 Okay. Good afternoon. Today is Tuesday, March 14, 2023. This is an adjudicatory hearing before the Massachusetts Gaming Commission relative to the alleged non-compliance of Plain Ridge Park Casino with Massachusetts Gaming Law Chapter 23 and Section 3, 205-CMR, 247.01, subsection 2A2, and the Massachusetts Sports Wadring Cabellon. I will refer to Plain Ridge Park Casino today as PPC. My name is Kathy Judston. I'm the chair of the commission. I'm joined today by my colleagues, commissioners Eileen O'Brien, Brad Hill, Patricia Skinner, and Jordan Mainer. The entire commission will preside over the hearing and decision of this matter. This hearing will be conducted in accordance with 205-CMR 101.01, GL Chapter 30A, sections 10 and 11, and 801-CMR 1.02, the informal Fair Hearing Rules. This hearing is being conducted via remote collaboration technology. Before we begin, I'd like to explain the process that will govern this proceeding. First, a notice of hearing was provided to PPC in advance of today's hearing. It identifies the alleged non-compliance incident that will be the focus of the commission's attention at this hearing, and the relevant statutes, regulations, and catalog. A pre-hearing conference was also conducted. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 23 and Sections 4 and 16, and 205-CMR 232, the commission may hold this adjudicatory hearing, and the conclusion of the hearing may decide to issue a civil administrative penalty, impose conditions on PPC's license, suspend PPC's license, revoke PPC's license, reprimand PPC, and or assess a fine on PPC. At the conclusion of my opening comments, this proceeding will commence with the presentation of the evidence in this matter. Specifically, the commission will first call Heather Hall, IEB's Chief Enforcement Council, and any other witnesses listed on the Notice of Hearing or Witness List. PPC may ask questions of any witness who testifies. PPC will then be called upon to make a presentation and to call additional witnesses, if any. Any commissioner may question any witness who is testifying at any point during or after their presentation. However, I do ask that you request permission first for any question or follow-up question to ensure appropriate procedure and process. PPC may raise any objection it desires at any time. However, the basis for all objections must be clearly stated. And finally, at the conclusion of all the evidence, PPC will be provided an opportunity to make a closing statement to summarize its view of the evidence. Before we begin, I understand that there are pre-marked exhibits that have been prepared in advance of this hearing. Those exhibits are identified on the exhibit list that has been circulated. They are as follows. Exhibit one, Investigations and Enforcement Bureau Sports Wagering Noncompliance Incident Review Report, dated February 10, 2023. Exhibit two, Notice of March 14, 2023 hearing. Exhibit three, Email from Joseph Winsell to Burkane and Diane Podolac, dated February 3, 2023. Exhibit four, Canby Incident Report, dated February 6, 2023. And exhibit five, Sports Book, SOP for Checking Excluded Mass College Teams in Canby. Are there any objections to exhibits one through five being marked and entered into evidence? I'll turn first to Councilor Hall. Thank you, Chair. I don't have any objection. I haven't seen all of the exhibits that I think came in from PPC, but I don't have any objection to them at this point. Councilor Monaghan, can you take care of that, please? I can absolutely send those exhibits over to Councilor Hall. I would just note that the IEB is not a party in this particular hearing. So I see. I see. That's my, my correction. Thank you so much. You should, you should, she should have those in any case. All right. So I guess the objections really would be raised by PPC. Do you have any objections to those of it one through five? Do not. And to North, because you're in a, in a one conference room, as you know, the challenges of holding a meeting virtually is difficult. So I can't, I can't determine who is actually sitting there. I see you. At the back. So I'm joined by Chris Oriana, who's our Chief Compliance Officer. Thank you, Chris. Yeah. Joined by his deputy, Samantha Hagerty, and then also Josh Pearl, who you're familiar with from an Interactive. Thank you. You're, I won't be able to read expressions. So, so what it's worth. So who will be representing you today, North? So Chris will begin and then at some point he'll pass off to me for a statement, but we'll, we'll be here jointly, but Chris will be leading for us. Okay. So I can turn to Chris. So I hear no objections to the exhibits one to five being marked. That's correct. No, no objections on the exhibits. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. So thank you. Those exhibits shall be admitted into evidence in order to maintain a clean record. I ask that documents are referred to by exhibit number. At this point, I'll ask if PPC would like to stipulate the exhibit one, the IEB Sports Wadring Non-Compliance Incident Review Report. Mr. Sarno. Good afternoon again, Madam Chair and commissioners. Yes, PPC stipulates to exhibit one. Thank you very much. If PPC would like to have any additional documents entered into evidence during the course of the hearing, I would ask that they be properly introduced and marked. I will add that no final decision will be made at the conclusion of the public portion of this hearing. Instead, at the conclusion of the proceeding, commission will privately deliberate and ultimately issue a written decision. If at any point during the commission's deliberations it determines that additional testimonial or documentary evidence is desirable, it reserves the right to ask PPC to provide such evidence prior to a final decision being made. So we'll now swear all the witnesses in. Anyone who will be potentially testifying at this proceeding, please raise your right hand. Thank you. