest way to get to the backlog cleared is adjudicatory just because there's still questions that need to be answered about public comment. I mean, go back for Brad's edification it was June 26th of this year toward the end of the meeting. And I do think it's helpful to give sort of a background on what we were talking about. A lot of these issues came up but some other things did come up in terms of posting the report, public comment how do we go about that? That all complicates trying to simply go another way that's not adjudicatory. So I think in a short term, adjudicatory makes sense and then figure out what do we really need? Does it, if it's not gonna stay that way what's the process and the regs that need to change so we can go forward in the most streamlined way possible which where we started in the beginning of the meeting I think we're circling back to that. So the question is, if we don't do that there are other things that need to be addressed and how we're getting the backlog cleared and continuing to have the conversation about how to change the regs. And so that everybody gets what they need out of this in terms of asking the questions they need to and protecting the privacy rights and the sensitive information potentially of the applicants. Okay, Karen, we met in a silent briefing where you started with a recommendation for the adjudicatory process but you've heard a lot even since then we've had the benefit of some conversations with some other entities and individuals who do this and they are all struck that this isn't easy. No, it's not. And it's not black and white. With that said, we want to get it as best right as we can, right? So what would you like to add and how do you imagine the timeline and scenario for this and Loretta how many suitability reports I'd like after Karen if you could just be ready to say how many are ready for our review. So Karen. Right, I mean, my concern is if we don't, the commission doesn't want to do these few temper, have a temporary situation when we do them in adjudicatory model. I'm not sure what the process is then for the commission determination about which way to go. That's where I see the sticking point right here is that under the current reg it's not defined and there's some issues with the hearing versus the open meeting. So I'm just being practical on the operations side. I'm not quite sure how we do that right now and I would like to get these moving. And so that seems to be a practical solution, particularly where we'd still be coming back before the commission with the options and figuring out how they would want to do this. So I'm just looking at it from a practical matter. And I don't present that I know exactly how this is all gonna go in adjudicatory model. So I would personally like to see how that works out so that the commission would be, it could give some good advice to the commission on what to do going forward. So, until I see it, I don't really know for sure. Rhett, how many do we have ready? Currently, there are three ready. Three sounds like a good number. And they've been ready for a while, right? No, they haven't been languishing, but they've been ready I think for a couple of weeks. Good. Can I ask one more question? Are we, see, I'm not convinced that we're not complying with our regs now. Is that something that I'm hearing that other people think that we're not complying with our regs now? Well, we right now don't have anything in front of us, Commissioner Cameron. I think that's an important distinction. Right now, we don't have a matter in front of us. So I'm saying, and I think Karen's saying is that if we proceed right now with a suitability report, the regs raise questions for us on how to proceed going forward. So what you're saying is everything we've been doing for the last almost 10 years, you've now there seems to be a question whether or not we're in compliance with the regs. Is that, that's what I guess I'm struggling with. I don't think there's any risk of jeopardy because all the determinations have been positive. So I don't think the commission right now is any risk. It looks like we're looking sort of at a risk analysis going forward. So I don't think this is about whether I did anything wrong or whatever. It's just a little tricky when you look at 115, particularly when you use the term public hearing. And then in the commission, it says the commission shall determine whether to initiate a process for a public hearing. And I'm not sure exactly what that process is. And we just haven't discussed that. That's all. I have another question on that, Commissioner Cameron. No, so I think the question is that, I mean, I think the answer I just heard is that we're not in any jeopardy. So I guess I get back to why we're changing something before we can have a consensus on what that change should be in a reg change. So that's my only concern is we're looking to change something where we're looking to solve a problem in my mind that doesn't exist. That's all. Maybe Commissioner Cameron hasn't reviewed the regulation in the same way that Commissioner O'Brien and I've reviewed the regulation with you, Todd and Avetta and Karen. Well, Chair, to be clear, the commission does have very broad discretion in the way that it interprets its own regulations. I mean, you know that. The commission has been interpreting this existing regulation for many years in a certain way. And there may be different views now, but if I thought that we were not that the process we