 to move into the public session. Thanks, Dave. Great, thank you. Good morning. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission because we hold these meetings on a virtual platform. I'll take a roll call. And for those of you who didn't attend earlier, we already met starting at eight. So I again say good morning to my fellow commissioners. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Great, thank you, Commissioner Spinner. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you, good morning again, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, I'm here. OK, so we have quite a meeting ahead, calling this public meeting number 423 to order. It's January 12th, just after 10, and we'll get started with our minutes. Commissioner Hill. Yes, Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the minutes from the June 22, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Did everyone have a chance to review them? Any edits or suggested changes? Do I have a motion? Do I have a second? I'm sorry, I missed it. Yeah, Brad moved. I just seconded. And then I would have been out of order, so thank you. OK, I hear no questions or edits. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye, abstain. Thank you. So four yeses, I vote yes, and one abstention. Thank you very much. So now we'll move right to our administrative update from Executive Director Wells. Good morning. Good morning. Before we get into the listed agenda items for the administrative update, I do have a couple of matters just to update the commission on. One is we are finalizing the plans for the launch of the Category 1 retail sports wagering operations of the three casinos. We are on target. GLI has set up the scheduled testing dates for their work to verify the software that they've tested in the lab is all set at the casinos. We are scheduled to do that final compliance check and walk through on the 30th. That seems to be all set. We have confirmed that all betting should be tested in advance, and that should be good to go. So there won't be a need for actual wagering on the 30th. So we would have the full launch on the 31st. And Mills is working with the team to coordinate a plan for all the commissioners to collectively work together to go to all three casinos at the same time. So there is, if they have events there, we're trying to coordinate with them so that the commissioners can be there for all of those. So everything seems to be on target, but I'm always cautious. So as a caution, things have to be not only tested in the lab but verified on site. So we do need to make sure that everything is in order before approving the launch. We will need to, at some point next week, we can figure out a date, I think, of the next agenda setting meeting, which I think is, I'm not sure when that is, but I'll coordinate with Crystal and the chair just to set a date for the operation certificate for the three casinos. So that has to happen in advance. The other update I have is, would like to congratulate Bruce Bant, who has been asked to take the position of the director of sports wagering in the head of that division. He is a longtime gaming industry professional and has served the MGC as an assistant director of the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau since 2014. He'll lead the commission's efforts to implement and regulate legal sports wagering in Massachusetts as the head of the division. He will coordinate with other divisions in the MGC, including responsible gaming, IT, legal and the IEB. Through his role in the IEB right now, he's been an active member with the team in standing up sports wagering. So I'd like to thank him for those efforts. Mr. Bant has over 45 years of regulatory casino operations experience having opened nearly 20 casinos in New Jersey and Massachusetts. He's served in various roles in both the New Jersey Casino Control Commission and as an industry consultant. So many thanks to Bruce for agreeing to take on that role. Bruce is someone who gets the work done. And I think his past track record of opening the three casinos here on time with integrity demonstrates his ability to do this role. So I wanted to congratulate Bruce and also notify folks that we're also grateful that Burkane has our gaming agents field manager has agreed to step in as the interim division chief for the gaming agents unit at this time. So I wanted to make those two announcements and congratulate Bruce in public. Thank you. So with that, I will turn it over to Bruce to give the casino update on what's going on at the casinos as we are working very hard on opening these sports wagering facilities at those casinos. There's also the regular operations that are going on. So I'll turn it over to him to give an update on what's going on in the property. Thank you, Karen, for the vote of confidence and commissioners. Madam Chair, I'll start with PPC this week. They had their new year balloon drop and live entertainment revolution lounge on New Year's. Their sports wagering kiosks and over-the-counters have been placed in the positions in attending IED and GLI approval. They're getting ready for the Chinese New Year with the Lunar Red Envelope promotion for invited guests. At Encore, they had a New Year's Eve party, a thousand person invite with a prom theme party which included a basketball court dance floor, a band and DJ entertainers and photo ops that took place in Wins Sports Bar. They will be having a lion awakening ceremony for the Chinese New Year. And they also have a commemorative year, the rabbit chips for sale at the cashier's gauge. MGMs had a successful New Year's as well and they're getting ready for January 20 and 21 for the winner weekend happening. The Roar Comedy Club remains open every Friday and Saturday evening. Anybody have any questions? Questions for Bruce? Okay, thank you and congratulations, Bruce. Thank you so much. Thank you, Kathy. Actually, before we move on, I just wanna say that I remember in 2019 being with you in a room and how many openings that you have done. So at every confidence in you, congratulations on the position. I'm sure this is a slight barrier, something that we'll just add to the list of openings. Yeah. I have marks on my wall now. Yeah. Commissioner, I just wanted to send your congratulations, commissioner. Okay, commissioner Skinner. I do have the opportunity to congratulate Bruce yesterday. I'll miss your casino updates, but very much looking forward to whoever will be presenting them going forward. I also need to say that I'm very pleased with the shift in the commissioner participation schedule for sports majoring and the launch. I don't know how. No, there wasn't a shift. Commissioner Skinner really wasn't. It's a shift in terms of the actual events, not in the schedule itself. And so my- No, the 31st was always planned for us to go now. And I'm with you, commissioner Skinner. We're really looking forward to it, right? But I don't know. I'm just my gratitude. Thank you. Oh, actually, no. I think it's all working out super well. Madam Chair. Yes, commissioner Maynard. As the newest on the opposite end of the spectrum here is the newest commissioner who hasn't had the opportunity to be with you yet. I will say that from the day I started, you've made sure that I've been educated on everything I've needed to be educated on. Bruce, I can't think of anybody better to do this than I appreciate you stepping up to do it. Thank you. Commissioner Hill. Congratulations, Bruce. It's gonna be a lot of heavy lifting, but I know you'll be able to handle it as you always have. So congratulations. Thank you, Brad. Commissioner Skinner, I thought you might be mentioning that you're gonna shift to also, we appreciate Burke's shifting. That's where I thought you were going. I didn't hear Karen say that publicly. I did. I did. I'm sorry, I missed that. Sorry. Now, if you want to acknowledge that it's very good that Burke is going to be shifting in that position. That's right. I'm sorry. I congratulate you as well. It's all over my phone. Yeah, I have all the confidence in the world that you'll do a great job of replacing me. Yeah, so that's fine. Bruce told me I've had a good coach and mentor for 40 years. Yeah. I told him he had the best coaching. And Director Lilios, I see you coming in. These folks have been reporting to you and in your role at IEV, excuse me, IEV. I think the hour is affecting me in IEV. And so if you want to say something as well, that would be great. Yeah, and I apologize for being a few minutes late. I was dealing with something else. So I'm sorry that I missed the actual announcement, but I'm happy for the agency, for having the ability to take advantage of Bruce's skills at opening up yet a new industry here and expanding his opening of casino properties into this new realm. And I'm very grateful to Burke for agreeing to take on this role. I know it's a critical period for the agency and I am very grateful to him and feel confident that we're gonna be in a good place. Great. Okay. Well, anyway, congratulations again, Bruce. And we'll now go back to Director Wells. What's the next one, Lilios? Well, next on the list, we have a request for additional IT hires. Got Dave Mulder and Katrina and we've got Kevin Gavro and Tim Drain on as well. I'm noting here on this, my apologies, Madam Chair, I think we do need a vote on these and the sports wagering license, which isn't in the agenda, but my understanding from prior conversations with General Counsel Grossman, you could go ahead and vote on that. So I'll turn it over to Katrina because I think she was gonna present the case that we would need these additional hires, particularly with sports wagering coming on. So I'll turn it over to Katrina, but we have Kevin and Tim as well. If you have any questions regarding the positions themselves and the needs of those positions. Thank you, Executive Director Wells. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Good morning. With me today, I have Tim Drain, our infrastructure manager, Kevin Gavro, who has been recently promoted to information and network security manager, Christian Taveras, our gaming technical compliance manager, who, as Karen said earlier, will be more than happy to answer any specific questions regarding the proposed positions. In your meeting packet today is a request for additional positions for the ITS division due to the recent expansion of staff and technical resources and services. Due to sports wagering, the ITS division seeks five positions of which one is a backfill for the recently promoted Kevin Gavro. The positions are gaming technical compliance engineer, business analyst, systems administrator, service desk specialist and network engineer, which is the backfill position. These positions allow for well needed redundancy, which reduces the risk of a single point of failure. It also provides the necessary skill sets due to sports wagering, leading edge technology and projects, and the facilitation of distribution workloads leading to greater efficiency and effectiveness. The ITS service desk experienced a 46.17% increase as of September 2022 in comparison to our September 2021 numbers. Do note that those numbers do not include any project work or sports wagering efforts. We've onboarded over 36 new hires in the past six months, and the ITS division supports all contractors, part-time and full-time equivalents, temporary and contract workers, and the contingent of mass state troopers and local officers. The addition to our workforce will assist with our service level agreements to both our internal and external customers. It'll allow time for professional development and growth and greater collaboration among team members, as well as redistribution of workloads. Welcome any questions. Thank you commissioners questions. We have Katrina's team here. I wanna extend a congratulations to Kevin. Congratulations on your recent promotion. Thank you. And my thanks to Tim and Christian, Tim, particularly you've been a lifesaver on tech issues as they arise during this busy time. So thank you so much. All right. Questions? You do need a motion on this vote so that Derek can go forward. Any questions on the finance part of this? Derek's available. Derek, you're giving a thumbs up. We're okay, right? Yes. All right. So if you approve these, we'll come forward at the first meeting in February as part of the annual budget update, our second for the update we will have, we're planning on having an update for sports wagering on that budget. So some of these positions will be included in there as well as cost allocation shifts now that we are regulating sports wagering and we have licensed operators and we can assess it. We'll be moving some of the money from the gaming account over to sports wagering. So you'll see all that in the update and you'll see what is ups and downs based on these additional hires. Adam's here. I move that the commission approved the request for five additional IT FTEs including gaming technical compliance engineer, business analyst, network engineer, systems administrator and service desk specialist as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Thank you. Thank you commissioners. Any questions or comments? Okay. Commissioner Brie. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. My vote, yes. There we go. Katrina. Thank you. Thank you very much commissioners. And this is a good time for us to say thank you to your team. It's been an extraordinarily busy time and of course just because we have these expectations that you never dropped the ball. We should just say thank you. And Christian, it's great to see you too. Thank you for your good work. Thank you. Madam chair, I just wanna throw out a congratulations to Kevin since day one. He's always been there for me. Thank you, Kevin. Congratulations on your little promotion here. I bet it's not gonna feel so little, but congratulations. I say that with quotes. Yeah. Exactly. Commissioner Maynard. I will also note that the increase in tickets started when I started on the commission. So I... I wasn't gonna point you out, Commissioner Maynard. All right. Thank you. And my apologies, Christian. I missed your box. So I apologize for not introducing you on the front end. So thank you for being here. So the next item on the agenda, Madam chair, the sports wagering license update, we do have the request for a temporary license from Plainville Gaming Redevelopment LLC. As you recall, you went through your process in approving that. So the next step was for them to apply for the actual temporary license, pay the $1 million fee, and then per statute, there's a required determination by the executive director that it's a qualified gaming entity. So you'll see there is a memo in your packet where I have formalized that I have reviewed the PGR request for a temporary license to conduct sports wagering. And after review of that request, I've determined that PGR is a qualified gaming entity pursuant to 23N section three and has paid the sports wagering initial licensing fee of $1 million. So based on that finding, it is my recommendation that the commission issue PGR to request a temporary license and authorized PGR to conduct sports wagering for a period of one year or until a final determination on its operator license application has been made. So this is the next step. They would still be required to go through their testing and receive an operation certificate pursuant to our regulations. But at this time, the appropriate step in launching sports wagering for that casino is to approve the temporary license request. Any questions for Karen on this? Okay. Adam chair, I would be more than happy to make a motion. That'd be great. Thank you, commission. Okay. Pursuant to general law chapter 23N section CC2 and 205 CMR 219. I move that the commission issue Plainville gaming and redevelopment LLC a temporary sports wagering license and authorized Plainville gaming and redevelopment LLC to conduct sports wagering for a period of one year under a temporary license or until a final determination on its operator's license application is made. I would just clarify it's section six, C2. And otherwise I would second the motion. I heard C2. So it could just be my ears, but... Yep. I said section C2. Yep. Six C2. Yep. Okay. And you seconded commissioner Ryan. Yeah. Thank you so much. Any further questions or edits? Okay, commissioner Ryan. Aye. We should now. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Thank commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. So thank you. Anything else? Just as a matter of an update, Concord and MGM do not need a temporary license, but for the commission's information, they have both paid their $5 million fee for their operator license. So that has both those transfers have taken place. So they're good to go. So we are on target to move forward with the operations plan for the January 31st launch. Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner, before we continue, and I see Dr. Leibman is waiting. So indulge me for just a minute. For reflection, as I considered things last night coming in this morning, I would ask if we could defer two items later in the agenda to a later date to be determined. I feel as though I could benefit from further assistance, perhaps in a legal memorandum on items six, a two and three, no, a little I. And if you would mind, we should be able to get them into the queue on a future public meeting. Any, is there any question or concern about that, commissioner? And I just want to clarify which sections you're referring to on the time. Sorry, did you see? That has to do. So it's six, a two and three, two and three. They're related. They're related in terms of discipline, pardon me. 232 and 104. Yes, that's probably a better way of looking at it. Yes, 232 and 104 and they are related. So I think that maybe a full sum legal memorandum might be helpful so that we understand the integration and just perhaps understand options. Are they gonna give an overview today and then we just defer for that? Are you taking them off? I would prefer if we could just today wave those two and we'll have some discussion later. They're very well could be a full adoption of those I think to be informed. I certainly would be a better and ask for your indulgence. Marcia Hill, you're saying, okay, any objections? Okay, commissioner Skinner, are you okay with this? Yes. Thank you very much. Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, that's okay. Thank you. All right, then we'll move to, good morning, Dr. Leipan. It's nice to see you. Good morning. Good to see everybody too. And I wanted to give my congratulations to Kevin, Bruce and Burke. They've all worked wonderfully with the vision of racing on various items and I'm very happy for them. So our item today is a capital improvement request by Plain Ridge. This is a sort of Stevo tools wish list for a number of years. And so he's ready to hopefully get started on it. As a reminder, I think we're going into our 25th year at Plain Ridge this year. So that gives you an idea on how long the paddock has been around and all. Chad is here today and he's provided you with a memo on it and of course Stevo pulls on also. So now I'll turn it over to Chad and then once he's done, he can turn it over to Steve. Thank you, Alex. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. So hello. As Alex mentioned, we have today a request for consideration for the harness horse capital improvement trust that is submitted by Plain Ridge. So each month funds are deposited into the capital improvement trust that our licensees can use to repair, maintain or improve the property. Distributions are made upon the commission's approval of the licensees request for consideration followed by the request for reimbursement. So today's request for consideration is in the amount of $95,000. As Alex mentioned, the funds will be used for pre-construction services, for renovations and expansion to the horse paddock and barn building. I did review all the documentation that the licensee submitted and all the statutory requirements were met. The current balance in the fund is $855,445. I do consider the request to be in good order and therefore recommend approval. So I will pause there and let Steve provide additional details on the project. Steve. Thanks Chad. Just the detail on what we're trying to accomplish and why I have this preliminary phase one consideration before you. The paddock barn as Dr. Lightbound said is 25 years old. The infrastructure for what we do there today is a little bit antiquated. What we'd like to do is to rehab that barn as well as an adjacent barn, connect the two together with a full drain system so that we aren't moving courses around during the program. Horses can come to an assigned stall at the beginning of the program. They'll report there and they don't move. Right now when horses ship in, they go to a ship in barn and then they come to the paddock to race. This way here, the horse will be able to go right to one specific area. That's the way that most of the tracks that have become ship in facilities have operated and it seems to work very well. So we're kind of copycating a few of the major race tracks around the country with the proposal. For this particular request, this is for all the design that goes into what's needed engineering, the permit process. We're very happy to have curry building systems coordinating all that with us, with all the disciplines because we have used them so much in the past and they always perform on time and if something can't be accomplished in the timeframe that we need it, Bill Curry is, he knows his timelines and what can be done and what can't be done. This project is going to take a lot of coordination because it's nothing that can be done overnight and it might bleed into our race meat but we race so long, we race over a little bit over eight months every year. So we only have a small window to do it in the off season. So it's going to take a lot of coordination and things like that might bleed into the racing season but we will come up with a plan to be able to accomplish that. And we have all the faith in the world in curry building systems to coordinate this phase so that we can get pricing for the entire project which I would think is going to eat up my balance there, if not more. So it's a big project. It's something that we look forward to doing. It'll help out not only our operations because it will be a little bit more easy to maintain the facility. It'll help out the horsemen with, as I explained, they can come and report to one place and also the MGC staff, I've already talked to Alex about anything that we need to do in the testing area and around the testing area. I want to take that all into consideration in the design phase. So that's pretty much it in a nutshell. And as I said, this is just phase one, I'll be coming back with phase two very shortly as soon as we get the, go ahead to price it out. Thank you, Director O'Shewell and happy new year. Thank you. Questions for Dr. Wygon Chan, speak. Madam Chair. Yes. I just have a very quick question for Chad. Is the 855, 445 figure before or after the $95,000 that we have in the account? The 95 is not included. So we would subtract the 95 from that. So it'll be, okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Chad. Sure. Well, I think it's an exciting investment. Questions, commissioners, and certainly it's going, will benefit the animal athletes as well as the people athletes, right, Dr. Leipel? Yes, exactly. So you are looking for a vote. Do I have a motion commissioners? I'd be more than happy to make a motion, Madam Chair. I move that the commission approve the Plain Ridge Park Casino Capital Improvement Request for $95,000 for phase one pre-construction design for the race paddock renovations and expansions as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Thank you. Okay, any questions or comments? All right, Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I vote yes, five, zero. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chief Delaney. Hi, good morning. Number five on the agenda. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. So before you, we have a budget modification for the Community Affairs Division. And this is to help us upgrade our Community Mitigation Fund database. So back when we did our budget last year, we put aside $40,000 for upgrades to the database. We knew certain things kind of need to be done to help on our tracking and reporting and so on. And that was just sort of a placeholder at that time. We hadn't really developed a full scope of the work and we hadn't gone out to a contract to price that out. So working with Katrina and her department, we finalized a scope of work of what we like to do. And as it turns out, it's a bit more expensive than we thought it was going to be. So we have a quote from our contractor for $79,437.75 and we have a $40,000 available. So that leaves us 39 or 37.75 short. We just rounded it up to the request of $40,000 to make it easy. And if there's any money left over in the budget at the end of the year, that just rolls over to the following year. The source of funds for this work is the Community Mitigation Fund. And we are allowed under 205 CMR 150.305 to use up to 10% of the funds in the Community Mitigation Fund for administrative costs. And just for this year, the total revenue in the fund was about 15.8 million. So 10% of that would be about 1.58 million. And just for reference for fiscal year 2023, we just appropriate a little over $310,000 of these funds, which amounts to about 2% of the available funds. So as you can see, we're well below the 10% that the regulations allow. Even with the addition of this $40,000, it would bring the budget up to just a little over 350, which is about, again, 2.2% of the available funds well below the 10% threshold established in the regulations. So our request is that the Commission authorize the transfer of the $40,000 from the Community Mitigation Fund to the Community Affairs Budget for the improvements to our database. Questions for Joe. And again, Derek is also available. If you have any questions from the finance background. In just for a little more perspective, we were hoping that the $40,000 would be enough with a developer in-house. We still don't have a developer for the IT team in-house. We're still trying to hire for that. So that's why you're seeing a lot of these requests come. You'll see it coming from research and responsible gaming when we do the sports weighting budget as well. We really were hoping to have a developer in-house to do these low-code systems for us and we just don't have that yet. So we do have to go out and that's been a shift in some of the costs and the action you're seeing here. Thanks for that clarifier. Richards? I don't have a question as much as a comment that I think the databases is sorely needed by the group. I think it's gonna make compliance much more accurate and easier for them to effectuate. So I absolutely think we need to go forward with it. I agree. Good to read more, Madam Chair. Yes, and I agree as well, it's a central tool. In fact, I'm just wondering, Darren, is it enough is what I'm wondering? Do you think that? Yeah. Look, there will certainly be more enhancements to the system over time. We sort of figured out what we needed really today and we actually divided it into two chunks of what we had money actually available and we kind of triaged what we really needed with the money we had available and then the additional 40 is some enhancements that will really help us out, particularly on reporting and things of that nature. So we figured we would try to do this all at once, but I think we will be reserving some money each year for enhancements to the program, at least over the next couple of years, just because as we get into it and use it more, we find that there are more things that we can do with it and things that will make our lives a bit more efficient. Thank you. Other questions and Katrina has also joined on set commissioners and so you are looking for a vote? Yes. Want to thank Mary and Lily for their work too? Absolutely, as always. I'm happy to make a motion, Madam Chair. I move that the commission amend the FY23 budget to transfer an additional $40,000 to the Community Affairs budget from the Community Mitigation Fund for Development by the Community Mitigation Fund Database as included in the commissioners packet and just discussed here today. Second. Any questions or edits? All right. Commissioner Brighton. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Close, Commissioner Skinner. I'm so sorry. I looked at my watch for timing and lost track. Commissioner Skinner. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. I vote yes. So that's five zero. I am just looking at my time here and I could benefit by a five minute break if that's okay with you or a 10 minute break. It's 10.44. If we could return in 10 minutes. Thank you so much. We'll return at 10.11. Thank you. Okay, Dave. Also. Thanks, Dave. Thank you, commissioners. We're all back. Thank you for that break for holding this meeting of the Massachusetts Game Commission virtually. So I will take a little call. Commissioner Brighton. I am here. Commissioner Hill. Present. Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner, I'm looking at you. No worries. I'm here, Madam Chair. I'm looking right at you and I'm saying Commissioner Maynard. Let's just get her and we'll get started. A function of moving boxes, everyone. I think for some reason in my pocket, maybe Promo was next, but I think we're turning now to, we're going right into our regulations, item number six. And am I right? You're ready to go on six eggs of the sports wagering advertising. I see Nina's here. That's right, Madam Chair. Okay, thanks. I'm right here. Hi, good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. So in your packet, you have a draft regulation as well as a memo related to sports wagering advertising. And I am actually going to turn it right over to Mina Macarius from Anderson and Krieger to kick off the discussion on this issue. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, commissioners. So we, as Carrie said, there is a draft regulation 205 CMR 256 that is in your packet starts at page 55, governing sports wagering regulations, excuse me, governing advertising of sports wagering. All of these are sports wagering regulations, my apologies. This follows on the conversation we had in the round table late last year. If you recall at the time, we covered from our perspective, some of the First Amendment and other related federal statutes with respect that sort of put guardrails around what you may do in terms of regulating advertising. Taking that, those principles in mind and doing a review of what else is out there from other jurisdictions, this regulation was built with the intent of trying to capture the best examples from those other jurisdictions to match your statutory mandate with respect to advertising regulations. So before we get to the regulations, I just wanna remind everyone of what the statutory mandate is and that actually is also in your packet at page 50. It's at the beginning of the memo from the legal team to you. And so there are five provisions that the statute requires regulations on. One is advertisements, marketing and branding in a manner promulgated regulations can be prohibited. Advertisements, marketing and branding in such a manner that is deceptive, false, misleading or untrue or tends to deceive or create misleading impression whether directly or by ambiguity or by admission. We get to the rags. A lot of the work here is giving meaning to that. Two use of unsolicited pop-up advertisements on the internet or by text message directed to an individual on the list of self-excluded persons and another is advertising, marketing or branding. The commission deems unacceptable or disruptive to the viewer experience at a sports event. Advertising, marketing, branding deemed to appeal directly to persons under 21 and advertising on billboards or other public signage with fails to comply with federal, state or local law. So as I said, some of these get more flashed out in the rags than others but then because some of them are more straightforward. So turning now, if I could to the reg and we can walk through it, this is generally speaking I don't think we have any proposed changes for the moment, although I know this is coming up for the first time today. And so we're looking for feedback and certainly that can come back. So the reg comes, starts actually with a provision on third parties. This is to make clear at the outset that when we are talking about regulating advertising an operator is responsible for what their affiliates, their contractors, their vendors, whether or not they're formally registered vendors or licensed vendors with the commission because whether or not they meet the requirements of 234, 205 to CMR 234, have to, regardless of any of that the operator is responsible for the advertising done on their behalf. So it sets that standard right up front. The one other key piece to this first provision 256013, the sports raging operator cannot enter into agreements with third parties for advertising where the compensation is dependent on the volume of sports ragers placed. So they don't get more money for the ads if more people bet. That's a common protection or I should say a protection we found from other jurisdictions as well. So then the following section gets into, starts getting into the application. And the, this sort of gets at the jurisdictional issue that we talked about quite a bit at the, excuse me. Could we just do a check-in to see along the way, maybe any questions on third parties? Could we do it that way, Nina, just to talk? Sure, yeah, that's fine. Certainly we've had a lot of discussion around third parties. I mean, any questions? Madam chair. Yes. Mina, under three that you just read, I get the wagers placed, I get the outcome of the wagers. Is it standard on the volume of patrons? Is that just being the number of, not dependent on the number of patrons who do wager? Yes, it is. I don't know if I would say it's standard, but certainly does show up in other jurisdictions, but it's a number of patrons who do wagers is the idea there. Do you want to add the word wagering? Well, recall that, especially with mobile, that they may be signing up for an account, but not necessarily placing a wager at any particular moment. So they're patrons of the sports wagering operator at that point. We can certainly add that sports wagering patrons, but that's the idea. Okay. Councilor Khrushchev, we have to catch up, Mina. I'm reading from that light, that was a good point. I just wonder what marketing firm, usually marketing firms try to drive up volume. I understand completely the outcome of the wagers. Obviously, I can see the problem with being something dependent on that and the wagers placed, but it kind of shocks me that it would be standard across to do the volume, just number of getting people through the door, but if that's what you're telling me, I understand. Yeah. Commissioner Maynard, and I think I see Commissioner O'Brien coming in. I wonder if that's in response to frequency and intensity too. Oh, Commissioner O'Brien is nodding her head. That was, we had a tremendous discussion again. This also came from some of the comments of the other states that had already launched and the barrage of advertising and that sort of thing in an RG context, which is making sure that there's a direct relationship with if that's not in there, you end up getting just this onslaught and the efforts. And so there's a dual component there. So we can't in turn to the agreement. They should be incentivized to address that frequency and intensity. So that was a helpful point to raise. Do you want what's wagering still? And it's only, I guess it's clear from the language that it's still just, I guess it doesn't matter, right? Commissioner O'Brien. Madam Chair, I would just say the language is virtually, that portion of the language is identical to Connecticut. So I was just looking back at my own notes on which state, but that's where that came from. All right. We'll continue and then we can also circle back. Sure. Good question, yeah. Okay. So application, this came up quite a bit. I know in the initial conversation is what's the reach of the commission's regulation here. So certainly one makes clear that applies to all advertising, marketing and branding aimed at, published, aired, displayed, et cetera in the Commonwealth. I think the aim that's especially important because it may be broader than the state, but if it's also aimed at the Commonwealth and the new industry here, that's important. Sports-waging advertisements may only be published, aired, or displayed in the Commonwealth on behalf of operator licensed to offer sports-waging in the Commonwealth. That is partially to get at what Commissioner O'Brien just said, there's a, avoiding a bit of the onslaught, but also to make it clear what is available in the Commonwealth. There isn't out for that. So let's say an entity that doesn't have business in the Commonwealth or isn't a licensed operator here, they could still advertise as long as they clearly state that the offerings are not available in the state. And we did see examples of that elsewhere too. So that was, I know, a concern of could that happen? I think I can just say anecdotally, since we've had the initial conversations at the round table and in our own research, I've personally seen more advertisements that do have the sort of accept-in, blah, blah, blah, or with sort of state-specific language, even on national broadcasts. The third piece of 25602 is really intended to capture the provision of the statute that says that billboard advertising has to comply with federal, state, or local law. This provision in the statute, candidly is a little bit of an odd one to be required in a regulation, because in a sense, this is now prohibited three times, it's prohibited in whatever the applicable or the kinds of things this covers will be prohibited by the applicable federal, state, or local law. It'll be prohibited again by 23N and then prohibited third time by the regulation that you were required to promulgate, but given that it's a requirement in the statute, it made sense to put it somewhere. Any questions on 25602 before we move on? I think just a clarification and an educational question for you, Nina. So walk me through. And I don't want to use any companies because I just don't like putting that out in the public. Let's say Company A is doing business up in New Hampshire and they're not licensed here in Massachusetts, but because they're trying to get us north shore or border towns to come across the border, they would be able to advertise in Massachusetts, but you're saying under this regulation, there's gotta be language that's very clear that they don't do business in Massachusetts. Is that accurate? Correct, correct. And what I would liken this to is, if I'm sorry to use a somewhat silly example, but if you recall fast food restaurants or we'll say available in all states except Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii, or that there's sort of those kinds of things, it's that kind of disclaimer. And especially where it is aimed, again aimed or targeted at the Commonwealth, the idea is to make clear for folks. I think in some ways today, before January 31st, you've done a lot of work to educate the public that there are no licensed operators here. No one can play sports wagers. As when the go live happens in person, wagering and certainly when the go live happens for online it may become more confusing. So it's important that it kind of takes on more importance at that point was the idea. So if I can continue, Madam Chair, just for one more, I'm putting out scenarios just so that I can understand it. And in my mind, try and envision how it would work. And again, I'm not against it. I wanna see it move forward. But for example, and we'll go back, so there's a company up in New Hampshire, but there's a radio show in Boston and behind the hosts are advertising for that company up at North, which is currently happening now, kind of. How am I gonna be seeing on that advertising that they're not doing business in Massachusetts? Well, my response from the reg itself, Commissioner Hill would be, it's certainly a very good question. And I'm thinking also banner ads that happened are Celtics games and other things, you know, right on the scores. Exactly. And I think the short answer would be that those operators, if they're not licensed here, would have to figure out if that is something they want to continue to do. And if they do, whether they want to change it to make it clear that it's in another state, right? And how they do that, I think, I don't wanna weigh in too much because I think it then becomes a review and enforcement issue to the extent that they try different things. But there could be, I could think of some work around, but they would have to decide whether they, if it's just a pure logo, it's appropriate to put under this right. There was talk about cross-state advertising. That's why I'm bringing it up. But I'm satisfied with your answer, Meener. And thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Hill would be raised a really important question. And it's kind of come up a few times from my perspective. I guess, I don't know how we enforce this. We know if I understand it correctly, but if we're going to say that they have to make it clear that offerings are not ahead of their use in the Commonwealth, then should they also be obligated to have the same RG language that may require a license? Because that's come up with respective billboards here and Latinos that are advertising on the border. And that's chooses without the RG language that we require a licensee. So I'm not really sure about enforceability here, but billboards, I think we can work with the Department of Transportation and say, you know, I think that they have our billboards. I don't know if there's other ways to, yeah. Madam Chair, this, I think the plan for this reg was this was the initial discussion and we'd come back. We can certainly take that into consideration. I think you raised the right issue, which is, you know, we are telling licensee, we're certainly telling licensees that they have to do that and we'll get to that later. Whether we're telling non-licensees out of the state that this is gonna be a reg, the enforceability of that is one thing that's regulating the advertising in the state and that's clear in the statute. I would just want to think a little bit more about the enforceability of that and requiring additional language, because then they would also have to be keeping up, obviously, with the responsible gaming language required by the jurisdictions in which they are licensed. I think that's the complication I think it's worth thinking about a little bit more. But right now, it does say that unless the advertisement clearly states the offerings are not available in the common law or in other. Okay, the good news is that we have great relationships with our fellow regulators. Right, right. And so there's another way to address this, right? And to that extent, I guess we would probably want our licensees to do the same in other states, all right? Correct, yeah. So that's the issue. But it's a point well-taken and whether or not that extends further. So. Okay, thank you. If I could, I can move on to O3. This is a fairly simple provision, but an important one that the internal controls submitted pursuant to 138 and 238 have to have provisions to ensure compliance with these advertising regs. I brought that up when we were talking about those two regs, but this is sort of the cross-reference here. So unless there's any questions, I can get to O4. Okay, O4 is the provision I mentioned before false or misleading advertising. And this one goes on for two pages because as I mentioned, it is intended to flesh out what that means. And there is some, intentionally there's some duplication. This is sort of intended to capture things in a couple of different ways. Number one is sort of a sort of another reiteration of what it means to be false or deceptive or unfair, including misleading information, et cetera. Number two has to do with sort of the form of it. And the operator can't obscure or fail to disclose any material fact in its advertising or use sort of a form of advertising that makes it harder to see the disclaimers or sort of any useful, any information that is needed for the Patriots to understand the odds of winning, for instance, or material conditions on an offer. Number four is really, I think one that's gotten a lot of attention, this issue that's gotten a lot of attention nationally already. And I know with this commission is dealing with promotion of that, if you're going to advertise a promotion, one, you have to clearly and concisely explain the terms of the promotion and adhere to it. If you're going to offer, quote, free items or promotional credit, any terms of limitations of what that means has to be involved. You have to disclose all of that. It's certainly in the sort of a couple of details in terms of using pop-up messages or sort of kind of flash-type messages like that. Again, they'll still have to have that disclosed in there. And item C here says in the top of page 57 in your packet, if the offer actually requires a specific dollar amount to receive the complimentary item or promotional credit, that amount has to be disclosed. Again, in the same style and sort of with the same level of attention grabbing that the rest of the promotion has. There'll be more of that, by the way, when we get to number six here, but I just want to note that because I think a lot of these are repeated there. And as I'm looking at this, it may make sense actually to move six to five and flip the two, but we can talk about that in a moment. Number five, no employee or vendor of a sports wagering operator. This is a fair, I think one that both GLI noted in the drafting of the internal controls regs, but also one that we've seen other states. Employees and vendors can't advise or encourage patrons to make a particular bet, whether it's in a particular place or in a physical location or sort of here are the hot bets for today, as an advertisement or something. Number six, as I mentioned, does tie back to promotional materials again. And there's a list of things that we're saying are prohibited here or suggesting would be prohibited, promoting a responsible or excessive participation of sports wagering, suggesting financial personal success from sports wagering, employing something sort of implying things that sports wagering is free of risk, describing sports wagering as free, cost free, free of risk. This one is taken actually almost directly from the Ohio regulation and with actually a little bit more embellishment on it here in D. I know that's been in the news obviously. So, A through D, I would characterize as sports wagering needs to be portrayed honestly and without glorifying it as a risk-free venture or a way to get rich scheme or anything like that. So that's a tent there. E is sort of encouraging players to chase losses or reinvest winnings, again, as language elsewhere, suggest betting as a means of solving or escaping problems. These are all sort of drawn from the responsible gaming world. Portray, condone or encourage sports wagering behavior as a right of passage is one and imply the chance of winning increase with time spent and you can see and then of course the very last one is offer a line of great to any consumer. So this is kind of getting back to no credit wage rate. So I'll stop there. I know this is the sort of a key one. This is what's false or misleading advertising. We tried our best to cover the waterfront again using regs from different states and paying a special attention to states that have done this well but mixing from a few different ones and learning from that experience. Questions, commissioners? So Amina and team, I don't recall if this was discussed or not, but in the overall like other jurisdictions review Connecticut has one saying you can't imply you've got a greater chances of winning with one licensee versus another. We didn't include that. And I'm just curious as to why is it worthy of discussing? Maybe it's somewhere else that I was expecting to see there. That's a good question, commissioner O'Brien. I am not sure. I'm just thinking if I have a, I don't have a particular memory of why we did or did not include that one to be honest but I think it could be added. Yeah, so because they have a similar link in Connecticut but it certainly is one that could be included. I would say it's one that's probably covered already by the general misleading because- The don't mislead. Right, exactly. But so I think it's covered that way but certainly is one of those details if we wanted to cover it in that way too, we certainly could. Right, okay. Thanks. Amina, you touched on the order. Four leads were the idea that three is okay. A bit, I do say at the end, it's gonna be, if it's not really free, you can't describe it as free in C or C, the order. I certainly think in retrospect, this is what, and then looking at it again as in preparing for today, I think five should either move up before four or after six. So essentially four and six should be together but Madam Chair, I think your point may be a slightly different one if I'm understanding correctly that we say if you're offering complimentary or free items, you have to describe it a certain way. And then we say, actually you shouldn't be calling something free to begin with. So we'd look for feedback of whether we want from the commission whether you'd like to really avoid using that term all to, if you'd want advertising to avoid using that term all together versus describing it. I feel like six D, it addresses the risk factor and four doesn't until kind of foresee on us, I missed it, my apologies. But so I just thought it was a little bit, I guess I'm always, I'm never at first to saying something twice and I know that's not really clean drafting of a regulation, but four leads with the idea that we know you're going to use the word free and then this is A, B and C, but then we get on to the next provision and I understand proximity matters. So I might need to be further down, but I just wonder if it's also in the language. What I might suggest and whether, and we can also look at the order again, I certainly think like I said, four and six should be together, but what I might also suggest and would appreciate the commission's feedback on this is the sentence in four, the second sentence that says if a sports wagering operator offers, et cetera, I would actually suggest perhaps saying if a sports wagering operator offers complimentary or promotional credit, complimentary items or promotional credit and take out the or free piece to make sure that there isn't confusion with six C because later you're saying that you're not, if you're adopting the sort of Ohio method of not allowing something to be described as free, it actually cleans it up a bit because if you read the rest of, the other thing is that if you read the rest of four, it actually makes it clear that nothing in life is free, so don't say that. Yeah, and I think that might help because I even thought of that last night when I saw three in quotation marks that maybe that's what you were trying to signal, but then I thought they're actually saying that word free. So maybe that alone will be really helpful and then bring it up. Thanks. Are folks ready to move on to O5? Questions? I'll start. Commissioner Skinner, are you all set? Okay, Commissioner Mayer, are you ready? Thank you. Thank you. So starting in O5, O5, O6, and O7 get into advertising to particular groups that operators are prohibited or limited to advertising to. O5 is advertising to youth, it starts there. So it says a couple of different components, number one is sort of the broad statement and that allows a decent amount of review on a case-by-case basis by the commission that no sports waging operator can allow could doctor participate in advertising marketing aimed at individuals under 21. The number two is a requirement that advertising not contain images, symbols, celebrity entertainer endorsements or language designed to appeal primarily to individuals younger than 21. The number three sort of gets out where advertising might be more likely to reach folks who are underage. Media outlets including social media platforms use primarily by folks under 21. I'm getting to the age where I'm realizing that changes weekly, but that's sort of again, intended to leave some flexibility. Events aimed at minors or where 75% or more of the audience is reasonably expected to be under 21. Basically primary and secondary schools, college or university campuses, I know that was one that came up, has come up before and to audiences. And this is a little bit different than B because we're not necessarily events but to an audience that's primarily under 21. The number four is not, sports waging operators can't use logos, trademarks or brands on sort of material intended for youth and children. And the depiction of folks who look like there might be under 21 years of age can't be used in promotional materials. The exception to that is live footage or images of professional athletes during sporting events and on which sports waging is permitted. So I think this came up during the round table. If you have a baseball player who's 20 years old and happens to be in the live footage, that may be okay, but that's separate from anything that suggests that that individual might be the one participating in sports waging. That's sort of the distinction between the two. And then the very last, sorry, and again, that's limited to professional athletes. Number six makes it clear that it won't depict students schools or colleges or school or college setting. So even if the waging is permitted on NCAA sports, it cannot include that depictions of college sports there. Finally, number seven is another sort of required disclosure is that you must be 21 years of age or older to participate in any sports waging. Nina, and this is probably more a creature of the exhaustion I am at right now than reality, but I'm reading the percentages on B and E and I feel like they're backwards. I thought the percentage was supposed to be that the majority wouldn't be under 21. Right. And as I'm reading it now, it seems to be the other way. So if you look at, you're looking at number three. Yeah. Yeah, shall not be published. That's what I was looking for. At the beginning of three shall not be published or displayed or disseminated or distributed. That's the exhaustion. So it's the not that I was missing. There you go. It took me a second time. I get it, yeah. Yeah. I've had that a couple of times where we've had the double negative word, the negative word to show us, Nina. So Commissioner Ryan, thank you. If it's helpful, sorry, Madam Chair, I didn't mean to cut in there. If it's helpful, we could, it's just a drafting matter and number one starts with no and two and three have a shall not somewhere in them. We could simply make all three of those and probably others or four as well. I would have to look at each one each to start with no. And that might be a nice clear do not statement. Yeah. In terms of percentages too, I know 85 was I think out in one of the white papers. So 75 is, I think the AGA number is like 75 or 73 something like that. But it does some go up as high as 85. So I believe the cannabis control in Massachusetts is 85%. Yeah. Maybe worthy of some discussion. I couldn't remember where 75% came from Commissioner Ryan, but maybe there's an AGA, sort of the broader AGA, which is either 73 or 75. But we have had stuff come before us as much as 85. I'd forgotten about cannabis as well. Commissioner Hill, do you remember for the cannabis control board that conversation we had? I remember the conversation, I don't. Yeah, it was 85%. I believe we could it was pretty high. I remember that. Yeah, so I don't know how to judge that. So I think the 75 did come from the AGA paper and it was for a desire to have a sort of a number in there, I will say several states in a variety of these kinds of regs use just simply use a term majority, which is arguably just 50%. Yeah, that's much lower. So that the question is whether or not, that's on the lower end. I think you're somewhere in the middle of the two this way. I'm happy to go with the AGA. I don't know if Mark, if you have any, I know that you've been working with me in any way, but you had any thoughts on that? The advertising white paper recommended 85%. I had a follow-up conversations with KHJ, the agency that we do our game sense marketing with just to get a general sense. It actually felt like 85% was a realistic percentage to go by. And so I would stick by the 85%. I was just looking at the AGA code of conduct and it's, it's like it's... 73. 73.6. Yeah. So if we stuck with 75, it would be slightly above that 85 would be a more aggressive approach with it. All right. Or you could split the difference and do 80. Mark, can you remind me, and to Commissioner O'Brien's point that, and I know Commissioner Stenevue's been on the record saying you like a good sort of a solution where I compromised, but Mark, the 85% is a white paper because I think that's where it came first. Do you remember where you got that was Ontario because I know Ontario has been pretty conservative? Do you remember where we got the 85? Yeah. I would need to go back and take a look and I would be happy to do that and report back to the commission where we found 85% or what jurisdictions are using 85%. Madam Chair. Yeah. I'm sure that you have thought about it and I mean it first. Well, can I just make one clarification because I've heard the term, you know, more conservative views a couple of times. I just want to be clear that it's sort of, I just want to make sure folks are following that the higher the number here, the fewer advertisements that would capture because it's the majority, you know, so just taking back the sort of the couple of different standards we've talked about. If advertising is directed at a majority of folks under 21, that's the 50% plus one of the viewers are under 21 and then 75 and 85. So 85%, I'm not necessarily, I'm not weighing in on the policy choice of which one is the right one, but 75%, the 75% here would certainly capture an event that's targeted at 85 or 90% of the viewers are expected to be minor. So I just want to be clear. It's not, it's more conservative in terms of more conservative of what you're regulating but not necessarily more conservative of what's allowed. So that's why I just want to be careful of that. And I mean, I do think that you're stating it backwards as compared to how I typically see this. Yeah, exactly. And so when I say 85%, what I mean is that where 85% would be the percentage of individuals who would be of legal gambling. God, so it's really 15% is what we're talking about. Right. Right, yeah. For the numbers, yeah. Yeah, so this is, that's the structure of the sentence is confusing us, I think, because if you know what they, it's a hard thing to imagine because I saw the 85% applied to billboards on cannabis. And so the question was, well, how do you know that the driving audience is made up of predominantly adults and there's ways for them to figure that out. I don't understand it, but we do have a structural issue here because we're thinking the number should be adult. And 75% might be what the AGA was saying. And then I'm hearing from Brett Van Der Linden that the white paper said 85% and I'm recalling that. I don't know if I've seen any other numbers. I don't think I ever saw 50% commissioners. What are you thinking? I think maybe we need to do some more research on it, but... Yeah, so what I thought we were gonna be doing is what Mark said, which is that number was gonna be referring to the section of the audience that had to be of age. And then there was gonna be a conversation about, AGA standard kind of puts it at this 74, white paper's 85. And so do we wanna move it if we wanna go one or the other in the middle? I feel like as I keep reading it, I keep getting caught up on. It's not very clear that that's what the percentage is referring to as opposed to meet his point. Like we'd have to flip the percentage or change the knot. I do think the sentence structure to Mark's point is different than what you normally read. What will I, I'll respectfully disagree with that, Madam Chair. Oh, really? Yes, yeah, so it's consistent. You're saying that usually they just want 25% of the audience. No, no, no, no, no. I may have misunderstood in the back and forth with Mark the 25% piece, because I think what's happening here is that the responsible gaming literature and the AGA standards talk about the percentage of the population that can participate, whereas the regs written in most jurisdictions are written to say like this, exactly. They use majority. That's where I was getting to 50%. Maybe I'm saying what I read, I suppose. Exactly, and then I get to read the boring legal side. So that's the difference, but we can do it either way. I just, we just need to settle on the number and then we can write it either way. And understand what we're saying. So, Commissioner, what are you thinking? Yeah, if you go to the code, it does talk about it in the affirmative that 73.6 is in an affirmative sentence. Basically saying, it can be placed in markets only where this percentage is reasonably expected to be of age. So that it takes out the negative, it's the more affirmative, but it's weird because right now we have it in a not section, right? Where we're trying to say no in most of them and then we're applying a percentage to some of them. So I don't know if they need to be split up to clean the language up. Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Hill, thoughts? I'm actually impressed that you're quoting things from the advertising white paper. I haven't been able to pull that out to reread it. So thank you for your recollection. I think the regulation as written is pretty clear. So I defer to you on sort of the structure, Mina and others. But I do think I could be a lot more informed in terms of what percentage we should be including in this regulation, 75%, 80%, 85. I think the question that the chair asked of Director Van Der Linden is a good one in terms of where the 85% draws from in the advertising white paper. Some not at the end of the, thank you. So here it isn't backwards if you include the not. Yeah, I think the question is what you want that number to be and certainly your white paper and the AGA standard suggests that that number should be either 15 or 21, excuse me, 25%, rather than 75%. I was actually, this now explains and Mark, I probably should have called you because I've never seen Mark want a higher number to reach that side. That makes more sense now. And then like I said, this is the sort of regulatory framing and I think it's because most states have put this in prohibition sections as opposed to affirmative sections. I believe, and this is just one data point, the state population is about between 15 to 20% is probably right in this age group actually. So one of the questions is sort of, maybe that's another way to think about it is what's the something for general consumption versus targeted at more of an audience of minors. I hate to key it into a metric that might change though, like you get baby boom and now it's, the number is kind of off or you get a drop. No, it's overly restricted, you know. I think that was exactly, sorry, Director of Andrew Linden, Commissioner O'Brien, that's exactly what I was thinking is that the percentages will change depending on on what the population is writ at large. Right. I think that part of it is the intention you could think about it as a billboard and how many people are driving by and seeing the billboard, but I think probably the more realistic way is to think about if they're putting an ad out on social media, you know, with pretty great precision. If you're running an ad on cable or television, you can tell with pretty great precision what percentage of the audience is going to be within a certain age group. Even billboards, by the way, I believe that when we were talking with KHGA or the marketing agency that we work with that there's some indication that they have of what, you know, at different times of day what percentage would be over or under a certain age. In fact, they were recommending that if it's a digital billboard that you could even tailor it to specific times a day where it would be a greater percentage of adult or legal gambling age. I find that fascinating that they can drill down with that level of specificity, but good to know for regulators too, right? And to that point, Mark, I think when you're talking targeted advertising, you know, I'm okay with really, really high numbers, right? Because they know within specific percentages because they know, right, who they're talking to. It's where I'm a little conflicted is when it's something like a billboard, despite the fact that you can run digital, some of them are still not digital, right? And we've heard that. That's the one where I think I need more information on. I don't know if we want to get that granular, but it is an interesting idea of static versus, you know, your ability to control. I have never seen it expressed like that, Commissioner O'Brien. I've been amazed in this process, the level of information that is out there by marketers and advertisers as we've gone through this process. And I think maybe if we hear billboards become an issue, because maybe we just leave it as is, but I'm having definitely that issue. It's a burning media, because I'm going back and forth. So. Madam Chair, if I could just maybe try to simplify that piece. If you were to leave it as is, but capture what I think is the way that you might have been reading it, I guess, in the literature, that 75 would say 25. I think that would be the more restrictive than the states that say majority. And we were thinking 15%. 15 or 25, yeah, you could certainly drop it down to 15% too. But just for the ease of sort of reading it on the page, just imagine that 75% is 25%. Right, right. When we, in essence, it was 15 that was recommended in a white paper. And other states typically say majority, or do they say? In this particular language they do. They say majority, yeah. Did many adopt the AGA's recommendation then? We can double check that. We did not see, I don't think we saw a lot of numbers used in this particular piece of it. We did see the sort of language around the type of advertising and making sure it doesn't, it's not, yeah. Because again, remember, even if it's, say, an audience that's predominantly adults, it may still be done in a way that targets youth, right? And so that's the issue. So take the social media platform, for instance, if the ads are gonna get pushed by an algorithm more likely to you, even though the membership of the, or the subscription of the social media platform is sort of kind of all over the place that still could get captured. Okay, we can wanna move on, commissioners, and we can just sort of think about this while we continue. There's one more thing I wanna, one more wrinkle, or crinkle, I should say. Crinkle. Is that I kind of would be interested to know about an event at TD Garden, let's say a basketball game at TD Garden, a football game at Gillette Stadium. If those percentages would affect, you know, who attends those? But that's something I'm thinking about. Could an advertisement actually be, you know, not happen at TD Garden? If that, would that 10% make the difference? Right. I would like to know. Oh, like getting their demographics on like a typical NBA game, NHL, that sort of thing. Yeah. That's why I was asking where the 85% came because that could be a dangerous delta. You know, it could be being more restrictive than what probably is a best practice. But I feel like 85% maybe, Mark, that came from Ontario, but I think you're saying you'd like to check it. I'm trying to check it right now, Madam Chair. And I'm certainly gonna try to track that. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, let's continue then, Nia. Right. The next sections, as I mentioned, these are sort of three sections, youth. And then, oh, six is vulnerable persons. These, and oh, seven is self-excluded persons. These are a little bit more straightforward and more open-ended than sort of the last ones, but these limit sports region operators from advertising, marketing, or branding aimed exclusively or primarily at groups of people that moderate or high risk of addiction and prohibits a sports region operator from intentionally using characteristics of at-risk problem-betters to target an at-risk population of betters. The second side of that in oh, six is that there needs to be displayed a link and phone number for the Massachusetts problem, gambling helpline using language to be provided by the Department of Public Health. We will, I believe, I think this is actually the proper place to bring this up. As we sort of circulate this right here, I think we got an internal thought about looking a little bit more at what we mean on how advertising of the problem, gaming hotlines and so on is done. We had, in this reg, I believe, and I just wanna see, it starts up again at oh, seven. If I actually could, Madam Chair, just with your indulgence, take those two together because they're sort of similar. They're sort of similar language in oh, seven for self-excluded persons, although there's also more attention to targeted ads because those, that's a smaller population. In both cases, we say clear and conspicuous method or sort of clear method. There was a question about can we define that a little bit more about the prominence of the regulation of the method and if the commission is inclined to have more of a definition on that, the statute only really uses that standard. At least two states we're aware of and they're almost identical in the way they do it, New York and Pennsylvania. Actually, not in their sports wagering regs but in their general advertising regs for gaming and sports wagering now have a set of thresholds that they consider for what is a prominent placement. They're really detailed, but they include, for instance, being, I don't want to misquote any of them but certain percentage of the screen that it takes up or if it's on a television ad or a font ratio with the rest of the advertisement. So that in other words, they have sort of different ways to get at the issue of the disclaimer or the advertising of the problem, gaming hotlines being the small print as opposed to something that's really conspicuous. So I actually think that's something we could add in here quite easily before this comes back to you. Commissioner, as that came up in some of our discussions, what conspicuous means. Do you notice, I think, New York because of that font, that requirement? In other words, they don't treat all alike unless they're told to, you know? I had taken a picture early on when the statute was passed of us, you know, well, Flory came through over the TV and I had to like, you know, rapid fire, get one and I sent it off to carry the other day because I said, you can see like Pennsylvania and New York are clearly bigger in that than the other jurisdictions. So yeah, what does that mean? What is, do they define it or is it specific to just the medium, you know, an app versus a TV ad versus whatever? What I was impressed by, Commissioner O'Brien, is that they do seem to do a mix of two things well. They do define it by different media without limiting flexibility so much that you sort of can find easy. The whole bottom of the screen. Right, and the fact that they're two fairly large jurisdictions certainly media markets, I think would make it a reasonable, you know, certainly, again, thinking about the things we heard at the round table, it certainly seems like a reasonable addition to yours to more or less mirror what those two states do. They're, you know, not all that different. In terms of demographics either, so. Can I just ask one question? So, even for some reason, I thought that there was an obligation to also have prominent, like on the home screen. Is that gonna come up in R&G or something? Yeah, thank you for pointing that out and I'm sure Carrie would have reminded me that I hadn't mentioned this because we've been talking about this over the last couple of days. Yeah, so we're talking about the advertising rig today. As you bring back, we had language in 238 about conspicuous identification of problem gaming hotlines or resources as part of the internal controls. I think if we were to add this here, we would also either cross-reference or just simply add it into 238 as we do the, I think there's actually two ways you could do this and I would recommend both. One is you add it into 238 as that goes into sort of final rig status. So kind of as a going forward thing and certainly by adding it in here, even at this phase when you approve the advertising rigs, it will give operators a way to understand the parameters you're looking at for what conspicuous means or what prominent, I think is a word we use in 238 means. So they will know that prominent means similar to what New York and Pennsylvania mean. If you adopt something, that's in line with theirs. So if you're asking for our opinion, Madam Chair, I think that would be a good thing to do. So that's the conspicuous language and then you also said, and resources. And I think I'm also thinking about the resources piece, like to be able to click right on to Director Vanderlinden's response with Gaining Tools and all that. Is that separate? Is that on the- Let us look at the language from those other states. I'm not sure that they include that as a separate piece. I'm thinking more of the language in 238 that requires it. I also think we were, the idea here in the reference to the DPH was that we're under the impression that that language would come from DPH. And so we didn't want to tie their hands. So certainly, if they wanted to include that language, for more resources go to XYZ, that would be something to be in there too, at least. Yeah. Madam Chair, I have worked with office property gambling services at the Department of Public Health to get the language that they prefer to use and have been shared with, that's been shared. So. I guess maybe I'm missing things up. I definitely understand we need DPH's language. The other day I asked an applicant where their responsible gaming tool could be accessed because I couldn't see it on the homepage. And then you had to kind of go into a page. And for some reason I was looking for an icon but I might be making it up in my head that that is a statutory requirement that is it simply the DPH in language that we have here or is there an additional RG tool box icon that's required. In other words, this is to the health line. I'm looking for the resources to set limits. There is a regulation on limit setting that will be coming before you and we address placement of that within that specific regulation. Thank you. That's what I was looking for, Mark. Thank you so much. That comes on the responsible game. Thanks. Yeah. And I think that I would, you know, there is advertisement or promotion of the game sense program too that like to see, I don't know where it's integrated but I would like to see that there is space for RG promotion within advertising as well as the health line. I know I was conflating advertising a little bit there but I just wanted, as I was thinking about it trying to figure out where we place those tools but are you saying you would actually like to see it in certain advertisements too, Mark? Yes. Yes. So, Madam Chair, I remember seeing that the other day too. 23N4D3 is I think what you're thinking about where we have an obligation to establish through the regs that it's supposed to be there upon entry into the app in the mobile setting. Yeah. Well, that is different from advertising. Yeah. Right. That will come in the RG. Thank you so much. That's really helpful, Commissioner. My statute that's over here, it's indicator of fatigue or laziness. Thank you. So, Mark, before maybe we could explore that later but I don't want to conflate the advertising and the RG requirements. Madam Chair, may I just go back to one other thing? Bonnie Andrews just forwarded to me where I think we got the 85% and it was from the Cannabis Control Commission. It has it in there in their revisions. Okay. So that's why my members. And yes. Hopefully them. And that that is a different. Thank you. Commissioner Hill, that explains it. Okay. All right. So let's continue. Sorry to take us off course there. I was trying to think if it was all of it here and I don't have my pace. Thank you, Commissioner Ryan. So we'll go on to call eight and then go back to the 85%, 75%, 25%, 15%, yes. So the O8 is intended to capture the statutory mandate that you issue regulations prohibiting advertising is disruptive to viewers at the sporting event is how it's worded. And so we've flushed it out slightly in O8 one and two. The first is in any way that sort of obscures the game or play area at the sporting event. And two would be then intensity and frequency. So that's not necessarily a defined intensity or frequency. I think that'd be hard to do across all sporting events but it would give you some discretion to be able to limit that if it's becoming an issue at a particular type of sporting event. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner. Mina, so when I was reading this, I think I had the concern that you just pointed to is what defines the intensity and frequency and saturation? And then the question then becomes and how do you enforce something that you don't have a definition on? What may be intensity for me may not be intensity for somebody else. I don't know how we define it or if we just leave as is and wait till someone calls us and said this is out of control. Sure. So the only example that I'm aware of of a state that's done, this is Virginia and I think they have a similar requirement with respect to sporting event. I certainly recognize what you're saying. Commissioner Hill, it's hard to know what that standard exactly is. And it may be different for different, again, for different sports or different examples, just to use some local venues. If every single ad on the boards at the garden during a hockey game is for sports, one sports waging entity, sort of they bought out all of the advertising, it might be pretty easy to tell. But if it's, or if every single time out at a game, you're hearing an ad for it, that maybe you might be able to tell, but it is a little bit of a hard to define thing up front. And this is certainly one where, if as other states, Virginia being the key one, also figure this out, I think it'd be worth keeping an eye on to see how it goes. And perhaps one that might be revisited as things get going. Mina, I also, and in the white paper we have, we indicate that Tennessee addresses it that advertising, advertisements shall not be placed with such intensity and frequency as that they represent the saturation of that media. Yeah, so thank you, Mark. No, so that's the same language in both states. I'm sorry. Okay, great. Virginia and Tennessee, yeah. Probably not, but is there in the law of advertising or that medium, is there a commonly understood idea what it means to be saturating the market in this context to the point where it rises to a level of a nuisance? I'm not aware of that kind of standard, Commissioner Bryan, we can certainly look, I would imagine the difficulty is as Commissioner Hill said. Right, it's relative. Right, I may find there to be too many Geico ads, but Geico may disagree, right, or somebody else might disagree, so. Another complicating factor may be that we have multiple operators that would be advertising and not a single operator would be saturating. But when you take it into the whole, it becomes a saturation issue. And some of the police this, right? My memory from the round table is some of them will say, well, we're not gonna, we're gonna make sure no more than X and a given slot or no more than 30 set, like you can only have this many a game. So right now it's kind of the NFL may treat it differently than the NBA versus, you know, whatever. And I will say 256.08 is written, since this is ad sporting events, it is written with the intent to try to capture multiple entities that may be combining to saturate. So if you, 256.08 says advertisement for sports wagering as opposed to advertisement by an operator. So, you know, using the sort of the end boards example at the garden, it would mean that if operators A, B and C together sort of have covered all the boards, that may be a problem, not just if one of them has bought all of it up. I, from after hearing from our applicants, I'm not as worried about this as I was a year ago, when it was first passed, when it was happening in other states. And Commissioner O'Brien, you're 100% correct. I heard the same thing you said that self policing this stuff. So I, we keep it in, we keep an eye on it, but I'm not so sure that it's gonna be as big an issue as we first thought. I agree with you, Commissioner Hill and Commissioner O'Brien on this, I think that the input that we've received on that round table to begin with was so helpful. And then I believe that each applicant that's come before us has really heard that concern. I think we've affirmatively raised it. So I think this regulation reflects the statutory requirement mostly, Nina, and I think we can be comfortable with it right now. That would be my perspective, Madam Chair. You are required to have it in here, but I think so far, and I would have to go back and check, but I wouldn't be shocked if the other states that have this have a similar statutory requirement that it comes from. It's, you know, as the industry evolves, I think we'll learn more about cases. I'm sure if someone will have a case to figure out what it is and isn't. And hopefully this is, we benefit somewhat from being not at the forefront of entering into this. Like Commissioner Hill said, I mean, I think maybe they've adjusted their approach somewhat. So by the time we do launch, we're not going to be seeing what was seen four years ago. We're already seeing it. And they haven't even started. And quite frankly, it's not as frequent as I thought it might be a year ago. Cautiously optimistic. I'm going to stay optimistic for this one. They also had a lot of agreements in place, exclusivity agreements with certain operators that I can remember being capped. Yep. And Commissioner Skinner, and Patricia Skinner, I know you're not thinking right, because I don't want to put you on the spot. And I just don't feel as confident as you all seem to be in, you know, making these policy determinations, you know, not to give an excuse, but in a perfect world, I would have liked to review the video of the round table that we held on advertising. I would have liked to, you know, read that white paper again on advertising. I was just looking through my email and I was appointed on March 20th. And I think that I have a draft in my inbox of the paper from March 14th. So I don't see anything glaringly questionable in the draft regulation, or I don't take issue with anything that my fellow commissioners have raised as part of this discussion. So I'm, you know, I'm grateful that we're not voting on this regulation today, and that I do have a little bit of time to better come up to speed. Great, I wanted to make sure that that was clear. This is a time that we can go back and reflect and get more information and think about. So there's no depth in, you know, but if there's anything that you want to raise, and we're hearing you, and that's a reminder for us to go back, reflect and think about, make sure not to put our guard down, right, Commissioner Skinner? Thank you. When are we, Carrie, when did we, when would we come back on this? I think we will need to just touch base with A&K on how much time they'll need for any amendments, but it would be either the 20th or the 26th. And we would defer to the commissioner on what works for you. I think so far the amendments we're hearing are not going to require a whole lot of time from us, but I do know that your packets usually get them about a week in advance, so for the 20th you might not get these, and certainly not in time for today, but it might be the next couple of days instead. But to Commissioner Skinner's point, if we were to find something on our own, we can bring that forward even on the next day and we make a real time amendment to whatever's in front of us before we bow. I think that's right, yeah. Right, we've done that. We did that today. That's helpful, Commissioner Skinner. Madam Chair, if I could go on to endorsements at this point. This is 09. I want to apologize. I'm noticing something in this rag right away that I is inconsistent with something I said earlier, and so I just need to resolve the inconsistency. I think it'd be good to get feedback on. This is a reminder that an advertiser sports wagering shall not state or imply endorsement by minors, college athletes, schools, college, et cetera. There is this parenthetical here. I think this comes from some other regulations other than professional athletes who may be minors. Earlier I said that even professional athletes who are minors could not endorse, they might be shown in footage. I think the example that the MLB rep used a couple of times in the round table is there's a particular really well regarded player who's 19 years old right now, maybe 20 at this point. And so he showing footage of Juan Soto hitting a home run is okay to add having I'm Juan Soto and I think you should use X sports betting app would not be okay. If that is how the commission wants to proceed, we would need to delete the language in the parenthetical. Which paragraph would we delete? Sorry, we went to delete the whole paragraph, Madam Chair, 256091. We would delete that. We'd delete that parenthetical because right now it suggests that you could have an endorsement by an underage athlete and that's inconsistent with the earlier provisions about underage athletes. Sort of being the face of it as opposed to just being part of footage from a game. So. Misha Hill, you were nodding your head. What did you elaborate? So I'm trying to figure out why we just wouldn't remove that section. And rely on the earlier section. And an advertisement for sports wagering shall not state or imply endorsement by minors, comma, collegiate athlete schools or colleges or school or college athletic associations. Yeah, I think that's a recommendation. Is that right, Nina? No, he wanted to remove, you want to remove the entirety of one, correct? I think I misheard. It's just a parenthetical. Just a parenthetical, yeah. I thought at some point you said the entire paragraph. So my apologies. Yeah, I think I heard the same thing. So thank you. Are you satisfied with that then, Commissioner Hill? Yes. Thank you for the clarification, Nina. No problem. Now apologies again for that, for that I should have caught that one earlier. 256.092, it gets at a sort of another issue that I know has come up, at least nationwide, if it hasn't been discussed here, is someone who may be endorsing can't be compensated in promotional credits for additional wagers. And this is intended to prevent a sort of a person who can say I'm endorsing this and look how much I'm winning when in reality they're not putting any of their own money down. The payment that they're getting is a promotional credit. Okay. If I could move on then to records unless there's questions on any further questions on endorsements. Questions on that. In the record keeping, I think this came up when we talked about 238 as well. This is all advertising that is done has to be kept as a record or a copy of it for at least six years. And the social, excuse me, and the sports wagering operatistic grant the commission access to those records as well as also should social media platforms are used. And rather than having it all come to the commission all the time, the suggestion was to have it available upon request. So if you're getting a complaint or as a particular commissioner or a staff member notices that there are some of these issues you can make that request. Any questions on that? 256.11 is enforcement. This is not the whole sum of enforcement and it's not in lieu or limitation of any other enforcement you may have. But number one is intended to give you a quick way to say that if there is an ad that's out there that you deem inappropriate that you can ask for it to be discontinued or modified immediately. 256.11.2 is simply a cross-reference for disciplinary action under what is a proposed 205-CMR 232, which is, I know we're not talking about today. So but that's the reference of the enforcement section just to be clear, 256.11.2 would work just as well by saying Grants for Discipline Action under any enforcement method available to the commission that you wouldn't have to have the reference. So in 11 subsection one the commission sees the advertising we get word of the advertising we can in a nimble fashion say that advertising comes down. And what you're saying is number two it could be an equally nimble disciplinary action taken on advertising unless I think by the commission unless we were to adopt I think what's being proposed which we're deferring for another discussion. So that's why you were saying maybe if you took out 205-CMR 232 it would be whatever mechanism we have for enforcement. Right, in fact, I think even as written it'll be whatever mechanism it wouldn't be in lieu of it and I know we're not talking about 232 today but neither one would obviate the ability of the commission to do this but the reason for two to be in here is just to be clear that being told to correct your advertising in one is not the only trouble you might get into if it's happening, if it happens egregiously once and there's a desire to take disciplinary action that might be grounds for it if it keeps happening and the commission's constantly telling an operator to remove or modify ads it could be grounds for disciplinary action even if they are doing a constant sorry, yeah, we'll change it, right? And so that's just to again cover the potentials. Any, okay, I like the number one. I think that's probably like Ohio. Ohio has been able to be immediately responsive. Do they have something like this or did that another or did you? Let me just, I can tell you fairly quickly I think where we got that. This actually is Connecticut has this language. There may be others by the way just sort of looking at my own notes and companion here but I know Connecticut does and Virginia has a version of this as well. I'm not sure if Ohio has effectively asked for this for a discontinuance of ads immediately and but I'm not aware of exactly what authority they used. Thank you, that's helpful. So that is it on 256. Again, I don't think I know we're not looking for a vote today. There's a couple of pieces. Well, there's a couple of pieces of feedback we heard. Madam Chair, I don't know if you wanna go back to just to give us the guidance to go back to the question of 85 versus 75 or put another way at 15 versus 25 whichever way you think about it. Yeah, commissioners, we put that in the parking lot. Commissioner Bryan, you're leaning in. Can you say it again? I'm sorry. On the 75% and I have to say that the discussion today has been really helpful for me because I'm wondering, I guess I thought that more jurisdictions adopted that percentage range and so but I'm hearing the AGA adopted 75% and I'm struck by the fact that maybe other jurisdictions haven't followed that and they've used majority. So I don't ever know. I know I'm wondering what the implications of that delta could be on a practical basis. I mean, on a practical basis, I think all but one applicant who's come before us so far say they comply with AGA. So I think in that regard, sticking with 75 I don't think really has an impact. They've all functioned that way. They've stated that the question is are we gonna be any more restrictive? Do we want some of the information that commissioner Maynard asked about in terms of what does that really mean for a live event on a Sunday afternoon versus a Wednesday night? So I wouldn't be in favor of removing it. I actually think it's consistent with the AGA and most of the operators. The question is, do we do anything else with it really? Commissioner Maynard? I agree with commissioner O'Brien. I would be at this juncture, I would leave the language in and then as we get more information and have more conversations. Director VanderLinden and maybe some stakeholders who are listening today be open to adjusting that figure. With the caveat, I just wanna clarify because I think commissioner Maynard is what you mean flipping that 75 to 25 just because of the phraseology here. Listen, I'm gonna let the attorneys, Ward Smith this but my point is just to follow the standard. That's what I just wanna make sure we understand. Yeah, I'm gonna let you do all that work. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask for clarification on that though? Cause I don't wanna words for that either. That's the way it's written. That is aligned with how the AGA frames it. I believe it is. I think when I sort of took a step, came back and read it, I think it is. I think it's, I think because we're used to seeing it written in the affirmative, it's straight but I do think it covers the intent that we wanted to put out there. Cause what I'm hearing is that then we are gonna be less conservative than. The states, cause it's 50% for other states and we would only be 25%. Am I? No, so I'll be on, Meena, Meena, you saying swapping out 25 whatever is what I find confusing. Like when I went back through and read it, it made sense to me the second read through as is, so. So maybe I'm confused now. And maybe it's if I could just get a clarity on what you're looking for. At the moment, what's prohibited? Cause this is in a prohibition section or a list of prohibitions is advertising all the issues, the events one or actually either one. If the audience, the way this was written, if the audience is more than 75% expected to be under 21 years of age, it's prohibited. I think I thought from the initial conversation what we're looking for is if more than 25% of the audience is under 21, it's prohibited. I think that was the intent was that you want to have at least that 75% be 21 plus, right? Exactly, yes, exactly. What does that now? Well, it doesn't quite actually, cause the way that the reason I was asking is that the way many states have done this is to the reason they use majority is it's really just another way of say primarily directed at, which we already cover minors. And so I think just linguistically, I think it actually should say 25% if that's what you're looking for. Yeah, we're gonna have to talk about it more after you've worked with it. Cause I actually think it says what we wanted to say right now. With the knot. Even with the knot, yeah, it took, I had to like go look at something else and come back and look at it again. But then it made sense to me when I read it the other time. Okay, I mean, we can really talk about it. The way it's written says aimed at minors or where 75% or more of the audience is reasonably expected to be under 21 years of age. So unless we change this. The knot, right? Doesn't the knot play into that though? No, the knot doesn't. Cause the knot just says that they can't advertise to that group. In other words, if you take the inverse of what they may do, they may advertise at events aimed at not minors, I guess, or where 70, less than 75% of the audience is reasonably expected to be over, or sorry, to be under 21 years of age. That's what I'm worried about is at the moment the way this is written, I mean, I just use a very simple example. I think this captures, I'm basing this off my last couple of weeks here, this captures Disney on ice 75% or more or kids television, but I'm not sure it captures somewhere where only, if the intent is that you, if more than a quarter of the audience is minors, then I don't think that says that here. Can I say something in plain language? Yeah. I want 75% of the audience who is sitting there watching an event to be an adult. Exactly, exactly. Yeah. And so however we have to write it, that's what I wanted to say. And that's what I understand. Yeah. And I think that you need that to say 25% of so, but we can certainly double check that. Well, I am very appreciative of that discussion because this is what has been tripping me up the entire review of the ad. That's why I'm putting in the parking lot was really helpful to me. Every online agreement with what Commissioner Maynard just said, that's the intent. Yeah, that's the intent. Yeah. And so the language just has to be like that. And we'll go with 75% but with the idea that Commissioner Skinner pointed out, we are going to do a little bit of reading and review and speaking with Mark and other experts and if we have to change a number or change the outcome which somehow to reflect some new discovery, we'll do that next round. Commissioner Skinner. I agree. And I think Commissioner Maynard laid that out quite nicely in terms of what we should be looking for as we review this question. Okay. Any other sticky point that we had that you're looking for more clarification from us on Mina? Not at this point. We'll come back with a few of the changes just to recap the ones that I'm on my list. We'll clarify this portion. Of course, on the 75% have to be over 21 or over. We'll remove the reference to or free in the prohibited advertising portion just to make clear that we're not encouraging that behavior. We'll realign some of the numbering there as well. We'll add the prominence language for your review in the appropriate place and we'll also think about whether or not there should be a reference to the responsible gaming package there as opposed to just in the play management rights which I think is where it will appear. And I'll certainly make the edit on the endorsements piece as well that we discussed to make sure a professional athlete who's under 21 should not be endorsing. Anything else, Commissioner, is on this? I thought it was really well done and really reflects the conversations we've been having all along the way. So thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, I suspect that you were also had some involvement in meeting on this, so thank you. I did, although not as much as I would have liked and so I also tip my hat to Ann Kay and the team, they did it and Mark, they did the lion's share of the lifting on this. Thank you and excellent, excellent work. Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Mayer, anything else? Commissioner Skinner, you're all set? Okay, thumbs up. All right. Move that one, watch the traffic. So then we're going to go down to six, four, the information and priorities. Carrie, unless you have any further introduction to it, I'm happy to take these as well. And I will, Madam Chair, I'm gonna just introduce the purposes of the changes in four, five and six at the same time because they're fairly, I think it's almost ministerial changes to the existing hundred series regs, all of which are intended to clarify that in these cases, what goes for gaming and 23K goes as well for 23N. So these are starting, sorry, Commissioner Hill. I was gonna ask you, you're always so good about telling us what page we're on. I was just about to do that, so thank you. I appreciate it. Page 73 is where 106 is. These are shown as red lines because they're changes to existing regulations. So you'll see this is a regulation that really just is very much a procedural one about how things are submitted to the commission, et cetera. The changes you have here are in 106.02, one and five effectively broadening the scope of what you might receive communication about to affirmatively include 23N and the entirety of the 205 CMR 100 and 200 regs by changing out the limitations to them. There's also a few, there was sort of inconsistency on capitalization, so that's later on in that text. And that's really it for 106. Madam Chair, I'm happy to go through all of these and take votes at the end or you could take votes throughout one by one if you prefer. Carrie, is there a recommendation on that? Whatever you'd prefer is perfect. Oh, I'm sorry, Caitlin, you were gonna- No, no, no, no, no, no. Yeah, I think that's right. Anything is fine. All right, we'll continue. Okay, yes. So going down to page 79, these are the changes to 205 CMR 107. This has to do with the professional practice in front of the commission. Very similar changes. This has to do with any professional who's before you, they may be before you for sports-wavering reasons now. So again, expanded the scope of regs. We also took the opportunity here to make some of the language, excuse me, gender neutral or appropriate. So instead of you or she, it just says the attorney in this section that refers particularly to attorneys or persons. And so that is simply it for 107. Again, many fewer policy decisions than what we just talked about with advertising. And then on page 83 is the changes to 205 CMR 109. This is regarding the commission's ability to act in emergency situations, especially as you approach Go Live, we want to make sure it was clear that it includes references to 23N as well as 23K. So those have been inserted throughout here. I recognize as we get into 109.02, that some of this may get into some of the delegation issues, Madam Chair, or enforcement issues to cease, including the Bureau's ability to tell an entity to cease or to cease an activity of the Senate emergency. But notice that in that section, the discipline was still come from the commission under following that. Commissioner's questions. So with respect to any issue under the delegation piece, that's just have to, if there were changes, they would just have to be amendments to this to be consistent. Correct. And I would just note that again, this is for during emergency situations. So in the, you know, this doesn't, it wouldn't necessarily preclude the commission from taking separate disciplinary action, however you decide to do it. Would it preclude the commission from taking the initial action? And that's the only, because we're a pretty nimble group, I wonder. It wouldn't, it wouldn't especially, I don't think it would as written today. And I think in the past, it may have come from both. I'm not sure if this has been used or not, but I wouldn't have said it would in the past. Yeah, for instance, when we did the closure, right, I guess that's the closest, right? So you could certainly do that. And then whether that issues through the bureau or you, or the bureau at your direction or not, I think it's all that would require under two, one, one, I don't know what to do. I really like that language where at the direction or at the designation. Yeah, because I think that's how we operate, right? So something like that. Well, I think that the, I mean, one suggestion, Madam Chair, because I think that the issue might be that if the bureau spots something that needs to stop right away, you also want them to be able to stop it. But you may, if you wanted to sort of preserve both doing it right away, I would suggest that you could add to two A, the bureau or the commission may issue. And that leaves it open to both to do it. And that's under. That it would be on page 8310902A. As currently written, the bureau has the ability for gaming to issue emergency cease and desist orders. This, if you want to clarify, because I don't think this precludes the commission from doing it within your plenary authority over really everything related to gaming and sports wagering. If you want to clarify it while we're making these changes, the suggestion at the moment might be to say the bureau or the commission may issue a cease and desist order. Commissioners? I think that makes sense. And it's consistent with 10901. It's, it talks about my misreading it. I just had it. Oh yeah. In the middle of that paragraph, it says commission or the bureau. So that language would be consistent for the provision we're talking about now. Yeah. That looks consistent to me. Commissioners going to thank you. Madam chair, if you were to make that change, I would also make it to in the next page on page 843A. The next page on page 843A, if the bureau or commission takes action, pursuant to that. Or we'd have to make consistent changes to make sure that it's captured there because that only refers to the bureau's action. We also need to add that to subsection 2B. No, 2B is specific to the commission, or commissioner Skinner, to issue orders, established procedures as a condition of licensure. So that's really just the commission's role. And I actually, I'm gonna correct myself, sorry, on three, the hearings piece. It already actually distinguishes between actions taken by the bureau versus the commission. And to the point I was making earlier, Madam chair, even though currently 109 says the bureau may issue an order, it actually already contemplated if the commission intends to take action under 109.01, so it will cover it 109.01 and two. It's coming. So I think if you make that add to two, you should be covered in making those changes. Any other questions for the last one? That I believe is, yep, the last one for today. For today. So we have three to consider, very all similar in terms of really red lines from existing regulation. Mistress, any further questions for Nina, Carrie, Caitlin on these three? So we decided that we could maybe move on this in a joint fashion, but I'll take a motion. I would be more than happy to make a motion, but Madam chair, I always love to do these individual liems. I know for the last 48 hours, I have tried to expedite things. However, I'm keeping with my usual self with these regs that we do them separately. Are you okay with that? Oh, I am, I'm fine, yep. So why don't I do the first one then? I move that the commission approved the small business impact statement in the draft 205 CMR 106 as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. And I further move that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process. I further move that staff shall be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Five-zero, thank you, Commissioner Hill. I will continue on then. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approved the small business impact statement in the draft 205 CMR 107 as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. And further move that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process. I further move that staff shall be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. Second. Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. I vote yes. Five-zero, thank you. On the next one, that would be 107? 109, I believe, right? Well, I think you just did 106, then you'd like to be, I don't know if I'd like to move on. I think you did 106, 107 because 104 was taken off the list for today. Correct. Yeah. Yes, thank you, okay? My apologies. So with that said, Madam Chair, I move that the commission approved a small business impact statement and the draft 205 CMR 109 as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. I further move that the staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process. I further move that the staff shall be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. And Madam Chair. We know how to hand up. Okay. Sorry, I just, I think this may be already captured in a motion. I apologize, I don't remember from past sections, but that discussion today included just as a reminder, the slight amendments to add Bureau or commission. Friendly amendment. I support that amendment. Thank you. And did I hear a second? Oh, I thought that was the second. I'll second if that doesn't go up on. With that, friendly amendment. Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you. Just for clarity, I want to make sure everyone understood that I did vote for the right one. I just didn't cross the line. So my apologies, I'm being pretty methodical today at this juncture. Mina, thank you so much for the good work. The advertising did take a chunk of your time today, but we knew it would be a full sum discussion and an important one. So we look forward to finalizing in the next round. Okay. And are you staying on for promotional play? I am not, but I will alert Mr. Povich that he can join you and you don't need more lawyers in that. So I will switch off and let him in. So does it make sense then for us to, if he's available to continue right on promotional play or do you need to vote yes? I believe, I must have heard me, I need to be a little less loud then because he's two offices away. So I don't know if he heard me that. Oh, I've been, I've been, I've been lurking. I just have been separately summoned. Okay. Here he is. Matters. So Madam Chair, even if you don't break your lunch, I just need five minutes. Does that work five minutes? Or because we have that Councilor Povich, and rather than break for lunch, five minutes just for a quick break and then come back, go through. We're not gonna. Your schedules are more important, but I am, I have no constraints this afternoon. So whatever works for you. Okay. So commissioners, let's ask this on this. Does it mean make sense to break for lunch right now? Or thank you, Mina, or, or just a quick break. Yeah. I would like to break for lunch. I'm sorry. We've been at this since eight this morning. So I didn't get the appropriate. And I know Mr. Povich, because you've been on a quote lurking, you understand that. So probably it's most efficient for a half hour lunch break. And then we'll come back a little bit refreshed. We were doing a lot of math in that last session. So. Okay. Thank you so much. What time is it now commissioners? Kind of one. So 20 after one. We'll return. Thank you. And thanks, Lawn. Me appreciate it. All right. See you then. Okay, Dave. Also. Thank you. Thanks everyone. We're all here. This is a reconvening of a public meeting of the Massachusetts Game and Commission. And because we're posting this virtually, I'll do a roll call. Good afternoon, pressure O'Brien. Good afternoon, I'm here. Good afternoon, commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon, I'm here. Good afternoon, commissioner Mayer. Good afternoon. I'm here. We'll get started. Thank you. So we're turning now to item six B on our agenda. And it's on the motion. Okay. And thank you. We have. Anderson bigger joining us. Good afternoon, Mr. Kovic. Nice to see you all. So, I think probably it's great to, to return to where we were. We had a presentation on this matter, a PowerPoint presentation, and then also Anderson Krieger through lawn. We got guidance from the law firm. And at the time, I think a couple of commissioners were, more comfortable with the direction of Anderson Krieger. And then three commissioners wanted to get further input. And I heard informally the other day our agenda setting that they were able to get that, but I think it really helps again to just set the stage as to the, the issue itself. And perhaps either Lawn or Todd or Kate, and want to just remind us in the public of the issue. And then briefly the, the, where we were, where we left it and then I'll turn to my commissioners. Unless you don't think that's necessary. That's not okay. Thanks. Hey, are you going to set the stage or is that best? Or is it Lawn or? Sure. I'm happy to do it or Lawn, if you'd like to sort of leave that. Go ahead. Okay. So in our last discussion about promotional play, there had been a couple of things that we had discussed. The first was whether the commission has authority to determine whether promotional play is taxed or not taxed or whether there's some type of hybrid approach. And so that was sort of part of the presentation from Ann Kay. Then there was additional information provided by Derek and Sterl regarding what is happening in other states. Some states do allow or do tax promotional play in its entirety, some states don't tax it. And then some states have a hybrid approach and other states have actually changed what they've done over time. And Derek was able to give some helpful numbers regarding what that might look like in Massachusetts based on the different approaches. And so then at the end of the meeting, as Kathy said, I think some folks wanted to think about it, get a little bit more information and circle back. So happy to take any questions on that. Excellent. Thank you. And then Lawn, if you could just remind all of us the general position of Anderson Krieger for the advice that you shared. Sure, Chair. The issue is the statute is not explicit on where promotional play falls within the definition of gross sports wagering receipts, which is the basis of the taxation assessed against sports wagering. We think the better reading is that promotional play is not a deduction from those gross wagering receipts, although it's not the only possible interpretation, but we think it's by far the better one. And that's based on the legislative history of the statute in which one branch had it in as a deduction and the other branch had it out as a deduction. And after the conference committee as commissioner Hill told us in some firsthand detail, after that committee met promotional play was not specifically discussed. So we take that to mean in the absence of explicit legislative history, pretty clear indication that the legislature thought that promotional play credits should be within the gross sports wagering basis for taxation. Thank you. Caitlin, in terms of what we are looking for today on promotional play, ultimately guidance as to the commission's position so that we can finalize a regulation, is that correct? Absolutely, so exactly. So the commission has already passed 205CMR 240 which deals with taxation. That is, I believe, fully in effect now. So what we're looking for from the commission today is guidance on whether or not the commission would like to have promotional play taxed, not taxed or some hybrid approach based on the commission's guidance we will go back, amend, draft a proposed amendment to the reg and then bring it back to you. So commissioner O'Brien, I'll turn to you first because I think you were clear on your position and so if you want to remind everybody. Certainly, so the summary that attorney Pobich just gave in terms of the best interpretation was consistent with how I had interpreted it when I read it. It's not in there as explicitly listed and then when you go back to legislative history to the extent that it wants to be reviewed the legislative history seems to be consistent with that interpretation. So that's the position that I have on the interpretation of whether or not it should be in there when I view it as promo play is fully taxable. There've been other jurisdictions that treated the same way. That's how I feel like the legislation came out in Massachusetts. Okay. Thank you. And I joined commissioner O'Brien in that interpretation fully. So the three commissioners who were able to get, I understand you were able to go back and learn a little bit more. And so would like to, would like to go first. I suppose I'll go first. Sorry about the ACDC in the background here. Thought I'd shut that off. I guess I disagree. So I'm probably gonna be in the minority here today. I don't believe we should be taxing promo play. I think it's, we wanna get into the real conversation here. And I liken it to a coupon from a supermarket. They're giving out what I deem to be something to get you to do something, to purchase something, to make a bet in this case. A coupon, you're given a coupon, you go, you purchase a product because you got that coupon. We don't tax coupons. But what I believe we do, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a tax attorney. But what I believe happens is at the end of the year, that supermarket is allowed to write off. In fact, as part of doing business, if you will, those coupons and if there's a loss there, they get to write it off on the taxes. I just look at this very differently. And I was in the house when we debated this. And I believed then and I believe now that promo play should not be taxed. And I understand, Lawn, the work that went into digesting this and studying this, researching this, I guess I just disagree. So I will not be voting to tax this today if it's brought up for a vote. I just, we have companies who are coming into Massachusetts. And why would we continue taxing those companies when we should be trying to help those companies? Get up and get started. And that's where I guess the discussion of about a hybrid would come into play. But at this point, I'm not even for our hybrid at this point, I'm just against taxing promo play. I wanna see these businesses succeed. And I think putting a tax on this particular subject matter, obviously doesn't put them out of business, but certainly doesn't help them grow here in Massachusetts. That's my stance on this, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Commissioner Mayer. Madam Chair, we had a long discussion about legislative intent and the history of legislative intent in the December 12th meeting. And the very fact that we had that discussion demonstrated to me that the statute is ambiguous on this issue. So I'm left to figure out to the best of my ability and understanding, which is the oath we all swear, to figure out what I think it means. And I appreciate A&K's memo, but I did decide to look at some of the law myself. What I found was is that in several cases, including Biogen, IDC, Mass, Inc. versus Treasure and Receiver General, out of the 2009 case, the deference to an agency's interpretation of statutory silence or ambiguity is particularly appropriate where the regulation in question was promulgated immediately after the enactment of the governing legislation. That particular case cites an interest accrual matter from the State Retirement Board. Likewise, I found a case from the Zoning Board of Appeals of Wellesley versus the Housing Appeals Committee where statutory, not very great with Latin, but leukemia exists, the details of legislative policy are to be spelled out. In the first instance, by the agency charged with administration of the statute. Another case says, quote, that the court will inquire whether there's any way to reconcile the regulation with the legislative mandate, giving due deference to the agency's expertise. So my understanding was is that it was really a two-part and a threshold question. I would state that I would reserve whether I agree with Commissioner Hill or not on the substance, but I would say that the MGC does have the right to make this decision. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. I think I made clear that I think that both sides, both arguments are compelling. I do understand the Commonwealth's interests in receipt of all taxes relative to sports wagering. And in particular, the funding of the sports wagering fund that is to benefit things like the public health trust fund, workforce investment trust fund, et cetera. And so on the one hand, I'm hesitant to impede the funding of those funds, but I also agree with Commissioner Hill in that I do think there is a level of business interests that we also should be considering. I appreciate Commissioner Maynard's addressing the legislative intent in the case law that he was able to find. And I'm wondering if it makes sense to hear from legal counsel to determine, to help me understand whether that makes a difference in your legal assessment as to what the commission's authority is here or what you would render as sort of the safest approach here. Well, if that's directed to be, there are a couple of questions in that question. First of all, obviously, Commissioner Maynard's legal research is correct. Agencies are giving deference in interpreting statutes which govern them and their regulatory decision making is given deference in the court thereafter. So those cases are absolutely right, of course. And I've said consistently, probably more forcefully earlier than today that either reading of the statute is defensible. So if the commission, however the commission wants to read it, I think under those cases that Commissioner Maynard cited, it is defensible. So we're all left with, well, what are we trying to, are we trying to define the intent when there is in fact some, but I would argue not a lot, a level of ambiguity here because the silent statute is silent. But when it's silent, we have to look at the tools we have to interpret that silence. And one of them is the path that the bill took through the legislature. And the path that the bill took through the legislature as discussed a number of times is one house had the language in that made it explicit that promo play was not taxable. And the same language appears in 23K. So the legislature, again, in the context of either decision being defensible, I would argue that in the context of 23N, two things happened. One, the legislature did not do what they did in 23K, which was explicitly state that promo play credits would not be taxed. And secondly, we had a disagreement between the branches once where it was specifically not taxed and once where it was silent and silence one out in the final bill that was enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor. So I would read the final bill differently than the house draft that had it there as a permissible deduction from gross sports wages revenue. So interpreting the statutes as everyone has said is by its nature, slightly fraught because we're interpreting, we don't have explicit language. But for the reasons I stated while I think both sides are defensible, given the cases that I was gonna say, Professor Maynard, Commissioner Maynard reminded us of, I still think that our advice is that the better but not exclusive reading is as we've stated. Thank you, Attorney Kovic. And so given that advice in its totality, I think it becomes less of a legal issue for me and more of a policy issue. And I think that there's room to fully develop a policy that I think I can support. And so I think I alluded to this when we had this discussion the first time around, I would be interested in seeing some compromise. And I'm not sure what that will look like and I would defer to the chair, of course, but I would request that Derek and his team review those potential options with us again. With the understanding that Commissioner Hill is not even interested in the compromise, that's where I stand at this point. I would like to get to a situation where, or a policy, excuse me, where we're not taxing promotional credits altogether but also not excluding them from gross tax revenue altogether. For sure. Brian, do you wanna lay your narrow? I do in the sense that I feel like anything other than taxing or not wouldn't be consistent with the sort of secondary possible interpretation of statute. I didn't find it ambiguous at all. I think looking for justification to say that there's authority to make it, while that is viable, I don't think is actually the better legal approach or the stronger legal approach. I also don't think it goes the intent of the legislature given the history of the committees. They came out without it. But to the extent that there is gonna be a vote, as Commissioner Maynard said, if it's going to be that vote of a discussion that we have that authority and we're gonna look at it, it goes far beyond just budget in my view, Commissioner Skinner. It goes into hearing from Mark Banderlin about responsible gaming, looking at the other states that have, to some extent, completely limited sunset it or done some sort of hybrid and pare down on it because Maryland collected almost nothing in the first month because that was used to basically obviate all the taxes. So there's a whole other discussion if the vote ultimately comes down that way. But I would just say that I don't think they're equal propositions under the law. And I think that the better interpretation is more likely the, it's not just a preponderance. It's a sort of beyond a reasonable doubt standard for me in terms of the appropriate interpretation of the statute. I'll reserve anything else for if the vote is otherwise and we're talking about what we're gonna do with it if it's not completely included within the gross receipts. Well, I'll add in, when I first heard about this issue, I did look at the law and became quite familiar with the legislative history. And frankly, commissioner Helen, you have to help me. You have to help me out when you said that in fact there was horse trading done and a deal was cut in the bill that went to the governor's desk that was signed by then governor Baker included what was, I think your words, the outcome of horse trading. And what you were saying is that negotiations occurred in the house and Senate, between the house and Senate that led to the outcome. And so for me, one, I felt that the law was clear. I also looked at other jurisdictions where similar wording and it was interpreted this way, so that helped me in terms of my interpretation and then the legislative history was so influential and then you sealed the deal for me when you said it was in fact the result that the Senate, in essence, won the Senate probably traded on some other matters. I'm not saying that's true but I still respect your knowledge on that and that's what made me realize that the law would not act, would impact tax promo. I do hear you though, that that wasn't your position when you were in the house. So I guess I'm gonna ask Commissioner Hill if you'll allow me, if it were there be verse right now and the bill that was signed by the governor and the horse trading allowed the house to prevail and that's what was signed into law. And we were having the discussion that many other states are having now where promo place is burdensome in terms of revenue collection and with respect to responsible gaming. And there was a discussion, would you want us to honor the law that was passed or the policy behind it in front of us and exercise discretion that might not reflect the law? I ask you that in all honesty because I see the passion of the policy and I get it. That's where I get the policy discussion that you're promoting but I also don't wanna be a regulator that operates outside of the law that comes to us. Do I, does that mean that I in any way want to give up on the latitude or can anybody compromise the latitude that is great as Commissioner Mayer points out? No, because that's our job as regulators. We have that as an agency. We do often have to exercise discretion in a fair, equitable and responsible fashion but just because we get really, really a lot of discretion doesn't mean that from my perspective that we can just operate outside of law. So I ask you that because I only because as colleague and because you have the experience of being a lawmaker. So before I answer that question and it's a very fair question. My mind is so boggled right now with all the applications that we've been dealing