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will provide before the commission at this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I know for the record that I'll have responded in the affirmative. Before we begin, does PPC have any preliminary issues or objections? None, Madam Chair. We're ready to proceed. Thank you. All right, with that, I ask Attorney Collin to present exhibit one, the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau Sports Waging Non-compliance Incident Review Report dated February 10, 2023. Thank you, Chair. And good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners. As you are aware, the IEB has submitted its incident review on this self-reported matter, and I briefed the commission on February 14. I will, however, go through the highlights of the report here for the record. I'll also note that I'll defer to Sports Waging Director Bruce Band and his team and the others who are here on behalf of PPC to note if I missed anything. So as you're all aware, the IEB conducted a review of a sports wagering incident that occurred at PPC. Specifically, on February 3, 2023, PPC compliance manager Lisa McKinney notified Sports Waging Director Bruce Band that PPC mistakenly offered wagering on an unauthorized event. The error was reported to PPC management internally by a PPC sportsbook event writer. The event offered for wagering was a February 2 regular season Men's College basketball game, which was Merrimack versus the Long Island University Sharks. Upon learning of the error, PPC notified its Sports Waging Event System provider, Camby. And with respect to the kind of key facts here, the wagering was allowed for approximately seven hours. The total stakes or amount wager was approximately $6,848. The total patron winnings were approximately $4,270. As for the number of bets placed, there were 33 bets placed across 27 coupons or tickets. One of the tickets had seven distinct wagers on it. Two player cards were used and the remainder of the bets were anonymous. With respect to the location of the bets, four were placed at cashiers, the cashiers desk, which is over the counter, and the remainder were replaced at kiosks. And with respect to the reported reason for the error, PPC sportsbook manager, Ryan Blake, reported that it occurred because Camby had mistakenly assigned participant school state for Merrimack College as Florida instead of Massachusetts. That allowed Merrimack College in Massachusetts to bypass offering compliance filters, which were configured to block all regular season matches involving mass teams based on their assigned school participant state. Camby reported that they were notified of the error on February 3rd at approximately 12.15 PM and that they fixed the error within about 10 minutes. In addition, Camby reported that after fixing the error, it further reviewed the matter and confirmed that only Merrimack College was affected and that all other mass teams in Camby's system were properly assigned to the mass school. No other games involving Massachusetts teams were offered, including a Merrimack game that actually had been scheduled for that same day. In addition, Camby reported that it also reviewed all of the bets for any suspicious activity and found none. So with respect to remedial information and mitigating information, PPC reported that Camby conducted a separate audit to confirm that all other mass schools were properly coded in its system and they were. In addition, Camby added a second layer of protection by essentially creating a blacklist or additional filter for NCAA bets and mass that were not part of a tournament involving four or more teams. That filter is independent from the state location field listed in its system and serves to block all local mass collegiate teams from being available in regular season games without needing to rely on the assigned participant state as the sole filter. Camby relayed that it will also follow up with its entire team regarding the guidelines for the process of coding the participant states. That may have happened since we last briefed the Commission on the matter and I'll defer to the Commission to inquire about that. In addition, I would just note, I think in the report and when we previously spoke with the Commission about this on February 14th, we had indicated that PPC PSA and Camby provided the MGC with their listings and I think it's actually that they gave the MGC the list that Stirlcarpenter had created but long and short essentially the outcome was the same. PPC PSA and Camby worked with director Vanstein particularly Stirlcarpenter to ensure that the list of all mass institutions to which the prohibition should apply was accurate and I did speak with Bruce Van and confirmed that and in addition so as described by North Brownsville PPC's Vice President and General Manager who I know is here today PPC has provided the list of prohibited Massachusetts teams to all of its sportsbook personnel and instructed staff including the writers and managers of the sportsbook to ensure that the best they are taking are authorized. PPC has also instituted a daily check to confirm that no prohibited mass collegiate teams are offered for wagering in Camby system and PPC sportsbook manager who checks the daily list is required to sign off on it a testing to having reviewed it and confirm that no Massachusetts collegiate team prohibited wagers are offered and I just want to note and highlight as I have previously North did also report that PPC recognized and rewarded the team writer who initially identified and reported this this issue and he's also relayed that PPC's goal is to create a culture of commitment to compliance as its top priority and to encourage its staff to promptly report non-compliance and that's I think you know the end of the preferred remarks I have but happy to answer any questions. People I turn to my fellow commissioners on behalf of PPC