have been using for years was non-compliant, I'd be the first one to point that out. So there may be different views on that, but the commission's actions over a decade or so and through various regulatory amendments to 101 and 115 and continuing to do it in the way that it's been doing it is some history of how the commission, at least in the past, has interpreted the reg, which doesn't mean going forward, a new process wouldn't be needed or desired, but in terms of the, well, I guess I mean. Yeah, I think probably Loretta, that's a characterization that I might not share. I understand. There are, to be sure, there are, and I don't believe the commission's done anything wrong as a matter of law, but the commission has set out a process and its regulations and there are a couple of adjustments certainly that need to be looked at, regardless of what the ultimate decision is. But I don't believe we're in legal jeopardy of any kind. It's just a matter of the way I see it. We've been doing things a certain way and we're having a fresh look at the process to ensure that we, all the commissioners receive all the information that would be helpful to them and executing their duties and that's what we're talking about today. So I'm not really looking at it as whether we were doing something right or wrong because I don't think we were doing anything wrong. It's just a matter of ensuring we're doing it the best way possible now. And I share that sentiment. I think I started the meeting with that sentiment. That this is a time of where always procedures and processes should be reflected upon and sometimes they require tweaking. Sometimes they require nothing. We love that one. In terms of the regulations that stands and I think this has been stated today, one of the immediate issues is that we haven't figured out how the commission makes a determination about whether or not to hold an adjudicatory hearing or a public hearing. Our regulation is written that way. That has not happened and that's on the record today that we haven't been asked whether we want to have an adjudicatory hearing or a public hearing. And it hasn't come up for me because I never looked at the regulation until this issue came up. I've been going along and honestly because a question came up on this we started to examine the regs. So this isn't to point a finger at anything it was just to get clarification about what we would do when complexities arise in our suitability report. Madam Chair, do you envision that being a long process? Because I just don't. I think we can fix that pretty quickly. You know, I think Commissioner Cameron I agree with you, we could fix regulations quickly. I think there's still some real legal work and work that needs to be done to sort of understand our process as a deliberating body, a five and how there might be some choices and then legal choices that we can make then don't have to be an assessment as to what the best process is and those are the efficiencies I think you and I are both looking for. You know, but I think one thing that maybe you and I and probably because we haven't been able to sit together and chit chat about this because of our structure but maybe one of the things I've raised and that you raised today and we may differ or we actually might be more aligned but we just haven't had a chance to chat about it is when you say that you would comfortably go to IEB and ask those individual questions I think that that is exactly what has been done in the past and I'm not saying that's a bad way and I don't, I understand why some would prefer that. My preference is always to know what the questions are and act as a united body because I think then we're a united body of five and not five individuals. So my preference would be to have those discussions in a deliberation setting and whether it's in public or private but more with the protection of us being able to ask. I know that you're asking about I think IEB's work per se but that's where I struggle with how to make a single like the decision of one decides to process that doesn't mean commissioner Cameron, I'm against that. I'm just struggling with it and it might be process related and it might have some substance relation. Right now I don't understand it process wise. So that's where the reg review would have to really take that into consideration. Can we for instance override our requirement to make decisions as a majority? Can we in this instance make it be a veto of one? Or by one? So I mean there's lots of questions. I just think the cases would be so rare where there's a significant issue with the qualifier that we could take the time. It took two weeks that'd be fine. But if we needed to do it in public and say, we want to handle this one as an adjudicatory and or an executive session, we could take the time to do it because I do think the cases would be rare when that trigger would be necessary. We just have to figure out the process though for when and if that happens. That's agreed, agreed that we do, but I just don't know why that's difficult. Well, but you know what? I agree with that. I have not figured out why this is so difficult and Karen, that's how I've led every conversation that is what am I missing? What am I missing? So you get into a conversation thinking you'd come up with the solution only to realize there were these other requirements in that way restrictions on that. So then by the other way, and so it is not as straightforward as you would think when you first