with over the last two to three weeks that I'm confusing issues a little bit here and there. So as I asked this question it's because I've been so thoughtful of what we've been doing the last two weeks. The bill that was passed 23N as I understand it didn't have any language that mandated we tax promo play. Promo play. Is that an accurate statement? I wouldn't interpret it that way. And I guess there is language there and it's language that's used across jurisdictions but that's what there is language it's not completely signed. There's a definition section. Correct madam chair. Well, that's language. I guess it shows that they were at least thinking about promotional play. I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. I will. It's very helpful. You asked if the language was in the house language was in the bill. That would have been a direct section that would have been in the bill. I guess what I'm struggling with. By 23N. By 23N. Exactly. Whereas now we two of my colleagues interpret the language that we are to tax promo play. And you obviously have a lot of experience in the legal world that I do not have. But as I read it, I don't see where it's a mandate that we tax promo play. So that your question is fair if the language of the house had been adopted. Yes, I would have accepted that. This language that's in there is ambiguous in my view. And I think in some other people's view that it doesn't mandate that it's tax. I obviously, if it mandated that we tax it and that was language and it was cut and dry and black and white. Of course I would honor that. There's no question about that. I don't see that that is what it said. That's what I'm struggling with. And so my point of view is that the language that I saw in other jurisdictions that has been interpreted that same language has been interpreted to say that promo play is to be taxed in other jurisdictions. And then with the legislative history. In all due respect, maybe they were wrong. I don't know. Yeah, I understand. So I guess what we're gonna have to figure out is for those of us who... Actually, Madam Chair, can I ask a question of attorney Povich? Yeah. So my question to you attorney Povich is if the interpretation that's being posited as the alternative is that we as a body have the discretion to alter the definition, there is a... Right now the specific query is promo play allowed to be added into those deductions. My question is, is that it? I mean, if we decided we wanted to deduct something else, where is the statutory justification for the four expanding beyond promo play? To say, well, we think as a policy, something else should be a free get maybe, other than what's been explicitly barred. I mean, I'm looking for where's the... Outside parameters of going beyond what the explicit definition is, if any. I think that's a harder question, but I think to argue the other side for what I've been arguing, not that I believe it, but I think if you were going after the promo play in the world of gross sports wagering receipts, I mean, promo play is enumerated in dollars, but it's not, in some sense, it's not real money, right? Because of the limitations you can't, it's analogous to Commissioner Hill's coupon point, right? The coupon is spent like value, but not value when outside the context of the, in the retailer way you're spending, assuming, I know way too much about coupons because one of my earlier jobs, but assuming it's a market basket coupon that you can only spend at market basket, right? That's a discount, that's like a sale price, right? So I think promotional plays in an area that might be somewhat different than, you can deduct any advertising that you do, you can deduct how the cost of the ads you put up at Fenway because they, I think there's some, I think one of the reasons that there's a discussion around this is because promo play is kind of a, maybe it's not completely unique. Unique doesn't usually have modifiers, but maybe there are other things you could find like that, but it's a little bit interesting because it has this dollar denomination value like the greenback dollars that are taxed, but in a sense it was never actually backed by any real money, it was an advertising effort. So I'm going to push back a little on your question just because I think promo plays in a category different than other expenses that you might want to talk about. But just to return to the statute, I mean, section three of 23N lists deductions from adjusted gross sports wagering receipts. And in the house version, I think this is where it was in the house version that promo play was listed as deduction along with federal excise tax, but it didn't make it to the end of the party after the bill was enacted. So I think that's where, if you're trying to look for a way now on the other side of that argument, I feel like I'm spending the whole day writing a law school exam on the other side of that argument, you know, gross sports wagering receipts is not defined. So it's a bit of a jumble, but the reason that we came down when we came down was it was once clearly in and then it clearly came out as a deduction. But, you know, I would hesitate to posit a view that didn't leave the commission with the broad discretion that it has. But again, I think the better reading of the whole situation is what I've said before. So I hope that's not too much an evasive answer to your direct question, but that sort of recaps why this is a tough question for all of us. I will say, if I, I will, could say one more thing. Sorry, I'm sorry, if I stepped on you there. While I think putting it in or taking it out is in one area of decision, I think crafting a whole new regulatory structure around it is an interesting alternative. I mean, that's sort of exercising discretion to a greater extent. Yeah, I mean, that's the follow-up question I was going to have is, you know, there's a distinct question in my mind whether we have the regulatory authority to simply prohibit it or restrict it versus if it's out there as a tax or not. And I view those as distinct. I know that there are some policy questions that people are conflating, but to me, those are distinct questions. I feel like the legislative intent and the language is clear, but obviously if it moves on to another phase, and even if it didn't, even if we came at the end of this and said, it's taxable, there's still a different regulatory authority and whether or not we want to allow it and to what extent. And those to me are also different for what it's for. I think that's correct. I agree with that. Mr. Maynard? Councilor Kovic, I appreciate everything you just said. And I think, you know, when I would say back when I was thinking and I thought long and hard about both memos that were presented to us over time and what you said at the last meeting where we discussed this is that the legislature also didn't affirmatively address it, right? So yes, there were two versions, one came in, one came out, but then they didn't address it affirmatively. And so it's that absence where I went to the law and I said, okay, this is how I interpret it. There's another reason I believe it's the best thing we can do as an agency is to actually get past that step one of whether or not we have the ability to make the decision. And that's because we can quickly change the decision if it's going the wrong direction. And I look to some place like Maryland, for example. And, you know, if, for example, the decision, I'm just going to say it, I believe we have the decision to make. We have the right to make this decision because it was absent in the statute and I think I have the right to interpret the statute. If the legislature doesn't believe that I'm right on that they can also open the statute back up and make the change. But in making this decision, so I'm past that, right? So then in making that decision, if we make a decision on how to treat promo play for taxing purposes and it doesn't, you know, we see that it's just not working, right? Like it's either an outdated model chair, as you have called it before or, you know, it's we have no revenue, right? Coming in then this body can reconvene and change it if it is up to statutory interpretation and regulatory interpretation. If it's not, if we make the decision of that threshold question that it's not, then we have to wait for the legislature to make the decision on that. So if the industry is being crushed because it is being taxed completely, we have to wait and see when the legislature is going to act. And like I said, this is all I'm like Commissioner Hill. If this was all written into the language, done, I would be done, but it's not. And I wouldn't abrogate my authority on anything else. And so I really don't want to start here. Michelle Brown, are you being in? I am because I was looking at this from a policy perspective in terms of, like I said, I think it's in and taxable, but to the extent that it wasn't, I wanted to understand the landscape. There have been a lot of articles about how people, jurisdictions who had allowed it had gone in, pared it back, changed it to sunset, addressed it, that sort of thing. And I wanted to know how. And was there another agency that had done it by regulation or policy at the regulatory level as opposed to legislatively through the step, through the legislature? I don't have all the answers, but I've yet to find one that was done via regulation at the governing regulatory body. So that's news to me. So I looked at Virginia, I looked at Colorado. They're all based on proposed legislative changes. And I was Googling Maryland, I couldn't find anything on Maryland. And so to me, it sort of, I didn't see what you saw, Madam Chair, in terms of other interpretations of similar language, but I was looking for this sort of idea of taxation having a role by the legislature and we're enforcing. And I was, I'm looking for another jurisdiction that does it that way. Commissioner Maynard, if it's Maryland, I'd love to see it because I haven't, I haven't seen another state that's done it that way at all. It's all been legislatively. I think I asked Earl of that question and Derek at the time, like when changes were being made is what are being made by the legislature or the regulatory body because it was my understanding that this was dictated by the legislature. I think Maynard, Maryland commissioner Maynard, and it may be a different state, but I think because they're just rolling out, right? I think the statute allows for deduction on promo and the regulator is now trying to turn it back. And I saw that one operator said, hey, hey, hey regulator, you can't do that. You can't change it to not be fully deductible. So the reverse. Now in this instance, we have a couple of letters from stakeholders and one asked that our interpretation be that the promo play be deducted and the fix was exactly the language that our regulation would be the statutory language that was originated in the house. So they viewed, they did add in the italicized language in our memo, which is excluding sports wagers made with promotional game credit. To deduct it just like the legislature knew how to do this. They did it in 23K as Mr. Kovic pointed out. This is a big topic and this is important to me, a big topic across the nation. I know that the operators who wanted to operate here were very busy at the state house. And I know Commissioner Hill, they probably had a lot of conversations with you and your colleagues later on asking for this. And they ultimately they didn't prevail and I have some theories on it. I think 10 years ago or five years ago, they would have probably prevailed, but I think our exercise if we are going to delve into policy at all, our exercise over the last few weeks of assessing the applicants and for who will be conducting, from wish to conduct sports wagering, be an operator here in Massachusetts, they're looking at different models. They're not going to be relying on promo play in the same way that they did in the past because of the very issues that we've been discussing repeatedly over the course of our assessments because consumers, it's not a sustainable business model because of the marketing cost being so expensive, whether or not there are deductions. And so they're shifting that. I think we actually saw in one of our roundtables when the issue of promo came up, one of the operators representatives said, oh, I don't think you can, we can deduct it. That's a tip. I don't think the operators think that we have the authority either. I think we have a couple requested it. I don't think that's, I don't necessarily agree that they're gonna, there's going to be necessarily a business impact. But if there is all of those folks, those stakeholders can use their lobbyists or go directly to the legislature and have it fixed. I think we have a great deal of discretion. I don't necessarily think that the absence of language means we get to fill in things. I just think that might be overstepping. For instance, the lawn's point, should we include deduction for all marketing costs? Why stop with promo? That's because we're making a policy decision that I think the legislature and the governor made already. They knew, they were revised. They knew what they were doing. We're not filling in. It's not ambiguity. The legislative intent makes it very clear. They didn't prevail. Those who wanted it to be a deduction did not prevail. And for us to rewrite the law is uncomfortable for me. And I think we, if we go down that road, it's, I don't want to be ever positioned where I feel we're abusing the discretion that we ever wanted. Madam Chair, may I, I thought Commissioner Mpovich was getting to the point that other things could be written off, business expenses and so forth. I've heard some of the other applicants champion giving tickets away and trips to Vegas and so forth and so on. And so to me, there's also an equity issue in allowing, even if it's not an hour into the ledger, allowing those things to be written off, but then not to address promo play when it wasn't, in my view, clearly addressed in the legislation that was passed and we have to look at it as passed, not necessarily just legislative history. Well, Commissioner, I wasn't exactly saying that. I was saying that promo play is its own kettle of fish because of its, the way that it is part of the bet on the one hand, but an advertising cost, as Commissioner Bill said, they have a promotional cost by its name on the other. So I was pushing back on Commissioner Bryant's hypothetical, but it would go to other places. I think it's important to cabin this as its own question. I mean, I credit what the chair says on the interpretation, but I'm not sure looking at other, I think you can look at other types of advertising for the treatment sort of as a business expense, but you can't look at other times of advertising versus gross gain receipts because the other kinds of advertising are never part of the receipt. If somebody gets a trip because they had the hundredth person to come to the casino doors that day, the thousandth, that's not, that was never a gross gain revenue, but was always in expenses on the corporate side. So that's why I think we, I think looking for, I don't think it simplifies the issue to look for where else we might go. I think it's a hard issue, but I think it is an issue that is in its own way unique to itself. And just to support that piece, the promo was a contra revenue account versus an expense account when you look at accounting. So it wouldn't hit under the expense side, it would actually be reversing out some of the revenue that you got in that was credited as sales. So that furthers attorney Povic's discussion about not being on the expense side, it is a contra revenue account. If it's not recognized, so this is the discussion we got in the last time on the gap, if it's a smaller accounting system and it's recognized right at the point of sale, then it wouldn't be a contra revenue, which is why I said we have to define it one way or another, whether it's in or out. And under the bigger operators, it's definitely a contra revenue account. Pauline there. I also just want to point out that I think I think it was circulated to all of us that Bixio, which is a wisely respected publication that we look at for examining other jurisdictions that when they, every sort of voice wagering analyst was looking at the language that came out on August 1st early. Their interpretation, it still stands in their documents that are circulated worldwide. Massachusetts does not allow unfair conduction on promo play. So the interpretations that I'm taking that it's considered the better interpretation was also one of the outside experts that we do look to for guidance. This conversation isn't any easier the second time around. Commissioner Hill, I almost wish we could do our own horse trading as a body to move this along. But I think Dr. Lightbound's getting uncomfortable with our horse references. So we have to be careful around horse references. But you know what, I appreciate the art of compromise, Commissioner Skinner. I'm just sharing you, but I am not necessarily. But I'm not done. I'm not done, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, my apologies. That's okay. That's okay. I went from horses straight to my thoughts. No, I like the way that two questions have been framed by my fellow commissioners. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Maynard. So that makes it easier for me I think because Commissioner Maynard mentioned the two legal memos that were circulated. I was also in addition to having the benefit of reviewing those part of the discussions, the early discussions where we, initially considered this question. And I might say that some of the legal positions were not so strong during those initial discussions. So I'm not interested in continuing to debate whether or not the commission has the authority to exclude promo play. I think the commission does have that authority. And I appreciate all of the input that's been given on the legal question. But I'm satisfied just based on what I'm hearing, what I've seen that should the commission exclude promo play that we are not acting outside of the law as Chair, you suggested earlier. So I would like to consider the two questions separately as I think at least two of my fellow commissioners are interested in doing. Can I just go back to, there's this notion of there's two memoranda that were circulated legal memoranda by the college attorney Povich. I think that during a meeting and it was a public meeting, it was the Chief Lenin who pointed out the legislative history. And I think that when you learned about that, that that was where there was further clarity on your legislative, on your legal memoranda. That's correct. Right. So I don't, I really want to make sure that there's an understanding that we've advised initially and the legal analysis quite properly would be different commissioner Skinner without that legislative intent. I think it's from my perspective and everything I know about interpretation of statutory language where there is an absence and where there's questions. And in this case, this is a hot issue. So I imagine that they would look and that's where I went. You find out what happened. What were the legislature thinking? And again, I will just go back to my fellow commissioner, commissioner Hill made it clear. There was a lot of debate about this. And at the end of the day, just like majority wins, what came out of the legislature and landed on the governor's desk. And then it was analyzed by capable lawyers there. That's the law that we're dealing with. And so I don't see ambiguity. Would I have thought maybe differently? I was really struggling with it. I know I actually had there come in and give me a tutorial because it wasn't clear to me that the legislative intent really did. And looking at the language and looking at what's happening in other states became clear to me. So I just want to point out that I didn't want to leave that somehow our legal advisors were being vague. They were evolving too. So, and that happens with legal analysis. Ron, I don't want to put words in your mouth. No, no, at least I've always said there were three kinds of facts in the legal business. There are good facts, there are bad facts and there are new facts. And this memo got different when we had some new facts which we weren't aware of when we wrote the first version of it. Which we looked only at the statutory language but not through the lens of the legislative history. Both which we, I think Derek pointed us to that. Thank you very much. Which was amplified by Commissioner Hill's detailed equine storytelling last time. So that's what's happening. But this has been a fast and difficult process for everyone. Things have changed over time. So the fact that the memo came down with a better reading after the new facts appeared is not surprising. It's the way it's the way thinking and it's the way things evolve over time. And I'll just note that the underlying advice hasn't changed, it didn't change. So that's what I'm resting on. I don't know if the question is, can the commission only go one way? The answer is no, that's always been the advice. The advice now, however, is that the better reading based on the legislative history is the reading that the chair and Commissioner O'Brien have been arguing for. But that's a better reading. Madam chair, I believe that when you introduce legislative history at all, it only proves the ambiguity of the current statute as it sits. And so my reading- I couldn't hear you on the side, can I share a minute or a quick question again? I said, when you introduce ambiguity at all and legislative history, it only further proves, to me, there's enough ambiguity there that as a regulatory body, we're able to interpret that ambiguity. And on that, I'm going to rest for real. My chairs. So I've been pretty clear in where I stand the whole way through, I still feel that way. And the more we talk, the more confident I am in my position in terms of questions of taxation rates, et cetera, I do not think are part of the purview of this body unless explicitly given to us by the legislature. I do not think it is here. I did not think there was ambiguity in the first instance, nor do I think the fact that legislative history backs up the plain interpretation lends itself to ambiguity. I am also concerned about the fact that because we have proceeded that it is not included to the extent that there's going to be any discussion of expanding the interpretation of that, that cannot happen in isolation in terms of launching and what would we wanna do if it was in fact within our purview? That's a complicated conversation as well in terms of the pros, the cons, the economic impacts, responsible gaming impacts, et cetera. So I throw that out there as part of the conversation. If it goes to a point where there is a vote by this body that interprets what I see is the plain legislative language. I just wanna get that out there in terms of where we stand procedurally right now. I'm also gonna stand on my interpretation. Got some good advice, pretty smart. Lawmaker, and that is to really only consider what is before me. And I see what's before us clearly in some statutory language with the legislative intent, that's how you interpret statutes. You take in all the information that you can. And I'm very, very, very comfortable with my interpretation and I would leave the tax issues to the legislature. I am very happy not to be in the business of setting tax rates. And so, and I feel that there is resolution for any stakeholder who really wants to pursue that. And that is to go back to the legislature and ask for the same language they were asking for before, that the legislature did not. I know that they would like us to do otherwise, but I'm not the tax setting commissioner. So I'm not even sure how to pursue a policy decision when I am where I don't see the legal authority. So I'm commissioner Skinner, I'm still stuck on that. I don't see the legal authority. So I can't imagine how I'd start to analyze the policy discussion. There will be a tax rate set whether the absence, finding that the best interpretation will also set a tax rate. And that's been done. This is setting a tax rate, no matter how you look at it, because it wasn't perfectly clear in the language. That's just my view of it. That's your, yeah. And I see it was. So I don't feel that we should alter it, commissioner Maynard. I think that's what Commissioner O'Brien is saying too. I said that from the start, but I think another time I checked in on a different issue on CF11, this has tax implications. And so I'm at least consistent, but this is not the lane I wanna get in. And unless it's really clear, and unless it's really clear that I should get in that lane, I'm not gonna tip my toe into it, commissioner Maynard. The ambiguity is not sufficient to push me into that lane, not crossing any yellow line, white line or whatever. Again, the operators have an out. They're hearing us. If they wish to get it changed, the lawmakers are listening. They can do it overnight. They can do it overnight. We know that. We know that if in fact, the legislature is inclined to give them this deduction, they can go there. If they're thinking that there's a better form in us, I just can't, you know, I respect everybody's role and responsibility. I respect the role of legislature and the role of the governor who signed the bill. Councillor Grossman, I know that you've got a little bit of a smile on your face because I think that, you know, you're sitting here taking it all in, but I am at this point in time, going to recommend them that we move on unless that there's something that I'm not... Not in motion, Madam Chair. Okay. May not be recognized, but I would make a motion that the MGC does have the ability, the commission has the ability to interpret 23 in to address the inclusion or exclusion of promo play into the calculation of gross gaming receipts. You're right. Point of clarification. So you're asking that you're saying with the law, you're interpreting the law, Commissioner Maynard. Nope. I'm saying that the law lifted to the body to interpret. Okay. Second. Is there any questions? Commissioner O'Brien, any questions or edits that leave me? Okay. I know I'm going to vote. Okay. My vote's going to start from the beginning. I'm amazed we're having this conversation right now, but I'm ready to vote. Okay. Any other edits or questions? And this is, again, could you repeat your motion, Commissioner Maynard? I move that the commission has been granted the ability to interpret 23 in, I'll amend my own motion because of the lack of it being addressed in the legislation to address the inclusion or exclusion of promo play into the calculation of gross gaming receipts. I don't know. Derek, would that answer, would that get to what you need? Gross sportsway during receipts. Gross gaming receipts is, thank you. Great. Gross sportsway during receipts. Because that won't change adjusted, which is statutorily defined. The gross sportsway during receipts is not statutorily defined. All right, thank you. Gross sportsway during receipts. I believe it had a second, but I'm not sure. Well, you amended it to say that it was language was absent or something. So we needed another second. So with the amended motion, I will second. Okay. Any further questions or edits? The only other question I have, Madam Chair, is procedurally, whether this is a question to be certified? Oh, I don't know what that means. I'm sorry. A statutory question of certifying up to the SJC, the interpretation of the statute. That's what I wondered if you were suggesting, I would be comfortable with somebody else certifying for making an interpretation of a statute that we're gonna actually, if we can look into that, you wanna add a friendly amendment? I would move to amend it to also include a certification of the question as proposed up to the SJC. In that case, can we go back? Is that the proper procedure? I don't know the answer to that question. That's the question that I have. That's a commission certifying a question to the SJC. Yeah, I've never heard of that. I look at it more or this than I have, but that seems, I mean, the emotion drawing on legal conclusion also seems interesting to me. So I don't know the answer to that. Yeah, I mean, cause we can't move to amend the statute. And so we would have to be in a rag or I don't know how that would be effectuated. I don't know if General Counsel Grossman has a point to do with that. Yeah, I think typically an administrative agency would just take certain action based on legal counsel. And if someone were to challenge it, then that's how you would deal with it. I've never, I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm happy to look into that. I've never seen or heard of an agency certifying a question to the court. Of course, courts can certify questions to the SJC and the like. But interesting question. I don't know the answer to that. And I think, you know, Commissioner Maynard's motion is really just designed to clarify the authority. I don't, and it's based on legal advice. So I don't think you're really, you know, well, you are interpreting the law and I think you have every right to do that. So I didn't really have a problem with the motion itself. I would be happy, Counsel Grossman, if there's a better way to enunciate my intent. And it seems like at least two other commissioners intent to allow us to have the ability to make the decision. I'm happy to take that advice. But I, you know, we've often had to interpret our statutes and there's a brevy, a huge amount of case law where commissions have to interpret statutes. Yeah, I think the way I see it, and Launa, I invite you to comment as well, if you'd like, of course, is that you're just adding an intermediate step. I mean, I think your motion could just be to include or exclude promotional play from the definition of total gross receipts from sports wagering. And you can get right to the point. You don't have to take that intermediate step necessarily. But we haven't had, I agree with that. They've really parked that analysis in terms of the yes or the no. This is purely a question of legal authority. So we are not an impostor to be voting on if it's yes, how's it gonna be treated? If we have the authority, how's it treated? We haven't had that conversation yet. Oh, it seemed to me that's the conversation you're having. No, the conversation, do we have the authority to do it or not, to redefine what is the gross revenue? There has been absolutely no conversation about if the answer is yes, how and in which manner are we gonna do it? That's an entirely different problem I haven't had today. In fact, Commissioner Maynard started out with saying, I'm not sure I didn't even say it's deductible. I just think that we have the authority. I think Commissioner Maynard raised that it's interesting policy discussion. Commissioner Hill has made clear his position on policy, but we haven't heard all of the implications with respect to response with gaming, what other jurisdictions are doing, the implications of it, whether it's a partial deduction or a full deduction, those are important issues and other states are really struggling with them. Just to be clear, with deductions, the revenue stream is, there's a lot of evidence and supports, they will be compromised for the state. And so we do have an obligation under our statute as we are evaluating these applications that do they benefit the commonwealth? So I need to know if we're voting on policy, the implications as to the bottom line for the commonwealth. And that differs than the interest of the operators, perhaps. And so we don't have information to go on the underlying policy information unless the three of you feel otherwise. But Commissioner Maynard, you led with that. And in fact, the motion I make is just saying that I believe we have the right to interpret 23N on this issue. I did not. And Councillor Grosje and John for the next step, Councillor Grosje and John to the next. I didn't think you did. I didn't think you did. No, I think you should just go ahead and decide. I didn't mean to say you should. You could. I think what Commissioner Maynard is trying to do is just establish whether there is a majority view as to the commission's authority. I think you could pivot the conversation, maybe not to the motion, practically speaking, but to the discussion as to what the right policy is on the assumption, at least for the time being that you have the authority, and then you can revisit that. I mean, I think it seems as though there is general, and it's not unanimous, but consensus as to the commission's authority. So I think you can move into the next part of the conversation, which is what's the right policy. I'm sorry. Excuse me. I don't like this. I made a motion to cement that that was seconded, that our interpretation, thus far as that we have. That is the motion that's on. And then there was a question around the certification. That's where we were. It was on the legal. And I think Councillor Kovic wondered about that, whether or not, you know, moving on legal analysis, I'm hearing our general counsel saying it's appropriate. Jumping to the next on the policy issue. I do think I would, and I think even perhaps Commissioner Skinner, you might join me in saying we might want more information on the policy, but I don't want to put words in your mouth because I really am not prepared to evaluate that right now. So the motion that's on the table is about whether, I guess that there's that this commission has the authority to interpret and if you want to complete that for me again, Commissioner Maynard. 