 ready. Thanks. All right. Let's get started though. And we're good to go. Right. Good morning. I'm starting off on the round because I don't have my top page. Good morning. This is the convening of the Mastery of this Gaming Commission. We are holding this meeting virtually after a meeting in person yesterday. I will do our roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. And you are on mute. I can hear me now. Yes, I'm here. Excellent. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Skinner. Morning, Madam Chair. And good morning, Commissioner Mane. Good morning. All right. Today is February 1st. It is public meeting number 498. So that's kind of getting to a special number. And I'm calling this meeting right to order. We have several minutes. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard and Julie. Thanks. Good morning. I didn't know if the preference was to take these all together or in turn, I know that everyone tend to be at all the meetings, at least at the beginning. Either way, I can, you know what? I'll move separately. Madam Chair, I move that we approve the minutes from the March 23rd, 2023 public meeting. That's included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you. I move that I will move separately. I move that we approve the minutes from the April 13th, 2023 public meeting that's included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Okay. Any questions on that one? All right. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Five, zero. Thank you. These minutes are very extensive. So thank you. Commissioner Maynard? I move, Madam Chair, that we approve the minutes from the April 25th, 2023 public meeting that's included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Oh, sorry, I didn't see your mic off. Commissioner O'Brien? I think the second goes to Commissioner O'Brien. Any questions or edits? All right. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. I vote yes. Five, zero. And finally, Madam Chair, I move that we approve the minutes from the May 4th, 2023 public meeting that's included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Just a point. I was delayed at that meeting, but the minutes were held for my approval. So I feel like I could, I can vote on this one because I was there, but for a short part of the meeting. Does that make sense? Or to the extent how maybe I'm, I approved to the extent I was there. So I missed a couple of items. Can I, I think we've done that before, Commissioner O'Brien, maybe? Thanks. All right. So that's odd to vote a yes. I think I was in that situation once before, Madam Chair, and I just said, you know, aye as to so much of the meeting I attended. Okay, that's what I thought too. Thank you so much. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Excellent. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I, yes, to the extent that I was there and I do recall that meeting and, and why I missed. So thank you so much. Thank you. And thank you, Judy. Okay. So we're going to move right on to our administrative update and I know they have a couple presentations talk. Good morning again. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to you. Good morning, commissioners, and good morning to all the members of our team and all that were joining us here this morning. We do have two great matters to present to you. We'll start with the members of our gaming agents division, Burke, Angela, Lewis, who have some end of the year data to share with the commission. And then we'll hear from our chief people and diversity officer, Dave Muldrew, relative to an onboarding initiative that we're beginning here at the commission as well. So if I may turn things over to Burke Kane to jump into the first item. Good morning to you, Burke and Angela and Lewis. Good morning. Good morning. Thanks, Todd. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, commissioners. Good morning. We'd like to start today with this chart to showing some of the numbers for the intercept numbers, expired vouchers, lost and found. Joining me today will be Angela Smith, Lewis Lizano as mentioned. We want to give you a quick update on some of the financial obligations that were collected and expired during the last calendar year. Lewis is going to share the PowerPoint for us. And here we go. The DOR intercepts on the first line. The casino must verify with the Department of Revenue if any winners or outstanding child support obligations or any past Massachusetts tax liabilities. If verified, the casino is required to intercept that past due money. For example, on a casino slot machine win of $1,200 or more or on a table game win of $300 or more. So you can see on the first line, the three casinos for the calendar year 2023, the total was $3.7 million. Expired vouchers, slot vouchers for the calendar year totaled at the three casinos $940,000. Expired, lost and found after 365 days, they expire for the three casinos totaling $211,000 plus. And expired, unclaimed jackpots. If a patron doesn't have proper required identification, the jackpot will be held for them upon the return when they verify their identity. They can claim that jackpot. But these are the jackpots that expired at the three casinos for the calendar year 2023, $232,000 plus. And charitable contributions at the three casinos total almost $200,196,000. And underage forfeited must also go to the mass gaming fund. That's the conclusion of the first slide and any questions, comments about that. Madam Chair, I have a question. Certainly. Mark, could you remind me on the expired categories and the underage forfeited where those funds ultimately end up? Yes, I was remiss. They also get a mass gaming fund at the expiration of 365 days. Thank you. All right. And the second slide we have for you is just a combination in comparison of 2022 and 2023. As you can see with the DRDOR intercepts, we actually have more collected this year to the tune of 234,000 expired vouchers, a little bit more 34,000, lost and found 40,000 expired unclaimed jackpots, actually up 58,000. Charitable contributions went down a little bit, 28,000. And underage forfeatures were also just a little bit down 377,000. So we conclude our update there on the two years. And what happened at the casinos? And Angela Lewis and myself can answer a question if you have any. Do you mind if we pressure that we take the slides down so we can see everyone? If you have those numbers, those are critical numbers. Burke, I know that the state fully appreciates the diligence that the gaming agents, your division and with the cooperation of the casinos capture here. So thank you. Thank you. Questions and hi, Lewis and hi, Angela. Nice to see you. Good morning. Good morning. Commissioners. Number, right? Commissioner Hill. Yes, I every year that I see these are every update that I get. And I see these numbers. I am just so shocked at the amount that they collect. But more importantly, on the downside, how many people are out there not doing what they should be doing. And I'm I'm thankful that we have a mechanism in place where if they should win some money that we can get it back for where it's intended to go. Any other questions? Expression of just great, you know, great work. The program is working. And I think we all share, Commissioner Hill's sentiment. Thanks, Burke. And if I chair, if I can just add one thing, I just would really like to recognize the commitment of the gaming agents that work 24 seven, which obviously include weekends, holidays and bad weather. They're they really help review these financial numbers on a regular basis to ensure the licensees are accurate. Lewis, thank you for that. You want to remind us how many are working under you and with you? Yeah. So currently at 10, 10 gaming agents, four supervisors, six gaming agents at all core, same numbers at MGM and eight agents total at Plain Ridge Park Casino. And I know they're great teams. Angela, do you want to add into this is an opportunity for you to express your gratitude as well? Yes, absolutely. We have all three casinos. We have a great team of agents and very committed and hardworking and great team efforts on gathering all the numbers and doing what we do every day. Well, thank you. We always appreciate when we get the updates from Burke, but this particular update is so critical. You know, really as a as a matter of being a really good partner to the Commonwealth and the people of Massachusetts. So thanks. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Good to see you again, Angela and nice to see you. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all very nicely done. And now we'll pivot over to Dave Muldrew, our team people and diversity officer to discuss a little bit the plan moving forward for our onboarding onboarding program. Dave, good morning to you. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and good morning commissioners. Currently, we are underway to begin our we have been underway beginning the project of the MGC onboarding program. The purpose of the project. We want to create a more robust onboarding program that not only address the traditional human resource data collection and communications or charts, but also the then morph into a longer 30 60 day onboarding designed by each department to ensure that folks are coached. We provide the best support. We allow better communications and we have an opportunity to really provide that necessary support for them to be successful. We are also looking at this, which will be backed by our simultaneously when looking at rolling out very shortly, not shortly, about 30 40 days cornerstone, our new performance management program, which will work in conjunction with this onboarding to help it help us track and make sure folks are supported through a let an extended length of time. So I'm very excited about it. The project lead is going to be our HRIS analysts. Right now we've identified any has sent out information and has identified approximately 15 members have shown interest in joining the committee, which will be was to be handling this each department is represented and all levels throughout the organization from executive to staff are represented on the committee. Our next deliverable will be to provide you for provide the commissions and senior management with a project timeline, which will help you understand and give you a chance to identify, add, review, tweak whatever the case may be this timeline. So we have it. It's transparent and everyone has has an opportunity to take a look. But I'm very excited about it. It's really an opportunity to us to really shine as we bring in new folks. So that's where we are right now. Madam chair and commissioners, answer any questions hopefully I can questions questions for chief logic, just good, a good project that's underway. And I know that the entire team will benefit from that. So thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Absolutely. Very excited about it. Todd. Yeah, thanks, Dave. That it is an exciting initiative. It's certainly an area that we've identified as a place where we can go from really good to great within the organization to make sure everyone starts off best possible. So thanks, Dave, for your leadership within that space. With that, Madam chair and commissioners, I'll conclude the administrative update. Happy to take any questions. But otherwise, that covers the materials on the agenda. Great. Thank you. Everybody else set to move on. So we're going to have them under item number four. It's a legislative update. I'll turn to commissioner kill. And I know that we've got Chief Lenin right there ready to help us. Commissioner Hill. Good morning. Good morning, Madam chair and through you to the commission. So Governor Healy proposed h two last week and within that budget proposal, there was an outside section that actually affected the mass gaming commission in many ways. And I know Derek and his staff have been going through the sections going through the line items or excuse me, the the the funding parts of money to see how it would be affected if it was to go into effect and signed into law. So Madam chair, with your permission, I'd like to turn it over to Derek who will give us an overview of what section 88 would do for what to do to the mass gaming commission should it be passed into law. Thank you. And get started. Just want to thank Chief Lenin because he's shown a great deal of leadership as this proposal was launched and got lots to update. So thank you, Derek. Good morning. Morning, Madam chair. Good morning, commissioners. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. And after this presentation, Commissioner Hill can give you a brief update on our conversation with A&F about this. But first off, I want to thank the team for their help with this. I also want to thank Commissioner Skinner for pointing this out to us the day we were reviewing inside language and line items. Kind of wish it wasn't in the budget, but it was nice of her to point it out so that we could get a jump start on on reviewing it. The memo for this presentation starts on page 67 of your packet. And basically last week, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance released the governor's budget. As you can see on the first page of the memo, this is the first step in a very long annual process of developing a budget. So I want to reiterate that. And I think Commissioner Hill will be able to add some color to that after our conversation with A&F. This is truly the first step. The good news is, in our inside line item language, we received a maintenance funding. We received exactly what we're asking for for payments to cities and towns at host racing facilities. And that is a very good thing because that had been underfunded five or six years ago. And it's a struggle every year to get that up to the correct funding level. So we were very pleased with that. And then we received the email from Commissioner Skinner about Section 88. And we took a dive into that. And what Section 88 of the governor's budget does is it proposes a redistribution of where Category 1 gaming taxes, as well as the 9% assessment on a Category 2 facility to the Race Horse Development Fund would go. And Section 88 is actually cut and paste for you on Page 68 of the memo. But the real analysis goes on to Page 69 of the commission packet. And what we've done is we have lined up in a chart where Section 59 of Chapter 23K has the gaming taxes going to. So there's a 25% tax on gross gaming revenue. And of that 25%, it goes to 1234567891011, 12 to 13 different funds. And as you can see, with the exception of the Mass Cultural Council and the Mass Tourism Fund, every other fund was redistributed partially. And the three funds that the Gaming Commission actually spends out of that Section 59 or were awarded money, the Community Mitigation Fund, the Public Health Trust Fund and the Race Horse Development Fund all received cuts or declines in redistribution. Now, I can't give you exactly what that means for FY25 because FY25 is dependent upon taxes that come in. So the best thing I could do is take a look at the last fiscal year that had completed FY23 and show where the money went in FY23. And if outside Section 88 were in effect during FY23, what that change would be. And ultimately going from 6.5% of the taxes for the Community Mitigation Fund down to 3% would take us from receiving $16.7 million down to $7.7 million. So almost a $9 million cut. Under the Public Health Trust Fund, you would see an EHS gets the Public Health Trust Fund. And as you're all aware, there's an MOU between us and DPH with EHS to say that DPH received 75% of that fund and we received 25% of that fund. That whole fund would be cut from contributions. Remember, there are multiple funding sources of this fund. There's another $5 million assessment from us and another $1 million assessment coming from sports wagering. So there's a $6 million coming from two different assessments on both gaming in and sports wagering, as well as there's a percentage of sports wagering taxes that go into that. So this is not the only funding source for the Public Health Trust Fund, but it would result in a $6.4 million reduction to that fund. If this were in effect in FY23, we would be receiving 25% of that reduction. So we would get about a $1.6 million cut to our annual contrary our annual draw from that trust fund. And then the final one, the one that's really, really impactful and not that the other two weren't, is the Racehorse Development Fund because it's reduced down to zero from category one taxes and then paragraph B of section 88 actually goes in and cuts the 9% assessment that came from category two taxes. So the PPC facility and cut that down to zero. So you've got a $6.4 million cut from paragraph A of section 88. And then when you go down to section B of paragraph B of section 88, it's another $13.5 million cut. So that's close to $20 million. The Racehorse Development Fund normally took in that would no longer be there. So, you know, adding all of these up, it would, if section 88 were in effect for FY23, we would have received $30.5 million less. Now, and Commissioner Hill can talk a little bit more to this, so I'll turn it over to him if there aren't any questions regarding just what the distributions went to, where it went, so that we can fill you in briefly in our conversation with A&F. Questions? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Derek, in terms of the money from the Public Health Trust Fund, that reduction, what what proportion of our of that money's go to game sense versus research? Do you have a ballpark percentage of the distribution of that money? About 50-50 at this point, because game sense is around 2.7, 2.8 million, I think we went up a little bit more. And our budget this year was around 6.4 million, and we have a couple hundred thousand in salary and fringe that goes out of there, too. So it's close to a 50-50. And for the research, you know, you'll see in our budget, it's a million. But then we have all the independent researchers, we have NORC, we have studies that go on. So you don't just look at the UMass item, but it's about a 50-50 split. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. And Derek, thank you for going over the impact to the purses with me. That's a that's a severe one, right? The Race What's Development Fund, Chad was very helpful in pulling together quickly. The Race What's Development Funds about 92% of purses at Plain Ridge Park. It's the only place we have live racing. And if the average purses right around $14,000 per race, if you took Plain Ridge Park out, the purses would go down to $1,160 some odd dollars per race. If you took the Race What's Development Fund money out. So it really has helped to create better races, better purses for the horse owners, a better product for the public to see. And that was one of the intents of the Race What's Development Fund to bring, you know, racing back to a higher caliber. If you cut that out, purses go back down to $1,100. And then And we did see the impact of the expanded purses. It really has brought life to the industry here in Massachusetts. Fair, right? Very fair. I think if you talk to Alex, I think if you talk to Mr. O'Toole down at PPC, I think if you talk to a lot of the owners in Massachusetts, you would hear that exactly from them. And just a follow up to Derek, the Commission has heard the last couple of years, and it's been a lot of legal work done at Codds Direction and Leadership on developing our application process, the NABU process for potential thoroughbred racing. How would that this proposal impact the possibility of another race track for the thoroughbreds this time? So this would have very little impact on the thoroughbred side, because the balance sitting in this is part of what we'll get into as we talk about our discussion with ANF, the balance sitting in this trust fund, the Racehorse Development Fund is almost 100% purses for thoroughbreds. We do not have, and we've said this multiple times, we don't have the ability to pay for anything but purses, health and welfare and breeders, because that's what the statute, the Creates Trust Fund allows us to spend it on. Now, the thoroughbred, each thoroughbred proposal comes up with different ways of using the balance of sitting in there. This proposal does not ask to sweep any of that money. However, the money that's sitting in the Racehorse Development Fund can only be spent on purses, because statutorily, that was generated through gaming taxes that 80% of it have to go to purses. So that's why it's sitting there. In order to change that, and the racing committees came together and said that's the amount that would be set aside for thoroughbred horses. So in order to even use any of that balance for standard breads, we'd have to pull together the racing committee again, ask them to allow all that money that's been set aside for the thoroughbreds to then be used for purses. But we wouldn't be able to give anything to health and welfare or to breeders over the next year. So the good side of this, it's a one year pause, right? And if you look at section paragraph C of section 88, they're looking for recommendations of how to redistribute this moving forward. But it doesn't allow us to use that balance in FY 25. So it basically be a cessation of payments to breeders, a cessation of health and welfare payments, as well as unless we could get the racing committee back together and ask them to allow us to use the money that's sitting in there for the thoroughbred purses. It'd be a cessation of payments to PPC for purses as well, the only live on track racing we have going on. And you would see those purses reduced from about 14,000 per race down to 1100 per race. Good news is this is the beginning of the process. And you know, I think that's what we heard from A&F as well. And I'll hold off those comments for Commissioner Hill. Sorry, Commissioner Hill, I asked some questions with dance. Thank you. Oh, the excellent questions. So we did have an opportunity to reach out to A&F to talk about section 88. And they informed us it was a very challenging year, and that they are, you know, some very pressing issues that the state is funding that they want to be able to address. And they had looked at all funding sources, not just the MGC, especially the trust funds within other agencies that had balances. And of course, rather than sweeping the balances, they looked, as Derek said, looking at putting a pause on any of the funds that had a balance in excess of the average annual expenditures. And as was illustrated with paragraph C of section 88, they're looking for us and other state partners to help make recommendations as to whether or how the taxes from category one and two facilities should be used. I think that's the key here. They were very willing to listen to us. They I think had a better understanding after the meeting where these funds actually go, that they don't all get expended in one year. You know, we brought up, for example, the community mitigation funds. They were not aware that we had created a new block system, block grant system that was important and that would take, you know, that fund down in the upcoming year. So I was happy to hear them say, you know, that this is the beginning of a conversation that they started and are willing to continue to have as the budget moves through the legislative process. They still have to go through the house, still has to go through the Senate. And of course, as we know, at the end of the process, there'll be a conference committee. So I think one question I have, and it's for all of us on this commission is, how do we want to advocate to the House and Senate leaders regarding the proposal? We understand now why they did what they did, but they also now understand that there are ramifications from what they proposed. And again, Derek, please correct me if I'm wrong. They were very clear that this was the beginning of a conversation that they were willing to change if we were able to convince and show that these funds are needed here at the Mass Gaming Commission. Of course, how they would be funded this year. So with that said, Derek, unless I forgot something, you know, how do we want to move forward? You know, we don't usually advocate for or against, you know, we kind of give the facts out. And I guess that's what I'm asking. Maybe we should be doing is just show the House and the Senate leaders the facts. And then however the no