look at it. Yeah, and I think this is where the, because we don't get to sit down and talk to each other to sort of air all these issues out that I guess what I haven't heard from Brad and I do want to hear from Commissioner Hill. What I do think is probably the three of us are more aligned than one might think that we never want to have a decision made for us. We're independent commissioners. We want to be a deliberate body and we want to have the best evidence in front of us. I don't think any of us disagree with that. We also have no intent of in any way undermining the authority of the IEB and we certainly don't want to put any additional burdens on not only the IEB but Todd's team, Karen and all who end up supporting these complex decisions. So I think all of that, I'm guessing we can all raise our hands if that makes sense, but there's just more nuance to the process itself and we've got to get to work. So if I could just turn to Commissioner Hill you've taken a lot and I see you writing a lot of notes. Probably too many because I'm all over the place on this. First, let me just say that I have the utmost respect for all of my fellow commissioners and their opinions. And this has been a lot of information to take in but the spirit of compromise which is something that I try and do in my life and in all my professional positions, I think moving forward, at least in the short term, let's talk about that first. In the short term, I would like to see us move forward with the three reports as we have been doing as a board for the last 10 years and get them done with. At the same time, moving forward with the change in regulation because I think that's the key component here is if I heard everybody correctly but I think I did, in the end, what we're trying to accomplish here is if there is an issue with one of the commissioners with a report that is before us, we want to be able to have the option to be able to call for a judiciary hearing which currently we don't have that in the process of our regulations if I heard everybody correctly. So moving forward, we're trying to add language that allows us to do that. Is that an accurate statement? Commissioner O'Brien? Close. There's a question as to whether or not what the default is, but then there's also a question of we do have the ability to do that but the question is the how. It's not adding language to give us the authority to do that. We have it in there, but it's silent as to how that happens. And so right now there is no mechanism just because the reg is silent as to how it would happen. So in that sense, it's not, it can't happen because we don't know how it would work. And some of the things we talked about in June actually can't work when you look at the reg. And through the commission and through the staff, we can't come up with language to do that. Or is that what the issue is that we haven't been able to do that? I don't know that we've asked staff to do that yet. Right, we haven't asked staff to do it yet. Well, the regulation requires that we just haven't been asked. So let's just say they, you know, we're asked, okay, what do you want to do? So we got to go to a public meet. I think the idea was it would be done kind of behind the scenes by one. I'm not sure if that's permissible. We don't have an answer on that. But even, you know, let's say we get comfortable. You know what? If Chair Judd Stein says she wants an adjudicatory hearing on this, I can just go to Loretta. I can go to Karen. Now let's say Commissioner Cameron really doesn't want an adjudicatory hearing on it. But she doesn't have an ability to say anything on it. We would just say we're giving a veto right. We've got to make a decision that we can give a veto right. The statute requires our decisions to be made by a majority of the core. So we're kind of, can we backdoor it by, you know, just saying, you know, well, we feel good enough about it. And that may be for the four of us seem okay. And I see us doing that when we're in our deliberations, like privately, you know, if one person objects to something, we're probably gonna say that's enough. That's sufficient. But I just don't know if that's a process. And I know people might think, well, that's just not practical. Let's just do it that way, if one person. But none of us will necessarily know because we can't do serial decisions, you know, we can't. Well, Loretta can't call you up and says, Kathy said that's, you know, Brad, Kathy said that. Loretta, Eileen, Kathy said that. So therefore we're gonna do an adjudicatory hearing. Well, I think that's a process question, right? And we can get to the process. We have time to do that. Brad, I think you had it exactly right to answer your question from earlier, how you interpreted it. It is how I interpreted it as well. And I think we can move forward and get these done. And at the same time, quickly work on a reg change that we can all agree on. And I, Chair, I don't have the exact answer. So it's actually interesting, but today I asked that we do the mixed three in a adjudicatory process. But we need a consensus to do that. And I don't think we do. But that's sort of my point is why this individual thing doesn't really work. Well, that's the beauty of working on a commission is that we need to agree to make changes. And that's what I've always appreciated about the commission work we've done over the years is it's, I don't always have things go the way I think they should and not nor does anyone else. So that is