23 in to address the inclusion or exclusion of promo play in the calculation of gross sports wagering receipts. And we had a second from Commissioner Hill, I believe. Then we had a question as to certification and a clarification. Madam Chair. And now Commissioner Skinner, thank you. But I'm hoping to pose a question to Commissioner Maynard and that is whether he'd be willing to withdraw his motion in light of Council Grossman's indication that there is a consensus among you, Commissioner Hill and myself that the commission does have the legal authority to interpret the statute to exclude or include promotional play from gross sports wagering receipts. I'm wondering if that's a better way to review this given that we've done business by consensus in the past and we've made decisions based on consensus rather than a vote. So it seems to me that that would be appropriate here. I am open to that, Commissioner Skinner. I'm going to speak very frankly with you is that I'm afraid when we open this back up to speak about the policy implications again that this may be another fight on Q and A that this may be another fight on Q one to even get to question two. That's where my hesitation is because I've thought long and hard about this. I've thought about it for a month and I'm not going to move on it. Like on the question that we have. So I mean, if I hear that there isn't a true majority consensus that we're moving on to question two I would withdraw that motion if I don't hear that. And to me, how else do you submit a vote? But if I do hear, if I do hear that I'll be comfortable with it withdrawing the motion. And you can also make the motion during the follow-up conversation should, you know, we find ourselves having this, you know, initial authority this threshold question again. Chair process question. Yes. Should the motion be withdrawn? Where are we in regards to taxation and promo play? As of today. Are you, are you as our chair? I would say the law stands. That's my position right now. The law stands and I, I view law as not, not committee productions. So if you want my opinion. If we have a majority consensus. That shows us thinking otherwise as our chair. Do we have a continued discussion at another time? Regarding the pros and cons of taxation of promo play. If I, if I were on the other side of the debate. I don't think you should be uncomfortable taking a vote today. Although I do respect the fact that commissioner Skinner is in favor of that kind of guidance. I think perhaps I, I'd love to tap. Turning public just thinking, you know, why it's, it might be on to have it be a measure, but I have no problem. If you want to vote today on, on the motion that is before us and proceed and, and we would have that established. And then there would be, I guess it's some kind of a policy discussion. My, my concern will be just my next steps on how I proceed on that commissioner Hill, but with respect to the process, there's where a body of five, the three of you are interpreting this law in a way that suggests that we're going to, you know, as a body, set set policy that could have tax implications. Here. But I don't know if commissioner Maynard necessarily agrees with the fact that it should be a deduction because he led. So I do think it's a two part analysis. I, I respect perhaps commissioner Maynard is also preserving our, our discretion in the future. And I'm comfortable with, with that. And I'm not assigning any position with respect to where he stands on the policy issue. I am really comfortable that we are not giving up anything with respect to our discussion. I just feel in this instance that our discretion is broad, but doesn't, doesn't go as far as perhaps a majority here today would extend to us. I'm really comfortable with all the work that we have in front of us. I'm going to let the tax experts who, you know, decide on it. So commissioner Skinner, if you were, if I don't want to, I appreciate what you're doing. And if you wish to press on why you think it's a good idea to get the consensus rather than a vote. If it's part of the art of compromise or something else, that's fine. But you may have more insights on why you are going that group. But I think commissioner Brian, you and I, if there's a vote that that's, that's the process. And if I'm, if I'm, you know, hearing everybody correctly, then it might be three, two, but there might be something else that you're thinking about. You know, I'm just, I'm just, you know, hearing the discussion, it's a really hard question. And I am, you know, I said early on. That I struggled to with the question of whether, you know, the commission as a body should be setting tax policies and tax rates. And so I, you know, you're not alone and, and Brian is not alone there. I was simply trying to suggest a compromise given commissioners Brian. Excuse me, commissioner O'Brien's question around certification to the SJC. Oh, okay. So on the certification issue. And that's really where I was coming at too. I thought that was something that. Something that would seem unique, would seem unique. I think if, if there. I thought solved it that way. Yeah. If you could be a, if you could have a motion. To move forward, you could have, you could have a motion to move forward with a discussion on various ways in which promo play would be treated. Other than taxation. That could make sense because I do think there are two questions. One is, should this be discussed at all anymore? Or is the statute clear that it's not deductible? That's it. Or is it, or should, or if you're willing to, if you're making the assumption that statute isn't perfectly clear, then you can move forward with a discussion. And I don't know how you frame it or who do the staff work or whatever as to what the proper way. To allow a deduction, complete deduction, deduction over time, some of the stuff that commissioner skinner indicated and has been done otherwise. But, you know, I think, I think without getting into a motion that seeks to interpret the statute, you could have a motion that seeks to move forward with discussion. I assume at a later time as to how this might be taxed, but that's just. You know, I think there are, I think that's what you're trying to get to do. I think that's what you're trying to get to do. I think that's what you're trying to get to do. We're not going to talk, we're not going to talk about statutory interpretation at this point. We're going to go talk about how we might do it because some people think there. There are various ways to do it. And then when you get back to a vote on, you know, People who think that there should be no deduction can vote. No. For that, for that reason, let alone for whatever the plan is. That's just another way to get past. That's the same. Yeah. We're, we're signing there the commissioner. Commissioner COVID. It's attorney. No, policy issues, but we don't have all the information, but that point to where promo play. Shouldn't. Be deducted, but. I want to be on the record. I don't know what my position is on that. So voting no. On the policy doesn't necessarily mean. My position, my position is we just don't have the legal authority. If the vote was, Should we move ahead for a discussion on the policy? Not to put words in your mouth, Chair, but Yobo would be, no, we shouldn't move ahead because there's no need for that discussion because we don't have the authority. And if someone voted yes, they would be thinking, I assume that one of the reasons to vote yes is, oh yeah, we have the authority to come out differently than non-deductability. Let's talk about what that policy looks like. Today, so two steps, first one, okay, got it. But yeah, but how you get to the proposal about what that is, that's a whole other thing. But yeah. The second policy decision will be tough for those of us who don't think we have authority to. Well, Yobo, I would think you vote no on any policy because you don't think other than non-deductability. Right, I disagree with that. I mean, because I think we've had this conversation that if the decision, I feel very strongly we don't have the authority. That's a very distinct question that, okay, the majority has decided that we do and that's the interpretation of our statute. How are we gonna do it entirely, phased in, percent it? We haven't had any discussion about that. It's all because the information to date has been no. So while we can move on to that conversation, it's not on the agenda, nor is it something that we've sort of prepped on or researched. So the question I think Commissioner Hill asked too is, okay, so where are we now? Even with Commissioner Maynard's motion, if the Yays have it, what's the interpretation? I agree, I do not think that's a topic for the day because I think there's a tremendous amount of, some of it's already been done by Derek and in the deck you saw, but unless you go digitally, which is it's completely deductible or it's completely taxable, there's an infinite number of ways to slice that in rate, time, and not tax percentage, time, all kinds of things. I have no idea. I don't know that, but I mean, I don't think anybody knows enough of that background on this Zoom today to have that conversation. So I'm just sort of reframing Commissioner Maynard's suggestion, but not taking away the idea, which is a two-part thing here. Are we gonna continue to talk about whether the statute is clear or ambiguous, which has been the last hour and 20 minutes, or are we gonna concede that there's enough feeling of ambiguity, there's not a number of commissioners who feel there's ambiguity that we should talk about what the commission might wanna do. Because- I was just gonna suggest that the motion could be to move forward with the discussion, not today, but at a later meeting. Right, exactly. Because I don't think it has to be today. No, that's exactly what I intended if I lost track of that thought somewhere in the, that's not what I'm talking about. I wanna take some of the boogeyman out of the room if I may, Madam Chair. Is you're completely right. Like I've always said this is a two-part issue. And I just, and you and I totally disagree on this. I think that I will never be able to vote that we didn't have the authority to make this decision. So there's our, and so to me, Commissioner Skinner, I have to call the vote. You know, I have to ask that the motion be heard by the chair and the chair to call the vote, because I think that we're gonna be right back to square one, whether it's two days for now or two years from now. And I'm not, I'm reserving whether or not I believe it's taxable, not taxable, phased in, phased out, capped by percentage. I'm not ready to make those decisions today. And I would join Commissioner O'Brien and meeting more information. I just believe we have the right to interpret our statute that's not clear on a language. And I hear you, Madam Chair, saying that you think it is clear, but I'm actually going to ask that the motion that's been seconded is voted upon for those reasons. Yeah, and I would agree with that. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I would agree with that because I do think if we can't preserve the consensus in a way that I think allows further discussion on the policy, then I think it does require a vote. And I don't wanna put words in your mouth, Madam Chair, but what I at times hear you interpret you to be saying is that, notwithstanding the consensus that the commission has the authority, you would further seek to impose, I guess, your interpretation of the law. I would agree with that, but I can't propose it. This is what I will state true to myself, Commissioner Skinner, I'm a guy voting and I actually asked, are you doing the consensus compromise because I said, we need to have the vote today. Absolutely. I'm prepared to vote on Commissioner Maynard's on Commissioner Maynard's motion that's been seconded and there's been some lively discussion. And I did hear Commissioner Maynard at the very beginning say he wasn't sure about the underlying policy, but he did feel that we had the authority. He and I just disagree on that. And I'm absolutely, that's why I said, we can vote on this. So, and Commissioner Skinner, that is not my style. Yeah, I'm sorry, I misunderstood the response when Commissioner Hanglars, where we stood in light of the consensus, I thought I heard you say that in the law stands and I wasn't sure exactly what he meant by that. No, but it was an respect to something else. The law of its stand and in terms of where it is right now, the, we haven't done anything affirmative. So there's no, that's why they're asking for, we could, you know. I think, if I could maybe be of assistance in this case. Well, the law stands, whoever's interpreting is my point, Commissioner Skinner. Well, as to one interpretation. And so as long as you're referencing the law stands, I think that it's in accordance with how this, you know, the majority of this body has decided. That's right. And that's why I said emotion. Yeah, the law stands and you know, where are we? Right. And I'll tell you how I still feel. And so you might as well get, there's clarity. We could go with a consensus, but there's a motion on the table and I'm not hearing any underlying problem with a vote on the interpretation of the statute. I know that we find ourselves having to do this. And so if there's been a second, I'll call the question and turn to Commissioner O'Brien. Certainly, Madam Chair. I'm an A. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hill. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote no. So three yeas and two nays. And we will turn to this for a policy discussion of some sort at a future date into sterile. And Derek, thank you for your good work on this. And we look forward to the discussion ahead. All right. Now moving ahead to 19 minutes. We're now at, that was item six B. Now we're at item seven, sports weighting dream implementation after second director Wells. Yes. So the first item on the agenda is the approval of committed sports weighting events and catalog. We have Sterile Carpenter here and I believe GLI is on as well. I've been working with GLI on that as well. So he's gonna review for you a presentation regarding the recommendations by, and the requests by the category one licensees for permitted wagers and go from there. So I'll turn it over to Sterile. Good afternoon, commissioners. Today we're going to try and condense the catalog into a document form for you to vote on. You're going to be given sections of wagering guidelines and events. Can everyone hear me? Yes. Okay. We're gonna take it into three parts and we'll start with the wagers. The wagers, I'm gonna share my screen. And so according to 23N subsection three for sports wagering, we are going to allow by statute, single game bets, teaser bets, parlays, over under, money line, pools, exchange wagering and in-game wagering or in-play bets, otherwise known as next to current. So these are those in-game wagers, propositions and straight bets. So we were also given a request by all the licensees to add other more fine point bets as in point spreads, pleasers, which is just like teasers, but a little wrinkle in it. Ground Robin, cashouts, three ways. Spread handicap, totals, player game team props, future outright, yes, no and win place each way. So 21 wagers would be included in the index or catalog that you will be voting on. As you receive the memo on January 6th, all of these types of wagers were defined. The licensees had an additional wager which they requested and I have left off due to it being virtual wagering. And of all the definitions that I saw, it really skirted the line and it was more of a eye gaming wager where it just produced from a random output generated by a computer on a sporting event. So we had left that one off. So with these wagers types, the approved wagers types would be any wager that meets the criteria detailed in the section and is not superseded anywhere else here and is approved. The criteria of the event is then decided based on the outcome or outcomes determined because an event or events sanctioned by the governing body or equivalent is approved by the MNGC. It is based on statistical results which can be verified by a data source, a box score, an aggregate of a box score, a data source or other statistical analysis. It is based on the performance of a single or a group of rostered or otherwise registered athletes. It is based on the result of or an outcome on the field of play, including the virtual field of play for eSports. The approval of the wagers can be combined by the operator into Parley wagers. I'd like to stop here. So what we're saying is these are sports wagers. They, what we are statistically know that is produced in a box score. The running back ran nine yards. They, Mac Jones threw three touchdowns. That where as you've heard in previous recollections in the illegal gaming market, a person is going to run on the field and get thrown in jail. A coin flip is going to be flipped as it heads or tails. That is not considered a sports wager and would not be allowed. Do I have any questions so far? Disapproved wager types. Any wager that meets the criteria detailed in this section is disapproved. I do have a question. Can you let us know what page of the packet you're. Yeah, I lost my pocket. This is, this is so in a hope of, this is detailed information of the index that you were given in the Excel. So rather than flipping through every say, I have our Excel. So rather than flipping through every single one of these tabs, we have, we have brought this document. So it's easier to read and understand what we're voting on. So I am reading from here. These are the wagers and then this is the approval. You know, I have to find this document. I need, I need about five minutes to get organized. I'm a little bit behind. Patricia Skinner, are you on the same boat? Yes. Can I just take a five minute break everyone, please? I know we don't have time to do that but I need to get organized because I need to follow this carefully with Daryl. Okay, thank you. Are you sending them the documents, girl? I am. Okay, great. We're in good shape. Let me put myself on you. Eileen, you look like you're, are starting to really like going to these meetings. Is that true? How much sugar right now to like keep myself going? I have so much snacktivity in my office. It's ridiculous. Yeah. Hey, Bruce, it snowed up there. It did this morning. I had like about a quarter inch on there. We're getting ready for you, Gabe, to come up for me. Yeah, you're putting the old hex on me up there. By next week, we'll have 10, 15 inches. Yeah, exactly. First loser to come up. Yeah. I guess, I guess 75 and sunny. It's like no humidity. It's beautiful today. Yeah, yeah. Enjoy it while you can. We'll be minus 15 by the time you come up, Gabe. Without the windshield, you know? I'm gonna need an Eskimo suit. Yeah, exactly. Bring snow pants, Gabe. You'll need those. Yeah. No shorts for you up here, buddy. No, I'm gonna hibernate and stay as inside as possible. Yeah, yeah. I've requested that MGM put you out on the patio. 39 and snow on an Ipswich. Which I don't understand if it's 39, how it's snowing. And then tomorrow, it's supposed to be 50 degrees, I guess? Yeah, something like that. But I'm on soon. Oh, let it be 50 when I'm there next week. There's a saying here, Gabe, like the weather wait 15 minutes, yeah. Of course, out west, it's always a little colder. Are you guys staying at MGM when you do the test? Yeah, yeah. I was trying to talk to the staying at the La Quinta out there, so. And then there's a, I think there's a Spring Hill Suites next to PPC. Yeah. Yeah. We're there one night and then over at MGM. Yeah. I'm just hoping that, you know, this time, I mean, with all the stuff going on, with flying yesterday was a disaster. Oh, yeah. And the snow, I just hope like, I hope everything's sorted by next week. Is that a long drive from Florida? No, yeah. I was just saying the same thing. Don't they have a train for you to drive up put your car in the train and like go up to DC or something? The train thing got stopped like 35 hours on the tracks yesterday. Oh, no. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not gonna risk that one. I'll fly. Well. I hear a cat. Yeah, that's Mango. Mango, I saw him earlier. We'll go back. Thank you so much. Okay. Excuse me. So would everyone like me to share my screen or do you want to just view the document? I guess just so that I understand, we have a memo from, I think it's from you and to us. And that document is not what you're looking at. Now you have an Excel document and is there a link in that document, Sterl, that we should be going to or is it a new document that we're gonna be looking at? It's a document that makes it easier to read and understand. And it was worked on with Sterl and GLI to make it more understandable. Okay, Bruce, so is that document in our, it wasn't in our package? No, it isn't. It's the same information just displayed a little different way for it's easier to understand. And did you say that that got sent to us just now or no? Or are we gonna have to read it on the screen? It is, it's in your email if you would like to read it or I can share my screen. It should be your last email received and then it's attached document saying sportswear drain. Sterl, you have no idea what my email box looks like. What? Let's see, it's not the last one, just so you know. Let's see, thank you. And it looks like it's a word doc, right? It is, but if it's easier, I can share and just it's pretty much- Yeah, I think I am, I'm inclined to have both. So thank you so much. Okay, yeah. Thank you on the phone, thank you. I don't know who shares are you, is everybody now set to reset? Thanks, thank you. So just to be clear, you're gonna watch it on yours and I'm going to share my screen. Yes, I think everybody wants it shared and then we tended to both, I think a little bit. Okay, good good. Thank you. So where we left off is under the disapproved criteria which I kind of touched on before in the approved wagers. So these are the statistical actions of the coaches, officials, referees, for example, the number of timeouts call, you will not be able to wager on that. Objectionable outcomes, will any player suffer an injury? Absolutely not. Any action by a person participating in the entertainment surrounding the sporting event? How long will Lady Gaga sing? Sorry, can't bet on that, okay? Any outcome determined solely by a coin flip roulette poker blackjack. And then of course, clothing, what will the coach be wearing? A hoodie, aka bill or any other items determining the prior to the performance of the athletes in the event. So wagers requiring a specific approval. Wagers requiring or evolving in any of the following criteria is not generally approved but they will have to come before you with a request and follow our regulation. And that would be awards which are voted on by league, referees, officials or athletes or members of the news, media or fans that are not exclusively based on statistics. So for example, the licensees have requested several awards, the academies, the Oscars, Nathan's hot dog eating contest. You will have to say whether you are going to allow that or not if that is considered a sports wager. Combines or other player evaluations or select events. So we- So this is commissioner Hill, would that also include like MVP awards and AFC player of the year, things like that? I was going to get to that in the row, but nope, it's okay. So you as a commission will be voting on whether you want to allow awards like the MVP at the beginning of the season will be based off of statistics, right? So they can offer the MVP of the NFL, but that wagering will stop on the beginning of the NFL season. There's certain rules where the Cy Young Award commissioner Hill, that's when they get all the votes from the press and whatnot, that's something where you guys have to decide whether they are going to allow that or not because that's being voted on, right? It's objectionable. Some jurisdictions allow these things but have the voting closed prior to the results being put in or the same thing with drafts, which is also what you will be voting on under the second section, drafts will have to come up the same way. Do you allow betting up until the draft or do you want it to be taken by round or even by a couple of positions? The wager type approval operators must receive MGC approval prior to offering any new event or wager type and approvals are granted under the discretion of the MGC. So what I'm asking is the commission is the commission okay with allowing these 21 votes that were all defined in your memo and of which the first 10 are by statute. The others are requested from the licensees. We have placed these in here with discussion with GLI as being acceptable. I'm sorry for continuing to scroll. But again, we took out the virtual wager which we didn't feel met the criteria of a sports wager. I'm going to stop sharing at this moment and ask if we have any questions on wagers. Chair Stein, Judd Stein, did you receive the Excel version in the packet or did that not come out as well? I think I only saw a word attached to your email. Okay. No, I met in the commissioner's packet. It was... The packet sterile did not have the Excel because it doesn't fit into the packet. Okay, I was referring to that. It was giving it attachment as an Excel so that's probably confusing in here. Okay. So what we're... So I'm just going to chime in just so people know where I'm coming from and I've mentioned this over the course of the day in terms of how fried I am and I'm trying to consume this. I'm not in a position to vote today unless it's the statutory required things that are clear. Otherwise, I think I just need a couple of days to digest this to vote. So I'm asking that we take it all in and if any vote beyond the statutory, I'm just letting people know that's where my brain is right now. And then executive director Wells has given a green light on that approach. Right, I did ask. I wanted to make sure that I wasn't holding anything up in terms of schedule. No, no, she, I just took those few minutes to just confirm where we are because this is a lot to digest. Yeah. It's a very important piece of our business. And so sterile, if we can view this as a briefing today and get in as much as we can get commissioners, do you agree that then we digest? We go back and read, maybe we'll get the Excel sheet as well and then revisit. And I think executive director Wells, she was suggesting maybe revisit on the 20th for voting. Would that work? Yes, that's correct. And that will work for the operators, right? Correct. I spoke with GLI on that. And I think even if we weren't fried to borrow the commissioner of variance, but this is very, very, very critical work, Strolls. So thank you so much. So please don't think of it just as a function of the timing of the day or anything. We would probably need to chew on this anyway and get our questions answered and then revisit. Does that make sense commissioners? It does. Can I ask that we have more of a definitive deliverable, if you will? I mean, what is there a document that we are going to be voting on? It's the catalog that I now have. I guess it's that Excel spreadsheet, Stroll referenced. So I'm just maybe looking for some clarification as to what exactly is being asked. Sure. So in the hopes of, let's put it this way, the Excel document is excellent for our final product that will be posted on our website. And so all can view. It is easily navigated. You're able to click on all the tabs. You can be going to each event and the front page takes you all to all the events that are approved. The information tab guidelines and comments are what will have, is what the document is being laid out. It states what's accepted, what you as a commission will either approve or disapprove. We will edit that tab to say what events and wagering is approved and not. In that front tab, there is awards. There is pool wagering. There is the draft scenarios that all require your yay or nay to acceptance. So that is difficult. It's easy to maneuver, but it's difficult to display and get voting done. So that's why the Word document was invented and the memo was produced to define everything that we're going on that was sent on Friday. I hope that was clear. And it's not, my apologies, this is, like you said, an extremely large, voluminous information of sections. That's why I broke it down into three. And after the long day that you guys have had, I totally understand that it's tough to take it all in. And I'm more than happy to go through this. Slowly stop at any questions you may have. I would really like to outline several things that I would like you to be very cognizant of, if I could. So would we like that approach as well? Yes, thank you. Okay. So I'm going to bring up the Excel sheet. Oh, of course. I did for myself, but you can't see it. And so here, what you're voting on and when you see your Excel sheet, the one in black up to straight bets are all part of 23N by statute. So that is what the legislation said that we must offer in play bets and in-game wages are what is underneath in-game wages are the next occurrence. So the same type of wages that were allowed prior to the game starting can now also occur during the game. It gets down to the finite box score type thing. Will the next play be a pass or a run? It is an example of next occurrence wagering. And I have to move nice to the side. So the general first topic of this sheet just states for all approved events, what types of events are approved for those governing bodies? Exhibition, pre-season, regular season, all-star games. If it isn't enlisted in here, then it is not approved. We also state that all leagues does not matter on gender. So all will be offered. We grant discretion from the commission that once this is approved, all of these wagers, once we get all your approvals, if anything was removed, I will remove it before posting it