pun intended, the ships fall, the ships will fall. But I think it's important that we do have those conversations with the House and Senate leaders. Because again, it looks like a lot of money and it is. But we are going to be spending those dollars, you know, in ways that we were told we had to by Mass General Law and of course through regulation. Questions for Commissioner Hill and Chief Lennon. This is a lot. And it came out, you know, just just barely. And you've put all of and synthesized all of this so quickly, Derek. So thank you to you and your team. And we thank A&F because they were very responsive. I know they were very responsive. So questions? Commissioner Skinner. I Commissioner O'Brien's mic was off first. So I'm sorry. Oh, just I, Commissioner Hill, what you talked about was basically what I was going to ask and throw out as the next action is the recitation that was in the packet and put forth by Derek in terms of this is what it is. This is the the impact, particularly excuse me to contrast what we did with Derek with the last known numbers and 23. I think it's probably very illustrative and helpful to A&F in this conversation. I think once that's drafted, we may decide to do some more level of advocacy in a particular area or not. But I think at a minimum, making sure that information you've just given to us gets forward into the legislature as this conversation goes forward, I think that's critical. Through you, Madam Chair, to Commissioner O'Brien, what was interesting in our conversation is they had yet to see the letter that we had just sent. And as you know, there had there is some some language in there where we wanted to change some things dealing with these funds. And they had not yet seen that because of course they're putting their budget together back in you know, November, December, January. Whereas the House and the Senate will have seen that letter. And I hope we'll take into consideration some of our request. So it was kind of interesting that we had sent the letter the week before and then the budget came out in a few days later. So they had to see it. So exactly what Commissioner O'Brien said, my only other question is, what is the timing? Do we, you know, is now the time or typically do we wait and sort of let the process play out a little bit more over the coming weeks and months so the process would be now that H2 is out the House and actually the last couple of years, they've been doing joint ways and means herrings throughout the state to hear testimony on H2. But they're putting the budget together as we speak. So time is of the essence and the memo and the information that Derek and team have put together as Commissioner O'Brien said, should get up to our leaders probably, you know, sooner rather than later. And then through discussions, you know, we can set up meetings to go talk with the legislative leaders if that would be the sense of the committee. So in the past, what we've done, Commissures Kerry, you may remember is on something like this, we could take all that good work that's been done. I'd love to include the impact on the persons Derek and compile a letter that we could have the executive director sign off on. And it would go to all the right parties. Commissioner Hill, do you think that that's right at this stage to work at that level? And I think that's what we did last year. And it was successful. Yeah. You know, the as much as the time is of the essence, the good news is that this has just started. We are not being terribly reactive. We are being quite proactive. So and again, thank A&F for sitting down with us and and indicating their willingness to to pivot. But Derek and your team, you did just a great job. Can't thank the team enough. I can't thank once again, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Skinner for pointing this out. I don't normally, you know, I do a quick search through outside, but this was definitely something that I was happy was pointed out early on so that we could get a good impact analysis out of it in the whole team, right? From Chad to Alex to Joe to Todd to everyone who has touched this, we've really turned this around quickly and we're able to show real impacts to it. And A&F is nothing but willing to work with us. But, you know, they pointed out to us. They have some real fiscal challenges this year. So this was nothing personal to us. If you take a look, they took away payments to debt defeasance. They took away, you know, contributions to the rainy day fund. So this was nothing personal to us. This is all about the fiscal climate they're facing. And they don't want unintended consequences, right? They don't want unintended consequences. So that's why they open welcome our comments, welcome our feedback, and it all goes in that balancing act. Right. And that's and that's a really important point. I think we all can understand that the Commonwealth is facing some real challenges. And to the extent that we can have a voice in explaining the impacts. You know, that's a really important first step, but they've got some critical decisions to make going ahead. So thank you for reminding all of us of that, Derek. Thank you. All right, anything else? Excellent. Excellent, Commissioner Hill, thank you. Thanks for your leadership on this. All right. The only thing that didn't get mentioned, I did note it, and Derek's already left me. My apologies. You know, I lottery Yes. Is in the budget. And I want to acknowledge that I know it's something that's been a priority for the treasurer. I have received a couple of increased on that. It was if we have any research on how I lottery could impact the brick and mortar casinos or even online sports wagering. And we don't have a I don't believe it. I don't know if Marcus and it's unfair to expect that he's listening right now because his work is up. He is. I think, Mark, we have an eye gaming research project, but it's focused more on RG and but I don't know if in the past our research spoke to I lottery impacts. Do you have any recollection of that? Yeah, we've done studies on lottery impacts. We've not done any studies on I lottery, which I'll I lottery. Of course, the interesting thing is that we have under twenty three K and affirmative obligation not to impact negatively or cannibalize lottery. So it was an interesting question. And I did point that out that the relationship. And of course, we have been very transparent about our desire to make to ensure that the online operators are innovative around promoting lottery products. So from my perspective, this is something that has been a priority for the Charger. It's good news for the Charger. And I haven't I don't know if we have any evidence or data that's just that there would be any negative impact that would affect, certainly, the common else bottom line, but also the frickin mortars. So how might impact online gaming? I mean, what's reaching? I don't know. But I know that we are looking at eye gaming, but I did not think we had anything out there on quite a lot. No, we don't. We we could do a you know, we could take a look around and see if any other states have done a similar type of study. Or to be helpful to direct them to that, that, you know. But yeah, I'm sorry. I'm not sure if we want to actually do anything affirmative on our part because I think, you know, that's really the the Charger's lane. Just it's related, but not related. We are consulting the lottery and looking at potential lottery impact which relates to the potential for sports wagering, the arts, the restaurants, which is a which was a study that was required by the legislature when when sports wagering was passed. So we are collaborating with the lottery on that. We can certainly also add it to the proposal as part of the FY 25 research agenda, not kindly necessarily, but it would stay on our radar and fulfill that commitment from 23 K, which is holding holding the lottery harmless as we look at ampline expansion in the coming one. Years before, gosh, I think it was probably 2012. When I worked at the lottery, we didn't do church or gross and we did engage a research project on my lottery. And it was just maybe Todd, you remember, it was