Mr. Sareano do you have any questions for Bernie Hall? No questions madam chair thank you. Thank you. Okay I'll turn to my fellow commissioners questions for Bernie Hall. Let's start with the attorney hall. I have one question that I may have missed. Can you remind me what the time of the game was? Sure. Let me just look at our key. I know it was for approximately seven hours and I know actually I may have to defer to Chris on it. I know it was on a February second. I don't know the specific time of the game off the top of my head but I north of Chris may know that. The bet was up for seven hours and so it looks like it was 11 to 620. Mr. Sareano do you remind me of the time of the game please? It was it was an evening game madam chair we're checking the precise time and we'll get we'll provide that information as soon as we have it. Okay that would be helpful. Thank you. All right commissioners. Do you have questions for PPC or for our own team other witnesses? Madam chair I do have clarifying question I guess more of a concern than I have a question under the report that we just heard it sounds as though the bets were made not only at the kiosk but also at the cage and I understand that one of the writers identified that there was a problem. I'm trying to understand in my head how it happened at the cage. I can understand the kiosk but the cage I would have hoped would have been caught by numerous people not just one person. I don't know if you want to elaborate on that and not a little bit. What happened? Mr. Sareano. So just to be clear when we say the cage we're talking about the wagering counter so not the actual player services or cashier cage. So yes those wagers were placed with a rider. That's an unfortunate circumstance. I think that this was on like day two of operations. They were deeply involved in still learning a lot of our systems and this was just an error and oversight on that part. And I think I heard in testimony that that person had been spoken to. But what type of can you elaborate a little bit more of what's taken place since then? So with regards to our expectations, we certainly made people aware of what their requirements are. So we've reiterated our commitment to compliance and making sure that folks know look, if you have any question at all in your mind, please don't place that way. You know, take the time, get your supervisor, manager, if there's ever a doubt, we want to make sure that we clear that doubt before we proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Other questions for PPC witnesses? Madam Chair, if we if I may, we had a brief statement. Oh, my apologies. I should have invited that. My apologies. Thank you, Mr. Sari. No, thanks. So we again, we accept the testimony of Councillor Hall. We accept the findings by the IEB and to get a regret that this matter occurred whenever we have an incident of non-compliance. We take it with the utmost seriousness and so we're here to make that presentation and accept responsibility. North would like to make a brief statement that I think identify some of the documents that are in the record very briefly and again, gives a bit more factual context regarding this incident. But once again, we accept the IEB's findings in this matter and regret the fact that we're here. Thank you. And again, my apologies go right ahead. Mr. Brown, so good afternoon, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, commissioners. I'd hoped that we'd be in front of you today on a more positive note. And I want to start our remarks by saying that both Penn Entertainment and PPC understand the importance of compliance. We understand that we were not in compliance and the situation we will discuss today and we take responsibility for the outcomes. We accept the findings of the IEB's report, which is marked as Exit 1. To summarize the details, on Friday, February 3rd, a ticket writer at PPC made us aware that there was a wager available for Merrimack College, College's NCAA Division 1 men's basketball. We immediately notified our odds management and technology vendor, Camby, and they immediately conducted an investigation. Our vendor found the source of the error and corrected it within 11 minutes of being notified. We self reported the violation to the MGC on the same day and we followed up as we learned more. Exhibit 3 shows our initial report and our update as we learn more technology and odds management. Fender, Camby conducted an internal investigation and issued the findings of that investigation to the NGC. That report, incident report is marked as Exhibit 4. That investigation revealed that due to a data input error by Camby, the location of the Merrimack College was listed incorrectly. Due to this miscoding, Camby's wagering management system permitted wagers on the Merrimack College Long Island University men's basketball game on Thursday, February 2nd. As an aside, we recognize the team member who identified the error because a key part of our culture of compliance is that everyone has a role in compliance and in reporting items of potential non-compliance. As a result of the investigation, PPC and Camby implemented the following remedial actions. Number one, our vendor conducted a separate audit to confirm that all other Massachusetts institutions were properly coded. That audit determined that all other Massachusetts institutions were properly coded. Our vendor added a layer of protection by adding a screen to NCAA vets in Massachusetts that is independent of the location field listed in their wager system. PPC, PSI and our vendor provided MGC staff with a listing of all Massachusetts institutions to which the prohibition should apply. MGC verified that the listing is complete. Number four, PPC provided the listing of prohibited teams to all sportsbook personnel. And lastly, number five, PPC instituted a daily check with sign off by sportsbook management to confirm that no prohibited teams are