online. So the in-game wagering section is here. The next section has to do with, and what I want to bring your attentions to, is player drafts. So there's drafts in football and baseball and all the major sports. They have drafts and they're chosen. And the licensees wish to offer all those types of wagering when it comes to drafts. So it's outlined here. And if you are in agreement of all of the categories in that section, then we can just move forward and post that as that's the acceptable way in which we will allow wagering on the drafts. Here in this section, it would say, what is a prohibited sporting event? It comes from 247.01 of our regulation. It's just also here for the patron ease of access for our patrons to see, because they're going to be here first, looking to see what we're offering. Or I'm sorry, what the licensees are allowed to offer. So here is the impermissible player propositions, which I stated earlier, right? So we can't do anything that is objectionable, objectionable like injured players. This section here is on NCAA sports. So it just goes into detail that we're allowing all division ones, but with the caveat that Massachusetts teams are not allowed unless it is a tournament style. So all of these tabs, I just wanted to go slow. In this first section are dealing with just the generalities, okay? And then the wagering on awards granted in recognition. So this is what Commissioner Hill is speaking to by the league or governing body. So this is done by the league, right? It's done by a governing body and regular season statistics. We're going to say, and it's up to you, of course, as a commission, but it's our recommendation that yes, this is okay because it's not objectionable. It's not an opinion of a sportscaster or a sports writer on the last day of the season, whether like a Cy Young or whatnot. So these are wages that must cease to be prior to the start of the first game. And on the last day of the approved regular season. So the wagering on these awards granted by recognized by the league or the governing body based on the post season will be approved for these leagues. So the NBA finals MVP, also similar. So the other section about the awards that we were speaking of is the awards that are granted by leagues and governing bodies that are voted on by the league's policy is permitted, but the voting with the individuals covered on the league integrity policy and in the third party required to maintain the confidentiality of the outcome of the award. And it's demonstrated that the votes are collected tallied in a manner that is in confidentiality of the outcome until the award is announced. So this is something that we just wanted to bring your attention to because that's about that voting. Do you want to allow that? If you do, we will turn this to black and then it will be part of the regulation. Wanted to bring that up specifically because that's that voting that has kind of a subjectivity and us as a regulator, we want to make sure everything is above board. And finally, pool wagers. So those, the one that one will know the most is the NCAA when they have those pools and everyone fill out your bracket. And then it all gets broken down. We just want to make sure, especially with when all the licenses are offering these, much like Derek Lennon has said in the previously about fantasy sports, they're going to have pool wagers that are combining Massachusetts residents with all residents across the United States where it's legal to wager. And then they're going to show the GGR of sports wagering only from Massachusetts residents that are involved in the pool. And of course, they would only be able to place these wagers when in the Commonwealth. Again, I know that's a lot to digest. Is there any questions on any of these tabs just as a general sense? I'm sorry, I couldn't see anyone. I had to take that down. So that's the first section of the Excel tab sheet. That would be the second time, the second section that I was going to say about the tab of the guidelines. And then finally about this Excel sheet has every individual tab. So each tab has its governing body and all they would do is click on each Australian rules football and then the governing body is Australian rules football league. It also has their website and then you can go down into each one. We have assured all the licensees have included and worked on these a great deal of time and provided all integrity links to their websites for everything that they're offering. If they didn't find a link or a governing body it was not included. So the only thing about events that you would be brought to your attention would be the certain events that cross into questionable areas. Chess, whether we would allow chess as a sports wager, cornhole. And the only reason why I say cornhole is we have read at certain times that there was an incident in cornhole. So its integrity is questionable at this time or at least it was brought up as having an issue. So we just wanted to bring attention to you on that. And also esports at this time we can't recommend we were given this in esports is very, very extensive. It's very hard to find the rules on these. They're all leagues with a lot of different sections. So to actually pinpoint the exact regulatory body overseeing these events by either individuals or teams and also that a lot of these events take place quite frequently with a lot of under 21 that we also wanted to bring to the attention team and we also wanted to bring to the attention team under 21 that we also wanted to bring to the attention to the commissioners that most of these athletes are also under 21. And is that a question for you to address? I don't mean to interrupt, but while you're on esports I feel as though, and again, I've got the statue in front of me, but I feel as though the statue addresses esports for us to take into consideration esports maybe do a study or is it, is that being a belt for anyone as I'm right here? Yes. Yeah. Now we're gonna show Dr. Agnes to determine the governing body for electronic sports with the purposes of this chapter. Yes, and that's why it's very difficult every time I was looking for it. It's very convoluted, at least to me. So that's why I wanted to bring up that it was requested by Encore and that it's very difficult for me to see this as being regulated as the other ones. So it would take further time, in my opinion. Yes. I think the only point is, because I remember seeing that, can we need to put that on our list, Todd, to get regulations and then figure out the governing body and then we turn to stir on esports? I think that's exactly right. I mean, in case this was a question, electronic sports are specifically included in the definition of a sports event. So they are authorized. And then as you referenced, it says the commission shall adopt regulations to determine the governing body for electronic sports for purposes of this chapter. And then of course, we need to kind of frame out how that will work. So it is, as everyone's saying, it's a little bit different than just this great bet on the sporting, the classic sporting event. But it is allowed. Yeah. So we can just, I think to Sterl's point, we can just put that one in the parking lot right now because we've longed to figure out the governing body. Is that to get some guidance beforehand before we make any regulations? Are we saying esports are all together? No, my hope was that it would be, I was stating it can always be brought up to the commission to as long as they can validate and go further with directing exactly who is overseeing this game, did you? Yeah, I think you were leaning in. Gabe, I think is a little more experienced with this or no? Gabe, was I not seeing that? No, I actually wasn't, I had a... Sorry. I didn't match. Sterl, it tricks us every time. Sorry. No, but we're just finding it very difficult to get a firm grasp on it. And then we're not saying no, but we're saying no right now. Recommend it, recommend it. Just to clarify, we couldn't say yes without doing the part on the rag on the gut. Okay, so that work needs to be done to begin with. Okay, good. Thank you. That's really helpful for me to understand. And we're trying to get you to review the wager part and the events and getting answers on that. That's the most important section out of this. And if there's things that you don't understand, any of us from here or GLI can answer those questions for you after you've had some time to review it. Is there any section or wager or event that has a question? I will tell you that a lot of us had trouble figuring out what some of these sports were. And Sterl does have a document somewhere that has a photo of the sport. So if you have a question, that seemed to help me a lot. I don't see Madam Chair, but I do have a question. So I'll just ask it, I guess. So when we- I'm having navigation issues, Commissioner Hill. And I've got my specialist next to me. My apologies. No apologies needed. That's more important. When we were going to our conferences a few months ago, many months ago, one of the things that it was recommended to us is that when we start putting together the list of what is going to be bet on, that we really should come in with a very small scope to begin with. And then we'll enlarge it as the months go on. And I guess I'm gonna ask you Sterl and Gabe, this is a pretty expansive list. And I'm gonna be honest, which I understand a lot of the sports. And if it was up to me, well, no, that's not true now. I'm gonna listen before I say that statement, but this is a lot larger than I thought we were going to see for the beginning kickoff of sports betting here in Massachusetts. So I guess my ask is, what should we be taking off to kick off the sports betting here in Massachusetts? Joe, do you wanna answer that? Yeah, I can speak to that. So I know I spoke of, now I'm gonna back up the full step. I have over 15 years experience with the marketplace here. And I am one that is aware that there's close to 300 professional basketball leagues out there. And also aware that the worldwide market takes a lot of bets on those leagues. So my view is one way. And a lot of people's other view is the other, like, wait, there really is a Bahrain professional basketball league that takes bets in Eastern Europe. I'm like, yes, there is. So when I spoke of a limited approach, I came from a perspective of a much wider space. That being said, honestly, what the shareholders, the operators have actually come forward and given to the MGC is much more limited and frankly quite agreeable. And still has that list for the actual events and their governing bodies. So what you have before you is really three categories and the second part is somewhat related. One, you have the wager types. That's that first part that we parsed into that single document, the Word document. And then two, you have what is called as the events. These are the sports. But within those sports, you have governing bodies or leagues. Now in the case of like NBA basketball, the NBA is also the governing body. But when it's basketball, you also have NCA basketball with the NCA is the governing body or the Korean basketball league, which is obviously governing Korea and actually is actually, I think one of the leagues that was suggested by the operators is a very well-run league. So, I hope that answers your question. And Commissioner Hill, just to kind of piggyback. If you want to, just one more note, like, I mean, there is, I think there's close to 3,000 professional soccer leagues in this world. So, you know, where I think the operators have come forth with less than 10. So, you know, I think the operators have come forth with, you know, less than 10. So, you know, it's a kind of a bit of a perspective thing. And I somewhat go back and thought about what I said. I'm like, wait, I come from a perspective of this very first as a professional in this industry. And I do apologize for any kind of confusion. So here's a loaded question. The Excel that you're asking us to support. How many sports and leagues are in that that we're going to be asked to support? It's actually all rolled up onto that. Well, I don't want to call it single page because it's like five, but it's onto the Word document. And if it's still to share a screen, and maybe we could take a look. So it's 50 leagues. So we just, we never get down to that part, Commissioner Hill. So as, so when you try to engulf all of these leagues, wagers and whatnot, we'll look at the Word document again and notice Australian football league is just one governing body. And then the badminton world federation is the body. And then they ask for a leagues of two events, only grade one and grade two. I believe Joe said there was like other grades and they've only asked for two of them. So as you as Joe is saying with basketball, they only asked for seven. There is over 153, I believe. Yeah, and professional leagues. Yeah. Professional leagues. So right here of these 50 leagues, there's, there mainly is just like one, especially of the very, the ones where some of them where I had to look up bowls. That's actually, I thought it was botchy ball. It's like, it's like bowling indoors. So there's, there's a, you know, chess cornhole. There was only one cricket. There's a very, there's an international and domestic of just the ICC. So it's one like league, but it encompasses a lot of different games and so on. So this is why when we were doing this, I also highlighted in red e-sports because we couldn't really drill down into their governing bodies and who had oversight. So can I ask a question of Storl or GLI or when you look at the jurisdictions that are out there in the United States, can you give me the range in terms of the smallest number available to bet on and the largest, what are the two extremes? I don't fully understand your question. Do you mean sports? You're saying, you're talking about how many leagues are on this list. And you're saying there's X hundred, but they're really only asked for 10. Like we're going to have however many leagues in this wave that you're asking us to approve in this first launch. Okay, bring it back up, Storl. It's right there. What's the most restrictive jurisdiction in terms of that number and what is the largest in terms of that number? Oh, oh, oh, other jurisdictions. Yes. And if I'm following correctly, the catalog, right? You want to know the offerings, right? What is the biggest jurisdiction as the most offerings in the least? Yes. It's a pretty large data question to ask, but go ahead, Mike. I would say the most offerings would be, basically it's depending on the maturity of the market for the most offerings. So Colorado, New Jersey, what my understanding is they have the most markets. Nevada is also high up there. Can you guys give a number because when we're looking at applications, I saw numbers of the offerings. And so it's not really quantifiable because the way they log how many and how they do their catalogs is different from market to market. So a market such as like Nevada is basically saying everything's approved except or they might say I'm not 100% sure of their markets. I don't want to speak out of line for Nevada's sake. But keep in mind Nevada has also been running for forever. New Jersey, they'll go and list the leagues at a very high level. And anything within that. Maybe, maybe if we could just maybe help on, I think Commissioner Hill, you asked for a number and I don't know if that's helpful for scale. But what if we did this understanding that there's lots and lots of leagues under the sport. What if we just talked about what's being proposed with the number of sports here and then what how that compares to other jurisdictions to begin with before we go into the subcategory commissioner. Brian, is that helpful to begin with as a first step? Yep. Okay. Like, you know, we are to add up all of the sports down that we're recommending taking out these sports because we know that's complicated. What do we have for that number? Sports. We know. On the document. I don't believe. Talking about the document, the document 50 leagues. I got it in the memo here. Let's see. I'm looking at 47 of sports. If you put winter athletics, you know, categories, let's say 47 categories. All right. And then how does that number compare to the most and least in terms of jurisdictions? Where are we if we just look at the categories of sports? You know, Joe, remember how you said pickleball. We said all those others that we were removing that were jurisdictions. They're asking how many do we have in comparison to those where they go to the extreme? No, I don't think I'm asking. Just forward. And maybe we don't have it and that's okay. But I think commissioner Hill, am I guessing right that you. You're trying to get some point of comparison. Colorado has 54. Colorado is 54. Okay. So you're trying to get some point of comparison to those categories. Yeah. Correct. And then within those categories are going to be a list of individual leagues and sanctioning bodies. And that's a different leader, right? That's so many underneath. Correct. It can be. So I think what you're asked, the ask is. Football, baseball, hockey, you know, and then. Don't care about the subcategories. Yeah. What are the offerings? Cycling, darts. Esports, curling. And how many are that those offerings? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I could just mention you have the Olympic. So think about if you approve summer and winter Olympics, how many sports are involved in the summer and winter Olympics? Which is, I think why, for us, the GLI, it's so difficult for us to say, yes. Michigan has this many sports and Ohio has this many. And New Jersey has this many because just talking about football, your list has Australian rules, football and American football and rugby. And some places combine those in some places separate them. So it's a very difficult question to answer. I understand. I can tell. Cause it seemed like it would be straightforward for us, but I understand. So I just kind of ran some numbers on a couple of states. On their catalogs and they have around 50. In the fifties between 50 and 60 on average. Which state was that? A number of states. So Wyoming, Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan. These are different sporting events now granted. Like, like it was probably gave someone else who said it, they might have logged something multiple times. I tried filtering out any time they said and, and CAA football versus football, but without actually going into further review, which could take a long period of time, can't really create like a table offhand, but just scrolling through the catalogs real quick for a number of states. These are the types of events that are commonly, you know, it's commonly between 50 and 60 different distinct sporting events. I don't care. Yes. So Mike, when you were looking at those states and giving us those numbers, did they start with those numbers? Or do they start low and work themselves up to those numbers? Can that be answered? Well, unfortunately, I can't tell you whether or not that is the case. What I can, well, for some of the states, I'm not going to be able to say all the states, but for some of the states is that data isn't really there, or at least it's not easily obtainable for me to, you know, go back and find that. What I will say though is Maryland recently launched. Ohio also recently launched. I didn't give the numbers for Ohio, but because they kind of define it by, by league. They don't define it. Actually, you know what, hold on one second. I'll give you the exact numbers for Ohio. So they, they, they actually started with 23. So Ohio to 20 and Ohio started with 23. But keep in mind. Once again, this is, I'm basically counting on a list where things might not have been split up as, as much as they were split up in one of these other jurisdictions. For instance, volleyball, there might be indoor volleyball beach volleyball, whereas for Ohio, they just have it say volleyball tennis indoor tennis table tennis. Ping pong, you know, they might group it all under that. Soccer indoor outdoor hockey, ice hockey, roller hockey, field hockey, bendy, you know, all the different hockey. You answered my question. I want to make sure that we're right where we should be when we launch and it sounds as though we are. Yeah. And then maybe the complexities under each vertical, right? Correct. Thank you. Sorry to be a pain in the. No, it's over here for. No, that this was, I think we have to have some context because we haven't been looking at this. Well, Naster, we interrupted you. I still had it open for any questions. On any of the subjects. Just so everyone is sure that. Or has a baseline on what we'll be voting on next time. And, you know, if there's any questions on anything I can answer right now. So I have a question that doesn't necessarily, it would maybe help me think about the. Extensiveness of our list. I think that I've read and heard. That it's important for us to have. A robust enough offerings in order to compete. With the illegal market. And so I, okay, I assume not against it. So. You heard that from July. I heard it from July and thank you. And so that was taken into consideration. Okay. I'll come back to my second point. Thank you. That was the first one. I think the other one was more. But on a policy level, that's all taken into consideration. And you assume that this is a rigorous. I know what the second question was. I talked long enough. It comes to me. The second question, this is the request from the three category ones. And what are they doing with the online? When they launched. In general, well, first. You've got some. Tethered. Cat ones here that also have the same provider as mobile offerings. And the catalog. Is fairly universal. From, or if not 100% universal. Across from retail to. So. And the list we. Parsed and sent over to sterile. To which. He. Is been cross-referenced. Throughout the industry. So. I don't think that is. Anything. Of an issue. So I think to further the understanding of your question. What happens is. Right now we have this. Catalog. And I'm assuming draft Kings and. Fandle or whomever else is applying for licenses and receives one. We'll then in turn. Follow our regulations. And please, we just did this. But I'm pretty sure it's two 47. And I'm not sure. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Where they'll request a new event and give us all of our information that we need. And then I will present it or Bruce will present it or whomever. To the commissioner, then you will vote on whether it will be accepted if they follow all of that. And the. Integrity and the oversight is there for the league. So, and that's really, really helpful. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Do we. To the extent that we've given. The category one. And I guess their partners some input here. I'm hearing it's probably going to satisfy the others, but. Do we ask them for input between now and just. The 20th. Can we ask the executive director to work with sterling. On that. And madam chair, it wouldn't necessarily need to be before the 20th because they're not going to five until March. Okay. So. We're not voting on. I thought we're voting on. Well, you're voting on the catalog, but the catalog is a dynamic document. Oh, yes. I'm just saying. We get it as complete as possible for the 20th. And then. Yeah. With the same input. And then. I think to sterl's point, the process will always be ongoing. Yes. Okay. All right. See, we. See commissioner. Brian. Making lemonade out of lemon. There we go. A little time. Maybe we'll get. But it sounds like it should be pretty much the same. Just the. There should be very little difference. Okay. Very helpful. Thank you. Other questions. So far for. Sterl and Gli. And thank you to all of you from Gli. We appreciate it. Okay. All right, strong. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks. Oh. I was wondering, is there anything else? Cause I feel as though I've interrupted. No, no. We went through all three. If no commissioners have any other questions on any of the categories of events or that wagers. And of course we can always. Anytime a question comes up. We always can be asked and we'll answer. So commissioners, are you all set commissioner Skinner? I'll set. Or do you have any questions? No, I'm not set for now. Okay. Commissioner Hill, you're all set. Commissioner Mayer, you're all set. And commissioner Brian, I'll set. So we can continue to review. We'll see if we get, if you get any other input. We can incorporate that in on the 20th. And then we'd have a boat sterl. Really helpful. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. I think. Exactly. You're next on our agenda. Yes. So the next item on the agenda is just. Discussion and potential vote. If you've seen that, if you've seen that necessary. Just on pre-market, pre-launch marketing and registration. I had received some inquiries from prospective licensees about the appropriateness of. Marketing. Marketing. The commission did ask that I inquire of the licensees, what the status was at the current time. I didn't hear back from everyone, but from what the licensees that did respond. Generally. There is very little. Massachusetts specific marketing going on right now as an example, MGM, Springfield head of marketing. I'm coming soon that that kind of thing, but the generally the. The applicants or current licensees. Are not engaging in Massachusetts. Specific marketing activities right now. With respect to a pre-registration activities. Generally. They are not. Pre-registering. Potential bettors. Or. Massachusetts betting. However, there is a caveat. For. For operators that have what's called the shared wallet. And that's just a term in the industry. There are certain operators that can. Identify and develop these generic account. So it's basically like a pre-account. Which is sort of set up almost ready to go. And then if Massachusetts were to go live. They could then activate that account. So. The questions before the commission. The questions before the commission. Are there any restrictions? You want to put on marketing before they go live. And then. Is there any restriction? Or what is the commission's position on. Pre-registration. Of potential. Patrons. Of. These. So. The question before the commission today. Is generally. What is what is the posture of the commission? One with respect to marketing. Is are there any restrictions you want to put on marketing before. They go live. So. So. So. One issue that I was informed about is that. There's a claim by. At least one particular entity that is. Does not have the shared wallet capacity. Indicating. It feels unfair because. They can't sort of set up these generic accounts in advance. So they're. They're playing catch up on launch day because. They're sort of starting from square one. On launch day. So. One thing. GLI recommended when I spoke to them about this. And I know. I think GLI is still on here. If they. Have any comments. I'd welcome them. But. If the commission was going to allow full fledged. You can set up accounts. So. If the commission was going to allow full fledged, you can set up accounts now. Maybe after their license, but before launch. One recommendation was to require them to. Put up a bond for the, the, the maximum amount of money that they would take in. And the reasoning behind that is if for whatever reason, something goes south, there is a guarantee they can return the patrons money. So I don't know if GLI is any, any other comments on that, but it is not unusual for. These companies to have an infrastructure to set up accounts. For example, Karen Wells was going to Michigan to. Visit family. You could potentially set up an account. So, you know, when you get there, you can, you can bet when you legally can bet when you're in that jurisdiction. So. You know, it, it dives into some equity issues and, and it's a risk analysis issue. We have had. Certain jurisdictions where they went live before, you know, companies went live and before they were authorized to do so. And. Allowing them to do pre-registration, full fledged pre-registration and load up accounts with money. Obviously. Contributes to that risk. If they're not allowed to do it until later. That minimizes the risk, but then, you know, the counter to that is there's an equity issue with the companies that have the capacity to do this generic pre-registration. So I'm hoping GLI is on because they may, they may know some more specifics on this kind of activity. Thanks, Joe. But this is, this is the conversation. You know, we've been having and the operators, I genuinely think they want to do the right thing and just looking for some guidance on if there's any limitations, they'd like to know what that is. Second, can I ask just clarifying question first? Sure. So I understand that what you're saying is that. The single wallet. I'm hearing a single lot, but if you'll give me. Is there. Much to say it's centralized. Now headquarters somewhere not in Massachusetts. They have, because of their business, they have Karen Wells from her Michigan account. She know they know she lives in Massachusetts. Is it that they separate out the capacity to push a button on day one in Massachusetts out, never having ever contacted Karen Wells. And on launch day, Karen Wells account is now or they reach out to her. Karen Wells to activate the Massachusetts. Or does the money from Michigan also travel? In other words, is it just, you know, do you want to do business in Massachusetts? Is there. Or is it automatic that there's an account now for Karen Wells in Massachusetts with the money that carried over from Michigan? You know. I'm not sure. Go ahead, Joe, if you know the answer and I can give you. Well, couple of steps missing there. Because of the requirements. For Massachusetts will certainly. Require Karen to be geolocated. In the state of Massachusetts before they do anything. Assuming that Karen is here. Absolutely. Yeah. And then verify that Karen is the same Karen that was in Michigan. Right. And at that point. As far as the rules. Are written. They would be Karen would be. Okay. To place a bet with Massachusetts. She can play with it anywhere as long as now she's in Massachusetts. And also very good that Karen is Karen and Massachusetts is the same Karen that is Karen in Michigan. Right. I guess. But my real question is that that's the money follow. Or in other words. It's loaded. Well, yeah. I can read you. So. So, for example, one applicant. You know, when I asked the question of any applicants, engaged in registration of online and accounts in advance of licensing slash launch in Massachusetts. The indicated. Customers located in the commonwealth are able to create a generic account at the present time. If the sports. The mobile sports book is approved to go live in Massachusetts. At that time, it was not approved to go live in Massachusetts. So, all customers looking to play sports bets will need to finalize the creation of a sports book account for Massachusetts by agreeing to all state specific terms of use privacy policies required user agreements and successfully. Geolocate in Massachusetts. Customers will not be able to finalize their Massachusetts registration until that sports book is officially live in the market. So that's the response I got. I'm going to ask you. Just said, operators are. Are they. Passively inviting. Massachusetts residents to register with them. I don't think I asked that specific question. So I'm not sure of the answer to that. So that's a little bit different. I was actually thinking about the single wallet. You know. They've got money in it. So we can't ask them. But you know, they're going to be able to get a loan. They're going to be able to get a loan, right? There's money in there. And then I think your point is a little bit