just when 23 K had been passed. And I know Treasurer Grossman affirmatively said that he would make sure that no I lottery product negatively affected the expected expansion of gaming. So there was a lot of discussion around how these all fit together. And we also know how critically important the lottery is to the Commonwealth. So I guess I just wanted to point it out as you know, congratulations to the Treasurer and the governor for supporting the lottery. And to the extent there's anything out there in other jurisdictions, we could share that. I think probably the lawmakers are thinking about those big questions. I don't know, Commissioner Hill, do you feel the same way? We actually brought up by gaming briefly in our discussion and they certainly are talking about it with the lottery. By gaming in addition to I lottery. Yeah. All right. So Mark, I guess, you know, without big left to the extent there's anything we could offer this one of the two inquires encouraged. That's fine. But otherwise don't I think we'll just stay tuned to see how these these some how they they follow through the process. OK. All right. Thanks, Derek. Thank you. OK. Then we're now moving on to regulations. And I do know kind of right on time in terms of figuring out the next piece, because I know Mina is not available. Cary from nearly 11 to one. So he was going to handle five A. So Todd and Kerry will skip right to five B. Does that make sense? Cary and Todd and then commissioners that would be turning to 205 CMR 221 on our bookmarks and our materials. Cary. Perfect. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. So just to remind you sort of what this item is on January 18th, the commission voted to begin the promulgation process for amendments to 205 CMR 221. And those amendments would remove section 221.012 to clean up some confusion related to sports were during licensing fees. Given that the promulgation process takes two to three months to complete, the commission discussed issuing a waiver to ensure that the regulation is applied appropriately until such time as the amended regulation is formally adopted. So we're proposing issuing a waiver today from 205 CMR 221.011 until such time as the amended regulation goes into effect, the practical effect of this waiver will be that the language in section 221.012 will be effective until the amended regulation goes into effect. So licensees would be required to pay the one million dollar fee within 30 days of commission approval of the temporary license renewal. And once the amended regulation takes effect, section 221.012 would be deleted and the language in section 221.011 would become the operative language. So licensees would be required to pay a nonrefundable license fee of one million dollars upon submission of a request for temporary license. This will allow the licensing division to continue their renewal process without any interruption and will clarify the language and process moving forward. And Cara is on as well in case there are any questions about sort of practically how this works on the licensing front. Questions for Carrie and Cara. Thank you, Cara. You're studying. I have no questions and I'm actually ready to make a motion. OK. I'm not hearing any objections commissioner Hill. So please go right ahead. Madam chair, I move that in accordance with 205 CMR 202.032, the commission issue a waiver to all licensed sports wagering operators from requirements outlined in 205 CMR 221.011 until such time as the amended 205 CMR 221 on which the commission voted to begin the promulgation process on January 18, 2024 goes into effect as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of GL chapter 23 and. Second. Any questions? OK, commissioner Brian. I wish you help. I'm just going to I wish you may know I vote. Yes, excellent work, Carrie and Cara. Nice straightforward. No questions is a good thing. Great, thank you. Thanks so much. So Carrie and Todd, we'll turn back to item number five later in the early afternoon. I'm still juggling a little bit, so stay tuned. OK, thanks. Now we're turning to item number six. It's a sports wagering division. Turn it right to Director Ban and we're going to hear from both Crystal and Andrew. Yes, I asked that we do this little out of order if we could do A and C in a row for Crystal to get both her items out of the way. That would be great. Yes, thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Crystal. Good morning. I'm just going to blur my weird hotel background here. How are you guys? So we know that you're you know that this is a difficult time for you and your your partner and family. So thank you for making time today for us. I know that it's important to you and that your priority to be here. So we just want to thank you. OK, absolutely. Thank you so much. So we are starting off and I'm just going to switch my screen really quick. Apologize with a request, which for the packet, it's page, I believe, 90. Ninety one. Ninety one. I was going to say ninety three, but my pages are off. Thank you for that. So I really like to first just thank our compliance officers for their work on the comparison tables here. That is page ninety three for you. I know I speak for Andrew on this as well. Sorry to speak out of turn Andrew, but the team is really made all the better with the compliance officers on board and they're fantastic. They have been very thorough and willing to dive into any project we've thrown at them. So they did compile this chart for you. I don't want to take the credit for that. I know it's very small, but I do think that it was distributed separately as well. But if you need any context, I have it pulled up and I can just give you clarifications. So as a reminder, this part was compiled as a follow up to the meeting on January 4th, which we'd presented a request from WinBet to reduce customer service offerings. But in reviewing that, you determined it was important to review the customer service offerings across all of our operators and to review specifically how those offerings compared to what was presented during the application process. This chart specifically shows what was included in the application itself or in the PowerPoint materials presented during the public meetings. I will say it does not include any conversation that was had in those meetings. So, you know, just wanted to make that clarifier. It was just we only compiled what was in the materials themselves. So that being said, I also did put together some quick summaries of those insights in your memo. And I'll let you proceed with how I'm not I'm not really sure, honestly, how we want to proceed on this one. So I just wanted to give you that and let you have the conversation. So maybe that's just the first step would be a reminder that this came through when that recognizing that they were actually doing less than perhaps what they had thought they were going to do. Then prompted really increase well, you know, what is the landscape overall? Could you just explain maybe your high level findings? That might be I thought that that was the most revealing picture if I don't know. And then you can maybe if you've had the chance to read Crystal's well done memo and we think the compliance team for putting this all together, it was helpful to stay answered quite a few questions, I think, Crystal. Yeah, so, you know, I tried to focus on that. I do know that each commissioner had different questions coming out of this. And I was trying to compile some of those insights here. So, you know, I think one of the key pieces was, you know, how many operators are offering phone customer service to where you can directly call a individual and get, you know, your answers. There are only two. None of which are available 24 seven, but I would note that technically four of them said they had a phone number, but ESPN is current ESPN bet sorry is currently working on hiring so they can have their customer service agents live. So they do have a number, but they don't yet have individuals there to take the calls. And then one of them that had provided their number, it's casino guest services. So honestly, those calls are probably routed to us anyway, because