commission work. Okay, so that takes care of that. Then we'll have, if we're gonna make a determination around an adjudicatory process, we need to go to a public meeting and vote and get a majority vote rather than it be that of an individual. Well, I don't know what the long-term process will be. I think today we're making a decision on how do we handle the cases right now and what's the process moving forward for a reg change, which I think we all agree is necessary. How do we go ahead and make those changes so that we all can be comfortable moving forward with whatever that mechanism is? So commission on hell, I just would like to, I thought he was gonna add in just now. No, I would like to see these three move forward as quickly as possible. But I think what I'm hearing today, which is on my mind is what's going to happen in the future when we're not here anymore. And I think we can get to that point. I think I should be a little bit clearer. Commissioner Hill, I actually have concerns about continuing with the three under the current regulations. You know, that's I think where we're stuck. If we could continue without a problem right now, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And we've been having it since June. And so I guess the reason why we're probably at an impasse is that we can't get into an executive session, right? And speak about these matters out of a public meeting. But I would say that today we came together because there's enough questions raised that we clean up our regs or put everything in, put everything on hold. Regulatory process would take about 90 days, Todd. Put everything on hold. Or Loretta and Heather would put together something that would work for these three and it could be a trial run on how the adjudicatory process works. I know that Commissioner Cameron asked the question, have we been doing everything wrong over the last 10 years? Well, I know in my experience, I haven't been doing everything right in the past 10 years. But that doesn't mean I've been doing everything wrong in the past 10 years either. So I can't answer the question fully. I think it's been answered by everyone in the group. I think we've all heard everyone's opinion. No, and I value everyone's opinion but there are different opinions and it's our job to figure out. There is a difference between doing it in a manner that fully vets the risk and doesn't have a vulnerability exposure for the commission and doing it right. And so there are different answers to those questions sometimes. And in this circumstance, if you look at the technical requirements of the regs, even going forward on the reg status as exists, IEV would have to do some extra steps. There would be some public disclosure of that redacted report, which traditionally has not been done. It's not something that is wrong in terms of protecting the rights of the applicants or risk, but you are looking at the requirements of the regs. And so going forward, even now there would have to be sort of, redacted reports available, forwarded off to the applicants themselves and advance that sort of thing to even get these three through without doing adjudicatory. And so then the question is, what is the risk in doing these three? And Loretta, I'm happy to hear you on this because you're raising this point about formal versus informal. What is the risk in doing these three adjudicatory to then inform the discussion on how we change the regs in the immediate future? So if I can take it, piecemeal commissioner, in terms of what we would have to do to complete these three under the open meeting process, it was my conclusion. I mean, we may not agree, I thought we had agreed, but I guess it's good we're talking about it, but where the reg is explicit about two potential processes of the adjudicatory or public hearing and public hearing can only go forward with the qualifiers consent and with the redacted report, which makes sense, right? If you want public input, you need to tell them who you're talking about. So my understanding of the reg and of the practice that the commission has been doing for 10 years was that those were not the only two exclusive measures or avenues. There's also the open meeting avenue and under that avenue, the public report piece is not a requirement, but if it is a requirement, we can certainly put that out with these three. I respectfully agree with you on that Loretta. The open meeting versus the public hearing public meeting is not in the regs. And so as a practical matter that the efficacy of that is happening and again, protects the rights of the applicant, et cetera, looking at the regs going forward, it can't be done that way. And some of the stuff we talked about in June in terms of posting the report, getting public comment, how would we do that? You know, you're talking about doing it, you know, risk averse fairly and openly. Yes, absolutely we've been doing that, doing it in compliance with what it says. That's the rub in this. And so my question is, if you do the three adjudicatory as a test run to know these are the challenges, defects, faults and adjudicatory, then I think it informs the discussion we need to have in very short order about how we want to change regs in process. Well, I think it's critical to clarify just one point on the reg, because I hear you Loretta saying, you know, doesn't rule out a public meeting, even though the reg doesn't state it. But I think, and I've looked at this reg a lot and I've said to Karen, what do you