different. Commissioner. So turn it over to you and just sort of thinking of the loading issue, which we've just. We've touched on other discussions. Commissioner Maynard, you've brought up equity issues. What are you thinking? I heard the issues that director Wells. equity issue, which is a sub-segment of businesses are going to be able to launch by Super Bowl and others are not. And so that also comes into play in the way I'm thinking about this. I guess my question, here's where I would land is, you know, I think I believe, I heard that we're the only jurisdiction that would would get into this level of rulemaking and decision-making in the country. And if that's so, then that would definitely weigh on me on my decision. I don't know if GLI or somebody could speak to that, you know, is any other jurisdiction doing this? Did Ohio do this prior to their launch? Did Maryland do it prior to their launch? I don't know, off the top of my head, the exact answer to the question, if Mike Rum's on the call, he might. But we could get that answer. I'll try to get the answer. So one parallel that CFO Lennon reminded me of is that prior to casinos opening, patrons were allowed to get rewards cards. So that's somewhat along those lines. I have also heard from one operator that to your question, the money does move from one jurisdiction to the other. I'm not sure if that's true for all of them, but that seems to make sense in that context. And I think I asked GLI this question at one point. That answers yes. Commissioner Maynard, sorry. Yeah, that was Mike. Mike was going to question that, that asses of GLI is this, you know, pre-registration and even loading sort of universe. And you guys said, yeah. So yeah, so I have the clarity. This is how we work here at GLI. The clarity, Commissioner Maynard, is yes. You, and I think the word you might have been searching for was oversight. To have such oversight on pre-registration, yes, Massachusetts would be the only one that we're aware of. And then to Madam Chair, correct. It is universal. Therefore, it's basically saying the same thing here on each side. And down the bonding thing, to be fair, though, to us, there is a reason why we're thinking about this more is because there was, there recently, right, we learned that there was early launching current. So, but the bonding, has anyone else done that either? Since this would be the only jurisdiction with oversight, it seems no. I will note that the bonding suggestion and how we brought it forward to Karen was actually a suggestion from Mr. Malali. Right. And I can read what Kevin wrote. If the commission wants to allow Massachusetts pre-registration, which allows for funds to be deposited in the count, one possible option to mitigate risk is for the commission to require the operator post a bond for the amount equal or greater than Massachusetts residents deposits. This would ensure that all deposits would be refunded. Should there be an issue occurring with those counts? That was the suggestion if Massachusetts wanted to be the jurisdiction to have such oversight. My memory of that, I thought it went beyond that where, because was it one of the operators had gone under because we were diving into this and there was a question of, I thought the bonding also pertained to sort of a generic operating bond just in case you went, they went under. I didn't realize it was expected to just be an opening. He did mention that in a different context. I think this recommendation was specific to this question. So the law of practice came out. I did want to circle back to the other one because we have some sort of private health note record yet. All right. Got it. Did Todd note that one? Because I think that is the idea of what Commissioner Brown brought up a little bit separate. It's a little different. It is separate. Yeah. It's just, yeah. You should probably think this is that. Is that a reg? It's not a reg, but as we got some privately held applicants with not a lot of track record, I was remembering that conversation. Commissioner, it's an agreement. We want to explore that, even though it's not related right now. Just okay. I put it on the list maybe. Yeah. I just kind of emailed Jack Hughes right now to add that to the master list of things. Yeah. It could be in the ICS chapter about reserves, internal rules. Okay. So now what do we do with what's in front of us? Because they are looking for direction. Right. I think if the commission is looking to undertake this area of oversight, I would need a comprehensive menu of options as to what's available. What's preregistration going to look like from operator to operator? I just, that's what's missing for me right now. If they're, you know, pre registration, but not allowing free funding of accounts, pre registration, and allowing free funding of accounts. I mean, what are the, what's the range of available options for us to consider? I mean, so that's one, that's one thing. The other thing is I worry about patron confusion. I heard, you know, someone say, you know, make reference to a patron having to go back once they set up the initial account, but having to go back to finalize. And, you know, what happens in the meantime, you know, in between the initial and finalization of that account, if there's a, the patron decides to go in a different direction, you know, instead of engaging in sports betting with one operator, they decide to go with another. Their account has been pre funded. They, you know, want to withdraw that information. I just don't have that, that those funds, excuse me, I just don't have enough information in front of me right now, to be honest, to fully consider the question. So can I ask a question? Is this most relevant though to the mobile launch? Or is this also critical to cat one? I think so, because we have walk in for cat one. So, right, exactly. And the cat ones, they already have their player rewards cards. They already have all customer base. They already, they already have this information. It's more for the mobile operators, you know, and we do have tethered operators and untethered operators. So that's, you know, to commissioner Maynard's point, that's, you know, there's an equity issue here that we may want to address. So I can get more information from the mobile operators, because the launch isn't until March. As of right now, we're claiming on launching in like two and a half weeks or so on the cat one. So at some point, and they're already in process of their operations. So I think, to your point, it's really relevant to the category phrase. I wonder if we don't, I feel as though we should maybe act on this. And I guess my thinking and may not agree at all, but I'm wondering when I hear that we would be an outline. And the category, they're looking for guidance from us so that they can compete. Right. The early launch that if we decide, ultimately, that we want to be involved, I am hearing Richard Skinner saying, we really need to understand all the details. But I guess a threshold question is, do we want to take over that oversight role or regulatory role here, or just let the market dictate in the way that our fellow operators have allowed. And that bothers me the fact that we'd be the first that that story. That's where I am too. And that makes sense, Madam Chair, because if your position is you are not going to enact restrictions, then that gives them the answer that they can go ahead and do what they need to do. If you indicate to me that you're considering or maybe want to have restrictions, we would have to put that to another day to give the menu, as the commissioner Skinner mentioned, the menu of options on restrictions. And I would need more information from the operators at that point. The threshold question today is, do you want to impose restrictions on advertising and preregistration before these companies go live? Well, the advertising versus the registration are two different things. Yeah, I was just going to say that. We're going to be circling back in short order, hopefully, to deal with the advertising marketing. That's very different to me than preregistration. Okay. Sorry, go ahead, Commissioner. I'm sorry. I have one more question. If something happened during a preregistration period and someone wasn't given their money back or they weren't able to move it, our oversight would extend. Thank you, Joe, for the word. Our oversight would extend to dealing with that problem once they're up and running too, correct? Once they are licensed, you have an enormous amount of control over the activities of your operators. That would weigh, yeah, that weighs into the way I'm thinking. Okay. On the advertising, we just adopted a regulation that could be at the very least say that if there's some advertising already happening, which I don't know if that's the case, I think there's probably some that they need to be in compliance with our regulation adopted today. Well, we didn't adopt it today though. We took the first look at it. Well, that's right. Yeah, so we would have to say you need to be consistent with the draft regs, not run a file with the draft regs. That's right. Or do we say you have to be consistent with the AGA, Responsible Marketing and Advertising Guidelines, pending implementation of our regulation? We could even say compliance with our draft and the AGA. The draft is out there for the document. Then if we want to do that for advertising, and then now for pre-registration, which one's easier? Well, one thing I mean, I am cognizant of is that once you license them, you can find them there, and you have control over them. Today, we don't have this category three licensed yet. So you could put it, if I give some kind of advisory out, we could say once licensed, the commission has not taken a position that they will have oversight over pre-registration activities between when you're licensed and you go live. If the commission's comfortable with that, I wouldn't recommend you do that before they're licensed, because then you have no, as hypothetically you don't license them, you don't have the control. I don't know, Todd, if you have any other thoughts on that, but I think until you're licensed, you are not their regulator. They don't have a license yet, but if they want to do what they want to do, then they probably should comply with our request today, because it's not going to fold well. Oh, yeah. Yeah. When we do our final check off, right, in my room? I think you're right. But I don't know how you frame that, except that I think the expectations are right. I don't know if you're smiling at something else, but I'm thinking I don't know how we frame it, but I think that they probably are listening that this would be a concern for us, right? Yeah. I mean, I think the expectation with any applicant or licensee is that they're going to be compliant with the regulations. And if they're on notice as to the draft regulations that are expected to be voted on, I think the expectation is that they would not run afoul of those. Commissioners, in other words, if they're going to do any kind of, how do we want, so when we say any kind of marketing, that's in accordance with what we discussed today, and maybe add the AGA code of conduct, do we have, is that okay? Is that restrictive enough? Are we liking pre-launch? I mean, I think it's the best that can be done in terms of clarity and us giving guidance before we finalize the reg. I don't know that. I think that's sort of we either do nothing or we do that, right? Sounds fine with me, Madam Chair. Okay, so should we separate this out and move on that one? Because you need a vote, right? I think either a vote or consensus. So what I'm hearing, just make sure I understand with respect to the advertising that I would give the operators notice that they are expected to be in compliance with the draft regulations and the AGA code of conduct with respect to any advertising going forward. Yes. Okay. Is there a consensus on that at least? Okay. And then, I guess the other question is on the pre-registration, are there going to be any limitations on the operator's ability to do pre-registration up to and including taking deposits? Commissioners? Hi for what? No, Commissioner Skinner, you are there for us. Go ahead. I just had a question. If the answer to that is no, is decided by the commission, that means pre-registration is fair game? Correct. In whatever form the operator decides to take? Correct. Is what happens in all the other jurisdictions, right? Okay, thank you. And with that clarification, I would be okay moving forward with what other jurisdictions have been doing too. This is not as big a concern for me as it maybe should be. I think putting restrictions on would be the only jurisdictions that have done that and that just doesn't sit well with me actually. So moving forward with pre-registration as other jurisdictions have done, I'm okay. And to Karen's point about our enforcement powers before and after, the other jurisdiction where there was a erroneous pre-launch, they did as a licensee. I think there was a fine of stats, am I right? Yep. So somehow they found out that activity occurred pre-launch day. So we do have enforcement teeth, I think, but I'm going to turn to my potential. I mean, Kelsey Grossman, do we? Yeah, it's a little murky, but I think it's a fair enough plan to move forward with... I guess I'm just saying that I'm in agreement too with, it feels like it's the right thing and equitable approach. Because to wait, I think it becomes harder and maybe a lot of activity already going for those who didn't affirmatively ask. So I have to extend my appreciation to those who didn't fire. Oh, who else? Commissioner Mayn? No, I'm good. You're good. Yep. Commissioner Mayn? Yes. All right. So we had it on for a vote. To the extent we wanted to formalize, I'm fine. But I'm here with no, we're not putting any restrictions on pre-registration at this time. However, the applicant, I would include even on the pre-registration that applicants are, even if they're in an applicant status, they're expected to comply with Massachusetts regulations. Is that fair enough? I know. Okay. Yes. Okay. I'll give you my thumbs up. Okay. I think that's fine. I don't think I need to vote. There's a public record of this and this is not a regulation or anything like that. It's just I want to make sure I'm giving the applicants the proper guidance when they're making their plans. Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I have for that. Thank you. We still have Derek's piece. It doesn't look like it's marked up for a vote, but I feel okay. This discussion today. Yes. Just a discussion. Engage the temperature. So you haven't had a chance to review this. You haven't had a chance to even understand what the location based percentage is. So this is more of a discussion. Gauge the temperature. And then if you would like to take action on it, we would have to amend 205 CMR 240. And then we would go back, come in front of you with recommended language. But I realize I'm standing between you and the end of this meeting and this has been a dense meeting. Therefore, I will kick right into this and I'll share my screen. It starts on one page, page 121 of your packet. And in your packet, you'll have a PowerPoint as well as, sorry, trying to share my screen, as well as the comments that were submitted in response to 240, 205 CMR 240 from the operators. So under the Daily Fantasy Sports, there have been two operators, one in public comment, one through a phone call who have requested that we utilize the resident or location percentage allocation methodology for distributing and accounting for taxes on fantasy sports contests. The reason they're asking for this is it aligned with all of the jurisdictions that are taxing Daily Fantasy Sports Contest. Daily Fantasy Sports Contest don't receive the same scrutiny from the Federal Wire Act as I have been informed. So they have multiple entrants across multiple states that are allowed to do this and they pool those prizes as well as all of the information. It's not just on the Massachusetts basis and Sterl is talking about this a little bit with pooled wagering. I'm not as familiar with it because I haven't pulled into it on the sports wagering side, but I know fantasy sports is not as highly regulated as traditional sports wagering it is. And in addition, it eliminates huge swings and taxes based on where winners are located and on the skill level of specific players that may reside in one state or another. Next, just a reminder, the definition of adjusted gross. So I took a look at this and while I'm not an attorney, I don't think what the applicants are asking for or the two operators are asking for violates any laws because our definition of the adjusted gross fantasy wage earner seats does not limit it just to Massachusetts. So I'm not seeing anything that would hold us up in the language. But once again, based on where the commission is looking, this is a deeper dive we could take. But basically, all the gross receipts from fantasy contests that were allowed under section 11 and one half of chapter 12. And if you go to the general laws on mass.gov, you're not going to find section 11 and one half. So you'll have to go actually back to the sports wagering statute to figure it out. But it's basically any contest that allows for money bets or things of value on sports wagering in the Commonwealth and on fantasy sports in the Commonwealth. And then the examples that the operators pulled out. And what this is doing, we'll get into it is they say, say this all states that these contests were offered in, there's a million dollars in entry fees, payout equal 900,000. All states basically the hold is 100,000. And Massachusetts out of the total million dollars only contributed 50,000 to entrance fees, not even taking a look at what their winning percentage was. Well, based on the scenarios we got with, say the state specific is always on the column in the left. So you'll see the total is coming down in the blue versus the resident location percentage impact. Say there's 50,000, of that game is 50,000 entrance fees from Massachusetts, but Massachusetts has some pretty skilled players. And they won 90% 90,000. There's actually negative gross gaming or gross sports wagering, fantasy sports wagering revenue in Massachusetts, which would lead to a 15% tax of negative 6,000, even though the total pool, there was $100,000 winnings in Massachusetts accounted for 50,000 of the million entrance fees. So there would be 50%, 5% of the total fees. Therefore the winning the AG FWR adjusted gross fantasy wagering receipts from Massachusetts would be 5,000, then you would tax that $5,750. Now let's go the opposite way, where on the scenario to total entrance fees are, you know, from Massachusetts are 50,000 payouts are only $22,500 from Massachusetts entrance. So the adjusted gross fantasy wagering receipts would be $27,500. You would get $4,125 in tax revenue, which is that big swing, right, from negative 6,000 up to $4,125 under those same assumptions. Doesn't matter what happened to the $27,500 or the $90,000, Massachusetts gets $750 because we're just using it on how much entry fees went into that based on the total winnings of the whole pool. So while I understand that may not be straightforward at the beginning, what it's basically showing you is it's taking up the swings of one state versus another when you have all these people participating in the same pool in the same game with the same assumptions in the same entry fees. And it's spreading that out across all the states. I know the operators would like to see this because one, it gives them a consistent basis across all jurisdictions that are taxing. And two, it would, you know, really keep it consistent as far as they're not paying huge swings one way or the other, right, they could actually end up losing money if some states did the percentage allocation and others did not or they could end up gaining money that didn't match up with them if some states did the percentage allocation and you had huge losers in the state that did the state specific. So for consistency purposes, for, you know, treatment consistent in all other jurisdictions, it makes sense to me. But that being said, I think it is a good discussion as to what we, if I missed something in the analysis or if I didn't pick up on something that may benefit or hurt the commonwealth. With that, I'll take down the presentation and open it up for discussion. Madam chair. Yep. I think the the easy question is if we don't change it, do we get more revenue or less? So that sounds like an easy question, but it's not. Because once again, if you have skilled players in Massachusetts on a certain thing, you'll get more and you'll get less. If you have a bunch of new people, and that's not the case because fantasy sports has been around for a while and already been doing it in the commonwealth, then you would get more tax revenue. So this is this is one of those areas of six and one half dozen of another. It doesn't really, I don't think it hurts or helps one way or another, other than it keeps it consistent across jurisdictions. So that's the main benefit I see from it. So Derek, you had about 16 jurisdictions listed as doing it this way. How many DFS jurisdictions are there? So just about everyone's allowed to do DFS unless their legislation exempts it. There are only 16 that tax it. Got it. DFS have been going on in Massachusetts, but everyone who taxes it does it this way. Got it. Okay. Because at first I looked at that number and thought this doesn't seem to be the majority, but now I'm not understanding it. Thanks. And Mango totally gets it. So can I also, sorry, got a head commissioner in the student. I was saying I feel like Mango. That's what I was saying. This is actually not a conversation unlike the promo one. And you know, I think one of the issues is what's going to be the benefit for the Commonwealth. And so the bottom line is how much of a revenue. But I guess I heard you saying that the language is silent. It's a language and the other jurisdictions the same as language. Do we, do we know where the language came from here? And so where others use this language and then it changed or how has this evolved? Is it only by request of the operators or? It's only by request of the operators that this came through through the public public records request. I can pull all the 16 different jurisdictions tax laws on this so that we could take a look at it. But I don't, if I taught it, when we talked to the Attorney General's office who oversaw this, they didn't really have input into this aspect, the taxation side. So I don't know if it was even a big contemplation. Like, like, so the both versions of the House and Senate bills have the exact same language. There was no distinguish, no differentiation here. This isn't like one of those conference items. This was same language coming through. I wonder why, you know, the legislature does the same homework we do. I wonder why that this comes in is coming in after the fact this way. And in fact, they all do it this way. I think it would have just been fundamental. If you could do this for me, I'm really... One of the operators actually offered to pull the language. And I didn't want them to do that until I gauged the feeling of the commission. So one's actually offered to do it. I could ask them to pull it from all the jurisdictions and provide it to us. And I guess if you were to rewrite the law, what would be what would be the language that would be there? That we would use. So the language that both operators use was consistent. They're from resident percentage allocation for gross sportsway or for fantasy sportsway during revenue. So looking at the 23N definition, could you just say that again? And I'll try to keep up for the total gross... What? Yes. So for 23N, let me pull this up and I'll share it. It just says total gross receipts from fantasy contests as defined in section 11M and one half of chapter 12, less only the total of all cash prizes paid to participants in the fantasy contest. Provided, however, that the total of all cash prizes paid to participants shall not include the cash equivalent of any merchandise, the thing of value. So this is what I'm saying. It doesn't say the Massachusetts. And when I looked at 11M and one half, it doesn't say Massachusetts either. It just says you may offer acceptance into these contests from Massachusetts or other residents. I can try and pull that up. Would you like to see that language as well? Yes, please. Absolutely. Sorry, I'm trying to find it. Navigate here. Is that big enough? Or should I blow it up? No, that's fine. So that's the language. Correct. And what were you referring to? So right here, section 11M and a half, M and a half, a person I need to office offers fantasy contests for a cash prize to members of the public may offer. Fantasy contests to residents of the Commonwealth, pursuant to and equivalent with regulations promulgated by the Attorney General. Provided further for the purposes of blah, blah, blah. It shall not be illegal gaming, include any fantasy or simulated game or contest, including but not limited to any fantasy or simulated game contest based on professional sports. But nowhere in here is it saying that the revenue just has to be from Massachusetts contests. And the payouts don't have to be just from Massachusetts contests. So that's what I'm saying. It's pretty, pretty open to allow. There's no prohibition that I see from allowing this pool piece. It's more of a policy discussion. This is just for discussion purposes. Is there any way? I hate to impose a word, but would you welcome the input from the other jurisdictions on this? Does that recover? I would absolutely welcome input. No, I'm asking the other commissioners. Is that okay? Thoughts before we lose Derek for anything else we might want? I think that would be okay. That'd be okay, Commissioner Skinner. Anything else that you'd like, Commissioner Skinner? I think I'm hearing the analysis on the money. It really is, that's to be determined depending on the player base. So that's always shifting. I think I heard Derek say that finance and legal will be presenting some draft regulatory language for us to consider. And it should, you know, should we decide to adopt this approach? So I think just for efficiency sake, if we could have all of that at the same time. So the next time we're discussing this, we can be ready to take a vote. We want to send it back to the legislature. So once again, we would want to give some sort of definition in the statute. Otherwise, we already have three licensees who have paid taxes and I think we're expecting a fourth. And without knowing whether they did it on state specific or or percentage location by residents, we could have people filing taxes in two different manners. So we will want to give a clarification one way or another on this. And we can come back with language for both of those options. When we, once you've had a chance to, you know, ask questions on this, come back to us as staff, ask questions on it and get just ready for another commission meeting. And Derek, I think we raised that question before, but you can reconcile that, right? Absolutely. Absolutely, we can reconcile that. Commissioner Maynard? I'm nothing but I try to be consistent. If there's something here that's silent and we have to make a decision, I'm happy to make that decision. Commissioner Hill, you all set? Commissioner O'Brien? I'm all set for now. Commissioner Skinner? I think I started with you, but I'm just going to double check. Yeah, I'm all set. Thank you. Okay. All right. Well, thanks for getting back to us on that with a little bit more information that would be really helpful. All right, thank you. And for more work to be done on some, some big issues, Karen. So anything else, commissioners? Anything that you want to raise? I do have one thing, Madam Chair. I've been wondering about this, receiving public comments on the sports waging operators and their practice of shutting off betters who are, you know, making money off of their bet. Yeah, doing too well. Right. And so I, you know, I wonder if it makes sense for the commission to give a position publicly in terms of how we view that. I don't know how we, I would just be looking for guidance as to, you know, maybe how have that discussion in one of the upcoming meetings, just really to understand it myself, but then also to communicate to the public, like, you know, what, what our expectations are there. Very, very good that you raised that, commissioners Karen. Thank you. I think all of us have received those comments and from different invested sports wager, prospective sports wagers here in Massachusetts. So what, what steps would you like? Madam Chair. Yeah, my hope had been, and I haven't been able to get into the physical office for a week or so. So I apologize, but I was hoping to speak to staff about this in hopes that they would actually be able to reach out to our applicants and to our licensees and ask the question of them. That was, that's what was in our email is for us to ask them to get a response from them. And my hope would be within a week or two, we would have those answers. And then we could address it at that time. And that would be all, even the category ones. Yes. I think it's important. It's a simple question. And I see Director Wells is taking down notes. So we'll we'll ask for you to get that homework done. Commissioner Maynard, Michelle Bryan. Feel the same? Anything else? Chair Maynard, your thinking? Just, just listening. Okay. Just thinking about that stake in about 10 minutes or 15 minutes. Sounds good. Okay. Anything else? I envy you, Commissioner Hill. I have no idea what's for dinner in my house tonight. Oh, it's going to be SpaghettiOs in mind, Proud. Hi, Mango. Star has star power. Another country heard from wondering what's for dinner. Alrighty, so we need to get him on TikTok. Yeah, no kidding, right? Yeah, yeah. Oh, he's beautiful. Anything else? Can I add something that's completely it's business? It's not a clear nicety, but Secretary Director Wells, would you arrange for perhaps our teams to maybe, when things get a little quieter for all of our team members and the commissioners to get CPR training? I think that, you know, we watched on sidelines, literally, and great, great outcome. And it occurred to me that we can give our team a little bit of a gift to them to bring their families and to their colleagues. And it would be a great bonding thing. I know we've got other training to do, too. I know we've got the ethics, and we've got all of our regular, but yep, an unconscious bias. I've got that on the list as well. It's been a while, that's for sure for me. So, thank you. And anything else? I didn't, Commission Leader, I didn't think of that because of your stake. I don't plan on having a stake. I would say that we should also have Director Band as another bonding interest. We should learn how to do the slap fighting. I know it's not on our list, but you could do that as a bonding. We can definitely set up a corn bowl, though, around the CPR training. All right, anything else? I'll get out of here. Thanks, everyone. It was a super long day, but really productive. And just want to thank you for, you know, even though we have to operate in public, there's really, I feel very much that we have a safe space here to express our viewpoints, express our wishes, express our concerns. And I hope that we continue to do that always with, I know the respect that we have for each other. So, thank you so much. Move to a chair. Thank you. Can I have a little bit more discussion, Commissioner Hill? I have a second. Second. Commissioner Bryan? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Thank Commissioner Mayer. And I vote yes. Five-zero. Thanks, everyone. See you tomorrow. 10 o'clock, though. Thank you. Bye.