they're not necessarily trained to answer every sports wagering specific question. So two of them are offering phones, though notably there is some callback service and almost all of them will have an individual call if there's if there becomes an issue with the back and forth communication via email or chat. But did there are many that can you can leave a voicemail or send an email and say, I'd like someone call me. That is about six of the 11 live chat is the most utilized. It is also one of the most consistent offerings across our operators currently 24 seven live chat is available all category three, except for when but if they were to scale this back, obviously, but they still offer live chat. And it all of our operators except for retail and better do offer live chat. So that's I think the most consistent component we saw. Obviously email support is huge and they all offer email customer service, except for retail, which there is you can still email customer service because they you know, the casinos have their own, but they don't have something separate for sports wagering. And then I did provide just the differences because one question came up or maybe it wasn't a question. I think it was a consideration of how long when that should stay open if they were going to scale back and they wanted to consider the time that the games are available. Right. So I think it was till the request. The thought was to keep it maybe till 11. But I put the retail sports book hours here so you could see that there's no consistency in that either. So you know, requiring one to stay till 11 would be not consistent with what the other operators are offering. So that was the general scope that I got from this and you know, was insightful for me too. I would say that reviewing the applications themselves. What we saw is no one promised really all any of the phones. No one promised even 24 seven live chat except for I think two and they do offer it. So some of the offerings are a bit more than ever even stated, which is nice. But what I was trying to see was did they say they would have something and not have it and there just wasn't a lot in general in these applications about customer service, it, you know, little touch pieces where they said maybe how they reach out to their customers in general, but they were very limited. So that was. I'd say that's my summary of what we were reviewing. Excellent. Commissioners, it really is not a live request in front of us now that would be current. But we have wanted to understand this landscape. Do we want to impose anything further or are we satisfied with what we've seen from customs and that would work. Madam chair. So customer service was something we all cared about during the application process and something I still, you know, want to make sure that people are getting the help they need when needed. But facts are facts. And the facts that have come before us are showing us that those phone calls aren't coming in 24 seven overall. They're coming in a certain hours of the day. And I think with what I've seen with that data that I'm comfortable with what has been shown to us today. I'm kind of taking it back because my memory obviously isn't as strong as it used to be. But I thought there were a couple of licensees proposals who said, oh, no, we're going to do this 24 seven. But maybe I just thought differently when they were talking or misunderstood what they were saying. And maybe it was regarding the chat and not live. But with that said, this is the second or third time that we've seen data showing us that the calls are not coming in, you know, at two in the morning, three in the morning, things of that sort. And to have to have somebody there during those hours when they're not getting those calls, well, let's be honest, that's not very smart business wise. So Crystal, great job to Bruce and team. Great job. I think with the data that's currently before us, I'm very comfortable with what has been put before us and I'm comfortable that the customers are getting to the people they need to at a timely passion. Michelle Brown, I would agree with that. My only follow-up question before I sort of endorse what Commissioner Hill said is whether we're seeing anything in terms of reach out to our office on any consumer complaints that they can't get through. So the lack of a phone call maybe they don't know how to do it. So I just want to make sure we're not getting complaints that the reason some of those numbers are lower is simply they just can't do it. So we looked into that, right? We pulled lovely from our perfect database. I just love this thing, right? We were able to search by anything that said phone. And we pulled out a lot of information. But anything that was particular to actually I wish they had a phone. They don't have a phone. We only saw 16 requests ever since launch last year. That being said. Did you do customer service or complaint or call? We pulled out customer service in general, like where they were just saying customer service is not great. Or I don't know how to reach them. Anything like that was 60 around 60. I think. I do have it. There's a little chart on page ninety one that kind of goes over there. So sixty two complaints were related to customer service in general. But that could include anything like, you know, their customer service wasn't nice to me. Or I don't know, you know, but we did try to look at that, too. And we were looking at anything related to ours, which Commissioner Hill was just referencing. And they really were. That was I think we saw too, right? Like, why can't I get a hold of them? At this time. And it was it was still not directly related to, like, not being available. It was more about the time frame that they took to get a hold of them. And that's mostly what we look for the compliance with that regulation, which, like, why did you take 12 days when you only have 10, right? So we just didn't see that. I'll also note that I had specific conversations with WinBet themselves and other operators. And they don't see calls coming in at night for the most part. And when people are trying to reach them at night, they're sending an email or they're sending a chat. WinBet, you know, having had the ability to check that data for us specifically. I don't have my notes in front of me. I'm sorry I am traveling, but I recall it being, I think two calls at all in that time frame in the last month. And they weren't, you know, I think it was Commissioner Skinner who asked where they related to, you know, trying to get self exclusion or any sort of trouble, and they weren't. So we did look at it just because, you know, it's important, I think, overall, to just have the data since we can, but we are just not seeing that level of need. And it would have, I think I included this information in your packet, but to cover those hours, they need at least three individuals on. And it just seems like to take three calls, I can see why the request came in, right? So we can understand the justification. So my only, my only follow up comment really would be one of the reasons that Commissioner Hill, I don't want to put words in your mouth that we were talking about hours was more if you had a compromise in your account and you were under stress and time is of the essence. And so I'm fine with what we're doing right now. I just don't want to lose sight of us keeping track of the ability of customers to be able to get some sort of action if they need to, some sort of breach or something in their account. I know that it does seem like they still triage these calls that come in when they're not available. And there's it's not like just it seems everybody had a system that was like, OK, these were the calls that came in and now we're starting with the most pertinent ones and or going right through and they they don't just get hit with volume. They start with the calls that were requested overnight. So that was comforting to me. You know, they're not just sitting in a pool and waiting. They seem to have processes. So just in general, we're not seeing that kind of from what we receive. Right. I didn't look at all. I'm just contemplating a data breach or some