think this means? Because I'm not terribly outcome driven here, I'll tell you, because this is a pretty painful discussion. But the reg under a separate reg, and I don't know all the numbers, but the reg starts with adjudicatory hearing. And it says, the commission will meet in adjudicatory here for certain types of things. And the first one is suitability. So when we think about a default, it starts with suitability, but then it gets into those that are connected to the ones related to subsection F. Whatever that is, that's not what we're talking about today. But then there's some other language that says, or those that are in, that's adjudicatory, it defaults to adjudicatory, and it references those that come into this other reg. And in that it says that we're gonna hold these suitability hearings, one, in a public hearing with a redacted report and with public comments, input from the public or an adjudicatory hearing determined by the commission, whether we wanna do it as an adjudicatory hearing or a public hearing, you would think that if it really was another choice to do a public meeting, the reg would say that because it's put us in adjudicatory hearing, but somehow it flipped it into the idea that you could do a public hearing. Now Todd will argue, well, it was always intended to be a public meeting because you can't deliberate in a public hearing. I'll go one more step and say that's fair, but it doesn't say that. So we need a red change. I feel right now in a public meeting under certain facts and circumstances, we will get to a certain point where we cannot fully deliberate. And so that choice really isn't a good choice and a sustainable choice for us. We can't- But we're talking about doing it, changing the reg, we all agree we need to change the reg. No, we can't right now, we can't right now in a public meeting deliberate on a suitability report. That's your opinion, Madam Chair. No, well, what do you think? Am I completely off base? Todd, help me out here. At a certain point in time, do we have to pause if we go into a certain area of questioning? Well, let me make sure I understand, I understand that latter question. Yes, people have certain privacy interests that we need to ensure that we protect. And so we should not be asking certain questions in a public forum. So we can't, we have to, when we're, when we're deliberating in that public meeting, we have to remember not to ask certain questions. Well, there are certainly a personal privacy laws that address this and suggest that you not do that. That, and just the general principle. And in a judicatory hearing, because it could be private, we could fully ask every question we wanted. As you can in executive session, as we've- with a 48 hour disruption and with the addition of the individual and blah, blah, blah, blah. And not, but under a judicatory hearing, it would be sworn testimony under an executive session. It would not be sworn testimony. It would not be sworn testimony, that's correct. So at a certain point in Commissioner Cameron, you are absolutely right, 99.1%, 99. whatever percent, because we are lucky to have such great licensees. Their candidates are likely to be, have very few issues. Couple of times we've found that they, they've been big issues with the same individuals, right? In the same licensees. One was an early one that I wasn't involved in, but I think you vote, I don't know what your vote was, but it was the determination of not to be suitable. I think if we can find ways to create efficiencies, where we deal with that, a little bit different, I would love that. Right now, current structure doesn't necessarily allow us to fully deliberate. Yeah, and I suspect I wouldn't be putting forth candidates now that they didn't have fully vetted and that we could handle in a way that we always have. That's my, I haven't seen the reports, but that's my read. And as I've repeatedly said, I always thought we had the ability to have an adjudicatory, if necessary. And I never, now I realize there are some things we need to change in order to facilitate that. But I believe we can do that as a body, we can do it quickly and work on two things at the same time as Commissioner Hill recommended. Commissioner Obellion? Well, as to these three, I'm also wondering is, would it be, would it make this conversation easier in terms of how we adjudicate the three that are pending if we actually see the reports? Because this may be an exact situation where there's unanimity and applicant to waive or maybe there's somebody who says, I want adjudicatory. This could be actually the perfect example to work out this process. So it might inform our ability to reach consensus on these three if we actually see the reports and then we schedule this in short order right after we've had the ability to look at them. I think that makes a lot of sense. My question just process, but then what would be the process right now though for the commercial to make a decision? If we have consensus that we, as Commissioner Obellion just recommended, that we can handle them as we have been, we would do that. We'd have to come back again. And then at the same time. Add a meeting and say, are we doing a adjudicatory? I mean, that would be the way we would have to talk about it. I mean, that's kind of what we're doing now when we're doing it in the abstract. So is it easier to make the decision with the three in front of us as we're doing this parallel discussion about these are the right change we need to