offered that day. The standard operating procedure reflecting these remedial actions is marked as exhibit five. As always, we remain committed to prompt identification, remediation and self reporting of any issues of noncompliance. To conclude, we regret this error. We accept our responsibility for it. We ask the commission consider and mitigation our prompt discovery and self report our open and transparent communication regarding this instance and our prompt implementation of a remediation procedure. At PPC, we strive to exceed the commission's expectations on compliance matters and we take any instance of noncompliance seriously. As my colleague, Mr. Soriano said at the outset, we have representatives from Camby and Penn Sports Interactive available to answer any questions regarding this matter. And of course, Mr. Soriano and I are available as well. We would like to thank Director Lillios, Counselor Hall, Director Band and the entire IEB team as well as Counselor Monahan for their assistance with this matter. We appreciate the thoroughness and professionalism of the commission staff and that concludes our affirmative statement. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I'll turn back to commissioners if you have questions for PPC. I have a question, Madam Chair. Mr. Skinner. Good afternoon, everyone. I wonder, North, if you could clarify the status of the wagers and the redemption of the winnings. I know at some point the tickets were frozen just getting looking to get an understanding of where that stands. So thank you, Commissioner Skinner, for the question. All of those wagers have been settled at this time. There were a number that were settled at the kiosk and the ones that were not settled at the time of the initial recording were settled in accordance with our House rules, which state that any instance in which a wager is offered that is prohibited, that money would be refunded to the patron. So does that mean if a patron won, they would they would be issued their winnings as well as the amount wagered on that particular game? No, so the the patron would after the fact. So this this issue happened. The the event was settled and scored such that it was available for redemption. Subsequent to us finding out that this had happened, there were some people who did receive their funds back and the instance in which they won, they were able to claim those winnings. People who presented to us afterwards, who had a a ticket would have their their money refunded to them. If there was anybody who is able to produce a ticket that that shows that they had a losing wager, we would of course settle that in accordance with our House rules that would state that it would be refunded their initial wager amount. OK, thank you for that clarification. And then I understand there were two player cards used were so I expect that that means you were able to determine who those individuals were. And if so, was there any outreach to those individuals in advance, meaning once you identify the issue with the wager, what communication, if any, did you have with those individual patrons? I believe that we were able to identify those were known players to us. And so we were able to let them know their winnings would be or their initial wager rather would be refunded. OK, and how is that done? Is that through an email, a phone call? I believe that the patron was in is in with some degree of frequency, so we were able to contact that person. OK, thank you. I don't know if anyone can answer that this anyone who is present today, but there in an email in exhibit three, it's actually exhibit three that you know it references Division two and three. It does not have any relevance to this. Incident today, and if so, can someone explain it? It does not have relevance to today. I think the question was around whether or not wagers were accepted on Division two and Division three games. And of course, the answer to that would be, you know, it will depend on whether or not that market is is offered. If it's not specifically prohibited, then we were more than likely offer that market. But the list of teams that we're checking includes all teams who are Massachusetts institutions, regardless of their decision. OK, thank you for that context. And in terms of the communication flow, is it am I correct in understanding that PPC notifies Penn Sports Interactive, who will then notify the vendor can be in this instance? And if that's correct, would it would PPC be better served at all with a direct line of communication to its vendor? So thank you, Commissioner Skinner. So we currently when the incident was discovered, we have a mechanism which we can put in a ticket with can be and put in as a priority or emergency ticket. That was the initial notification to can be was through that method. And then we were also able to reach out to them directly through our relationships with PIP. So we did notify them directly via their their ticketing system immediately at the issue, and then we were able to get very prompt resolution on it by following it up with a phone call. OK, thank you. Well, Madam Chair, that's all the questions I have for now. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioners, other questions for PPC or other witnesses? I don't know. Yes, commissioner. So this is certainly a follow up to Mr. Skinner, but really just trying to understand the process. Can you walk me through this situation where the PPC Sports Book Manager, and this is speaking to your mitigating remedial measures. The PPC Sports Book Manager checks the list daily. Let's say that an issue like this occurs. What happens at that moment? So the notification happens. How does this physically? How does this move until the? Actual event is not offered on a platform or a kiosk or a cage. So the procedure internally would be that we would follow really the same procedure that we did before. If the event was still alive, then of course we would, meaning it was still possible for wagers to be accepted when and can be, for example, had not yet turned that wager off, right? We were still accepting wagers. I think that, you know, number one, we would certainly involve can be right away. We would let all writers know they're not to accept that wager. And then, you know, I think in another reasonable step, you know, that could be taken as we would just shut down the wager and kiosk and force everyone to a to a ticket writer so that we could screen for those wagers until such time that candy would be able to confirm that the wager has been shut down. How long would this process be from the time you realized it? Have you done any stress tests on this? So we've not. So in this this instance, from the time that we, our ticket writer found it, we made can be aware. As we said, it's probably, you know, less than 30 minutes in total. But the time that it took for can be to respond. So our our initial information went into them. I believe it like 1215. And then they had the wager shut down by 1226. So just 11 minutes. Thank you. That's all I have. Other questions. I'm I'm double checking my notes because I'm. I am a little bit confused by the timeline. I have to admit, I don't know if anyone else is might just be my own notations. That's why I asked about when the game was. So madam chair, I think something perhaps there's a a confusion on the number of hours that the wager was available. Yeah, I have seven years. Exactly. It was an evening game, but these things were redeemed the next day. So I think what we're saying in that instance is that the market was open. So when the game begins or is closed, depending on the wager types, then the market is closed. And so really what that means is from the time the game ended and the best were scored all the times that wagers were permissible from from that time until from the time the market opened until everything was done and settled was that number of hours. So the redemptions continued into the next day. So at this point, people were redeeming against a settled event that had happened in the past. So I'm going to just ask that you hold questions. This is an adjudicatory hearing. So we will have to have a question addressed to you, which if you could just thank you. North, that's exactly my confusion. So the timeline is the game was on the game was on the second in the evening. And the seven hours is that timeframe of when you could bet on it. Got it. That doesn't seem long enough. So I mean, it was the window before the game. Correct. And so there were five in-game wagers that were placed. So when the game, like I said, depending on the bet type there are certain bet types that cannot be placed after the game begins. And then there are wagers that can be placed during game time. So what we're saying is from the time the market initially opened until the market was set meaning all wagers had been scored. That period was the seven hours. Now those- That was the seven hours. Okay, that's really helpful for me. And then it wasn't until so approximately the wagering was allowed for those seven hours but it still wasn't detected until the next day. Correct. So when patrons, when a patron came to the window to redeem that ticket is when we were able to determine that it had happened. Yeah. I've got it now. That's, I'm struggling with the seven hours because I was thinking of- It had to be more, right? Because the next day in your mind you're thinking it had to be 12 or something like that because- It's a longer period of detection but the bet was allowed for seven hours. Correct. Okay, thank you. Other questions, commissioners? I'm gonna turn to our division of sports wagering. Is there any clarification director ban or Mr. Carpenter that you would like to add or correction of IEB's report? I'll turn to director ban first. No, I think the report's accurate, Madam Chair. Thank you. All set, Mr. Carpenter? Yes, I was just going to state that the game was at 5 p.m. Well, thank you very much. 5 p.m. on the second- February 2nd, took place at Merrimack. At Merrimack, yes, thank you. Okay. Other questions for any witness? Okay. Well, hearing that, commissioners, you have no additional questions. Would PPC like to make a closing statement? Very briefly, Madam Chair. Again, we'd like to thank the commission for its time today. Thank the staff for working with us to identify, report, and remediate this incident. Again, we regret that we're here today under these circumstances. We regret that this occurred. However, I'd like to again point out that when incidents like this do occur, we pride ourselves on prompt response and thorough self-reporting and identifying causes so that we can avoid such circumstances again in the future. And that has always been our commitment to this commission and will remain so. With that, we have nothing further. Okay, thank you. And again, for the record, I think all the commissioners acknowledge it was a self-reporting here, so thank you for that. All right, unless there are any further matters that PPC or my fellow commissioners would like to address, I'll now conclude this portion of the proceeding. Anything further? Okay. The commission will deliberate about matter in private and issue a written decision. The proceeding at this point, however, remains open. If at any point during deliberations, the commission determines that further testimonial or documentary evidence is desirable, it may send notice of such to the applicant and provide instructions as to how to proceed. We thank all who participated in today's hearing. And at this point, we are adjourned. Thank you. And to my fellow commissioners, why don't we take a 10 minute break and then we'll return to our deliberations for the afternoon. Okay, so we'll return. There are 120, does that make sense? I see. Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. All right, excellent. Thank you so much.