sort of breach. You know, that's right there. Oh, and so that's my question not for this valid topic. This point we're talking about today, but just going forward for us as a body to think about, you know, what is what does the customer base do in that circumstance? But otherwise I'm satisfied with what you guys put in front of us today. Thank you for for both forms for the pros and the spreadsheet. Yeah. And I'd say I will, you know, the key piece to me was that the live chat is basically 24 seven anyway in our across our jurisdiction other than retail. And then of course, if you're talking retail, someone is there 24 seven. So if you take a look, it really is that essentially there's some sort of 24 seven aspect for Massachusetts. It may not be, you know, consistent in what the mechanism is and it's not phones. But you certainly could say there's an issue with my account and it seems except for in one circumstance that you would get some 24 seven. So maybe we circle back in a future time for that. Just one circumstance. Precious. And I'm not sure who turned off their their needs first. I always defer to commissioner skinner. Thank you very much. Thank you, commissioner. Nothing more to add really commissioners, Brian and Hill have said it all really. What's compelling to me is that they do have some 24 seven aspect just for patrons. I appreciate crystal the data and your sort of summary of what the actual complaints, the customer service complaints around no phones is. So that was my only outstanding question. I will also say to commissioner Hill, my memory is similar to yours. Despite what, you know, was put in the application, there was a lot of discussion generated for from excuse me, the presentations around customer access, customer service. So in response to those questions, those that discussion and commissioner concerns, we did have operators who indicated that they would have 24 seven service like you, though, I can't remember if it was via live chat or phone, but nonetheless, I am satisfied with what's being presented here. I don't think we need to go any further. I concur with Commissioner O'Brien that we do. We should continue to monitor any any complaints, you know, the ones that she specifically referenced, but also the ones that you've reviewed in the past relative to just not being able to get a hold of someone. So I am all set and I'll turn it over to commissioner Maynard, but I will say to commissioner Hill, just so you know, there's an echo. We can I can hear you just fine. I don't know if it's just me, but I just wanted to let you know that you're you're we're getting an echo from you. It's not bad at all, though. Commissioner Hill, you can't fix it. Just as a reminder, I know it was exactly a year ago yesterday when we launched sports wagering and that launch was preceded by lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of hours that this commission took to evaluate each application. If my memories are correct, each time we had an application in front of us, you know, we met for somewhere between six to 13 hours to evaluate the applications and there may well be those videos, something that suggests that conversation that maybe the operators said they were going to do something. Crystal, thank you for not putting anyone through the misery of going through those. I thought about it. All those hours of of meetings, if it becomes critical commissioners to to understand and to sort of check our memories. You know, I think we can all go back and speed through ourselves and look to see my memory is that there was a lot of discussion. And I think my memory was that we definitely message that consistent customer service was a priority. But anyway, I right now just appreciate Crystal's judgment on that. So Commissioner Maynard, sorry, I just wanted to to to mention that would be quite a task right now during this busy time Christmas wagering. Commissioner Maynard. No, that's a good that was actually a segue to what I'm thinking. Oh, OK. I mean, my memory was they did tell us what we wanted to hear on that issue and Commissioner Hill was driving at home. But neither here nor there, I would not use state resources to go back and watch all those videos, having watched a lot of those videos for the minutes myself. I can tell you it's not fun. But I want to encourage the patrons that if this becomes a problem, if, as Commissioner O'Brien said, there's an issue, you know, let us know. We do have a robust sports wagering division that is taking in this information and perhaps the data is not showing it's a problem because patrons don't know to reach out to us. It's a problem. So let us know. Let, you know, let the companies know, shake the trees, let your banks bank know if there's a problem. Don't let it let it sit. And the whole point, as you said, Chair, is that if there's an issue, we don't want anybody out there that can't get ahold of of the operators. Right. Thank you. And that's a really good reminder and a reminder. Let me just check that we've talked about it. And I know now that the team communications team has uploaded this information on the on the internet. We've always had customer service information for keeping it updated and so that customers can look at our website to find out how to contact. But what Commissioner Maynard just pointed out is really critical. And perhaps some Tom and Davey can add that too, that if you can't get through the operating, you know, contact our split wagering division. We want to we want to keep ourselves open, right? Yeah, it's a category will continue to monitor and very nice job on that crystal. If you don't mind, we'll skip over being and go to see for Crystal can continue her presentation. And that's and and besides, I think we're all very interested in in the next topic, Crystal. So see you. There we go. Thank you. I really appreciate the skipping around. That would be page 98 for your packet. And I don't think she's on. But I know that it's very excited for this one and is definitely out there watching for those who don't know is a former hockey player and coaches hockey. So she's thrilled about this. And I heard lots about it. I wanted her to present it, honestly. She's D one, D one, two. Anybody who knows hockey knows family in Massachusetts. So there we go. Good shout out. Both actually went to school together, but very apart in years. But up in up in the Potsdam area, that's where my love for hockey comes from because there's no football up there. It's just hockey. So but we're bringing forth a request to add the newly formed professional women's hockey league, which will be referred to in almost all cases in media and in your packet as PWHL. But we there's been a request to add it to the Massachusetts gaming commissions event catalog. I will note a couple differences in my memo that have transpired over the last couple about a week. First, while fanatics did make this initial request, we have heard interest from other operators. Drafking specifically had also put in a request after the fact asking and will be offering in Massachusetts. And they've already had their own conversations with the league, but we have other operators who have said they're excited to have this offering. In addition to that, my memo originally stated that there were no other jurisdictions offering this league that's now outdated. It's come quickly, but fanatics did submit this request in Connecticut and it was approved. And according to Drafking's the professional women's hockey league is also approved in Arizona, Colorado and Kansas. And I was able to quickly confirm this morning that Arizona and Colorado catalogs are up and they have been updated and they are allowing those wagers. So I just wanted to make that note. So that being said, the specific request is to offer the professional women's hockey league into our catalog. And I did give you a lot of details just because it's a new league on some of the things that were in the media and things that had came out that might be of interest. Given there has been concern in the past about the women's hockey league, not be true in general, there was a former women's hockey league that did not survive, but