do. And would these be individually or? I think individually. I mean, there's three different individuals, correct? If I can jump in and say, it's one corporation and two individuals and they are all connected. So it's perfect that you would be considering them together. So maybe we should all see them together if anything triggers a desire for a adjudicatory then. Can you tell us who they are, please, Lorena? Yes, is it, is the company interactive? Is it IAC? IAC corporation that took an equity interest in MGM resorts international. And then the two owners of IAC were appointed to the board of MGM resorts international. I understood we had another one that would be ready. I know there's three ready now, two individuals and one corporation. So a corporate qualifier and two individual qualifiers. It's not someone that deals with compliance that's in the queue. That's not one of the three right now, no. That's not ready. That's not one of the three that's complete now, no. Can I ask a question, Madam Chair? Yeah, yes. So if I understand commissioner O'Brien, we would get the reports, we would be individuals and we are going to come back for a second meeting on this. Of us commissioners have an issue. We then would ask at that time, if we wanted to go into an adjourned carry hearing, is that accurate? That was what I was proposing. And it can be an agenda item on a meeting. It doesn't have to be an independent meeting. And would it be a by majority vote? It would have to be everything we do at this point to comply with how we function with the majority vote. I'm fine going forward right now with those three in that way. That's fine. I also need to just be very clear with respect to what's in the queue, Loretta. I'm sorry. How many others are pending? So there are three that are ready immediately. And those three, based on our conversations were three that we wanted to have ready to go as soon as this conversation took place. How many other queue? Well, you know, there are, I don't know, eight others in the queue approximately. There are two or three others that are near completion. And in the report writing stage, in-bests for three others have been completed. But the reports have not been finalized. Why don't we get working on an adjudicatory process? At least an outline, Todd, what that would look like in a most streamlined fashion. Why don't we look at what the reg changes could be? And I'd prefer that we have no vote today on this going forward. I hear that we would look at these three out of in some way and go forward. I'd rather table that discussion for today because I don't think we're prepared. We haven't had a full understanding of the options. And given that we have only the three that are related, that really is basically a different issue. So I don't think it's a good comparison. Okay. It's not marked up for a vote anyway. No, I certainly wouldn't mind reading them just to get ahead. You can read them. Absolutely. And then I think, you know, we can read them. And then in terms of if we're gonna circle back to this with other things to add to your memo, Todd, but also laying out the distinctions between adjudicatory and executive session in terms of process and what it looks like. Because I think there's sort of three options on the table would just continue the range of adjudicatory in some executive session. So to Commissioner Cameron's point, if we're doing the same thing we've been doing, at what point, how do we get to decide that it should warrant more process, more rights? What juncture do we make that decision and how do we make that decision? Because right now I'm not sure even how we do that with the three reports. Like, you know, are we gonna go in and say, we're basically gonna be making our decision on the suitability in the public meeting. And I wanna be clear what our process is going forward if we did it on even these three. So I feel like we're not complying with the regs still. So I'm not really thrilled about that. So I think the idea that the reason why I'm tabling the idea of the three is even to get in front of us in the public meeting, the regs need to be changed. And that's our starting point. So the reg change, but I think we need to be very clear about what the process would look like from where it's a clean to at what point can it move into privacy discussions, whether or not we end up deciding against. We might all be still in on the suitability, but we want to ask important questions. What does that look like? What would that mirror warrant for process and how do we get there when the executive session, what that would look like? And then what would it look like in the adjudicatory process? One, when we raise our hand somehow and say we want the adjudicatory process, what does it look like there? How complicated is it? How complicated is it if we adopted it for even the simplest, least complex cases? If my understanding of the one that Loretta is presenting is I'm not sure there's complexities, but I might be wrong. There may be more, we can only, I can only envision the past complexities that have arisen. So, cause I don't know about future, but what does that look like? And make it really clear. And then we will mark it up for, we can all read those three and we can mark up those three if we want, but I don't know if I can in good conscience say we should continue with the process that we've been doing as because, and Gail, you were shaking your head, but if you saw the brag, I disagree. I disagree. And that's the point of your commission as we vote on these things. Okay, so let's put it, Commissioner O'Brien, maybe I misunderstood. If we all read these three and go forward on them, what process are we meeting our regulatory process fully? I think if the redacted report is put public and then we come forward, if we come forward and say, I think the question really would be before I see just commissioners, am I prepared to go forward on the papers or do I want to ask questions? And that's not really deciding necessarily other than saying, I need more information than what's in front. Okay, so then we do that. Then really the question is, I think the missing step at a minimum, Todd, I think you put this, the reg having a change from hearing to allow a meeting as an option. Because right now, if we're sticking with the reg as written, we need to post the redacted report and allow some mechanism for public comment. So that's the piece I'm on, Commissioner Cameron. We could all get together and say, we're okay going forward on the past practice, but we still have a reg problem. We still have a reg problem there, which we can correct, always correct in the reg, we can correct that. But so if we go forward on these three, it would only be to say we're going forward. Heather's smiling because I think you see the dilemmas, like, well, we're gonna meet, we're sort of doing that right now. We're gonna go forward, but we can't go forward, right? I understand and I'm hearing everyone's comments and I just wanna make a quick point of clarification. The three that we're talking about right now are actually, they were dated for December, but what I thought was perhaps we could send those reports over to the commissioners, and then at next week's, I believe there's an agenda setting next week, then there could be a discussion as to how to proceed with those three once the commissioners have had the opportunity to review those reports. And I will also say, not only would you need time to review them, but the team would need time to be prepared to have a discussion, whether it's in a due to temporary proceeding or in an open meeting. But is an open meeting a choice, Heather, under our red? I think you could decide after you read the reports and then we could have that discussion at the agenda setting next week. And I think for practical purposes, that would be one thought as to how to approach it. I don't know if I understood that, I'm so sorry. It's okay. No problem. So are you saying that when, so that right now, if we get next week, if we decide, no, we don't need to go to an adjudicatory hearing, clean report commissioner, you know, over, commissioner Cameron says clean report. We'll go forward. Can we, can we under our regs go forward? I think we have in a public meeting. I do, I think we could. And again, I recognize everybody's different perspectives on this and have great respect for all of the different perspectives. I know this has been a really challenging discussion and I think it's great to have a robust dialogue. But I do think that this is practically speaking a way that we could take the next step to make sure we are dealing with these reports that we did, you know, these are the completed reports that are ready for the commissioners. But again, just to make sure that we're all on the same page, the team would need time to get brushed up on the facts of the reports so that they would have, you know, the full ability to present to the commissioners, whatever the commission decides that type of setting is. Commissioner Ryan. I believe we have agenda setting tomorrow. If we haven't on the following week as well. I don't think we have it the following week. I don't think we do. I think we have one tomorrow and then there's a public meeting the following Thursday. So really the question is and if you needed time to get ready, the question really is we could still discuss how we wanted to go forward at the public meeting and either mark up a separate time for those who pick it to the next public meeting and still be done with these by the end of the month. I think that's a solution that puts pressure on you to go back and get up to speed and pull this out. But it would also give you time to then contemplate the different options so that once we as a body said how we wanted to proceed, we could do that in short order with you having the time to be up to speed on those reports. So I wasn't suggesting that the decision to go and then go would happen necessarily in the same day. Understandable. And I know we do have an agenda setting tomorrow and I'm looking at my calendar and it looks like the public meeting has been canceled and there is an agenda setting scheduled for February 10. Now that said, if we... I think that's an error. I think that's a public meeting. That's an error. Yeah, that's a typo. Yeah. Yes it is. Yeah, sorry about that. So Commissioner O'Brien, just to clarify what you're saying, you're thinking that there would be a discussion about it tomorrow or at the next public meeting next week? No, at the next public meeting next week because we don't even have the reports yet. So that would give you time to then brush up on the facts as well as, well, if this we're going to proceed, as we've been doing it versus atuticatory. And then we would in very short order before the end of February be able to get those three taken care of as we work on coming to consensus on how we want them to forward. And there would need to be some redactions, but I can work with obviously work with the legal unit on that piece of it. All right. And so you believe that the public meeting and the public hearing are the same things? I don't, I don't think I said that, but I do, I fully recognize all the challenges and I recognize everyone's different take and. So you just think because it's not addressed that we're allowed to and just as another alternative? Well, I think that what could happen is, once you see the reports, then you could then as a body and after you've reviewed them, then decide whether, you know, the next step is the adjudicatory or to go with the way that we've been doing it. And of course that contemplates, as Todd said, a fresh look at the regs and trying to make some adjustments. Oh, so I'm confused. Are you, so are you saying after regulatory change that we could go forward? Are you saying that we can go forward without a regulatory change? I think we could go forward without a regulatory change, but I fully recognize that there are many, you know, different aspects and thoughts about that. Can I just ask a question, Heather, because in looking at 1504, so what you're saying is there's a adjudicatory proceeding, public hearing, and then sort of that catch all, this is how we do business, but the commission has the authority to child determine whether to initiate a process for a public hearing or adjudicatory proceeding. And my understanding is this public hearing, which, you know, where you have to send it out and do whatever, that's where we're having some issues with some problems, the adjudicatory piece. If they voted to just do adjudicatory, you get simple, we don't have a reg issue, but where we potentially are at risk is if we do public hearing, public meeting on the reg itself, not operationally. Is that right? Just temporary. I respectfully think there are different opinions on it, and I hear all the different arguments, and I guess that's how I would answer that question. Okay. And I respectfully ask just if you could explain, is it because you think that the reg, I am a little bit confused, because I didn't look at this reg until this issue came up. And I am confused as to why we would have a reg if we don't, if we're not gonna follow it, if it's because we have an option to do whatever we want anyway. Why do we have that reg? Todd's looking and shaking his head like, that reg is where we can, we have the option of ignoring it operationally, and I don't mean that, and I'm not being fresh. I really actually, do we have that discretion to just say we're, without even changing it, we can go ahead and induce what we want to do. And that actually isn't completely a question to ask in a vacuum when it involves important rights that are subject to an adjudicatory process ultimately. No matter what we say today, we all understand that if we make a negative decision, that's in there. But the good news that we don't necessarily have to make a negative decision very often, but there's an adjudicatory right to an appeal still with us. So, and so the question is, I wouldn't wanna be saying we didn't comply with our regs, I guess, for starters. So if we have that ultimate discretion to go and do something that's either technically or purposefully, not in the bank, it's okay. We have that broad discretion. I mean, I think I would defer to what Todd had said earlier in that there are certainly situations that come up where you realize, well, I think we need to make the right more clear. But I do not think that we have been, and I obviously have been with the commission only a short time relatively, but I don't think that the process that has happened in the past is legally problematic. But I certainly understand the concerns about wanting to look at the reg and the language in the reg. And I think I'll defer to Todd too, if he has other thoughts on that. The only thing I would add there is that, I think we would all, the one thing we would all agree on, I think, is that the commission has very broad discretion to interpret its own regulations and what it intended by a certain language. So, you know- Chris, Cameron, what did we intend when that was adopted? You're the only one who was there. I think we all made a decision that this was the best way to move forward. We all believed it was in compliance with the law and the reg. We relied on commissioning with you heavily with many of these decisions. And say to this day, I believe we're in compliance, but I also believe that some issues have been brought up that we should address, but I do believe we can do them at the same time, address the issues and move forward with the qualifiers, because I believe we're in compliance and we can move ahead. But of course, you know, there are four of us to make those decisions. Okay. Loretta, why don't we, you can distribute the reports and we'll decide at the agenda setting if we mark them up for suitability review under the current process at our February 10th meeting. I mean, is that what you were thinking? Is that where we ultimately just landed? Oh, sorry. If they're discreet enough for everyone to do this afternoon, then yes, otherwise they would need to wait for discussion until the 10th and then they'd be marked up for the month at the end of the month. Okay. Okay. And then is there any other business for today? All right, I need a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Okay, commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. And I vote yes. Thanks, have a good day everyone.