this is being treated very differently. It is a paid league. It does have a lot of the same rules as the NHL and it has some support also in a consultative manner, but in general, good feedback and has been widely attended. There are some record numbers of attendance in the last few weeks at their games. Fairly, but the option is up to you. So I'll turn it back to you guys. Thank you, Crystal. So Crystal, I have a question. The application, the petition says that there's no sports governing body, but the entity that would conduct it is the board of the PWHL. And they say they have not contacted them in the paperwork, but I think you just said they have since contacted them? No. The Rathkings has contacted them. They are in conversation. They had said they're in conversations with them. I don't have much information on that, but that was, I just quickly reached out to them and that was their responses. We are excited to offer it if it gets approved and we've already had some conversations. So I in general don't have an issue, but procedurally I knew we did give a hard time to another person who petitioned who had not reached out to the governing body or the players association. And on this face of this, they haven't done that. And so maybe we can speak to why that is and what can be done about that? Commissioner O'Brien, Michael Venier from FNAF, Spending and Gaming. Sins and Physicians, good morning Madam Chair and the rest of the commissioners. Since the initial request, we have reached out to governing body. We are in receipt of the rules of the league. And based on a review of the rules of the league are comfortable moving forward with this request. And have they indicated support or are they agnostic on the request? I do not wanna speak on their behalf. So I would say at this point agnostic on the request, but I do know that other operators are looking forward to the opportunity to offer the PWHL. And is there, am I correct that there's no players association, which is why the answer to have you communicated with them is no? There is a player's association. Well, I don't want to speak incorrectly here. There is a CBA, which would be the players association in this case. Okay, so that, and they have not been contacted them. Right? Commissioner O'Brien, I noted what, so maybe I noted what Commissioner O'Brien noted that they put down no governing body with respect to the contact and it is an important issue, but I feel that earlier in the submission, they did acknowledge that. And I think you acknowledged in the memo that PWHL board would be the governing body. And then at the American Hockey League is providing officials. No, my question is the players association, madam chair. I'm satisfied that the petition also asks about whether the players have been informed. And we had that conversation. I think it was highlight. They don't have one because they, you know, you would be the individual players would have to sort of almost speak against their owners. And so we put the ask out anyway. So I heard governing body. My apologies, Commissioner O'Brien, it puts a little bit of a mishearing. No, page 103 in the packet number five. The last question on page three of the petition has any relevant players association been informed? The answer is no. It sounds like there is a players association, but they haven't been contacted. The time that I conducted the memo, that was true. I'm not sure if, Michael, you have any update? I believe that is correct. So I don't in general, given sort of the connections in the structure of this have hesitation moving today, but I would put an ask out for fanatics and anyone else petitioning for this to make the reach out to the players association. Commissioner O'Brien, clarification, are you saying that you could still go move forward without that being included today? Okay. Given the structure and the history of who else is involved here and not seeing anything in public that challenges this, I think we had Cornhole or something else where that was a different scenario. We don't have that in front of us, but I would encourage the licensees, you know, the petition does ask for whether players associations have been contacted. I just want to say that that's something that I would expect to happen going forward. And contact with the governing body. Correct. Yeah. We can ensure that too with that clarification that we don't bring forward something unless they've requested that. Yeah, we saw one where it just happened to be good timing where the press came in and the governing body was able to affirmatively get to us before we voted. I think it's almost got to be a prerequisite commissioners correct, but the players association issue might be a little bit different, but to have the governing body object would be probably compete with our priority around integrity. I see Andrews even kind of nodding his head, right? Crystal, you feel the same? So I don't know if we need to strengthen that in our, you know. All right, my light went out. I think Crystal said it, but going forward, we'll verify that the operators reach out to the place association. Yeah, so maybe on paperwork just sort of make it like a pre-react. Commissioner Maynard, sorry, I'm sorry, Ms. June. No, no, no, no problem. I just wanted to say that on the positive side of this, I appreciate anytime we can add women's sports and potentially allow folks who want to bet on those, to bet on those. And I think it's positive in that regard. I can move. I see no one else with their mic off. So if you're ready to move, Commissioner Maynard, we will take your motion on behalf of women hockey players. The commission amend the official catalog of events and wagers to include the women's hockey league as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. I would just add that, Mr. Levine, the players association, we want to make sure that the athletes are protected and the officials did. So as much as we want to promote the women's court, we want it to be, you know, keep everybody safe and sound, so just an additional edit. And I know you know that. You've heard from us so much, Mr. Levine. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Maynard. So actually in that, excuse me in that vein, Madam Chair, if I could just do a friendly amendment that, that the petitioner provide documentation or communication to our sports waiter team that they have in fact, reached out to the players association as a condition of adding it to the catalog. And Commissioner Maynard, we would also want to know the results of those conversations, correct? Right. I would accept that friendly. And I would second as amended. Thank you. Okay. Anything else commissioners on this? Okay. Commissioner Bryant. Aye. Mr. Hill. Before I give my vote, Madam Chair, is my echo sounding a little better? Yeah, it's okay. It's a little different than your normal, but we can hear you. We can give a tip for Tom and Dave if you can think about it. Okay. With that said, aye. Aye, aye, aye, aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. So that's five, aye. It's not 10. Thank you. And Crystal, excellent work. Mr. Levine, thank you for being here. And we know there's a little bit of work for you to catch up on. We appreciate that. And Crystal will be thinking of you. Safe travels. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So now, I think maybe Mr. Levine is sticking around. We are turning to six B, Director Band. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. Andrew has a few presentations for you today as well. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Yep. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. I have two new wager category requests coming from fanatics, betting and gaming. Both requests are rather similar. However, they do require individual votes. And if it's not in your packet, I'm happy to share the screen of the petition form submitted by Fanatics. Madam Chair. Thank you so much for doing that. I know we have a little tech issue. We'll resolve that for next time around, Andrew. Okay. I believe the first one is the Player X next team. I'm not mistaken. Well, it was the other one, but it doesn't matter. We can skip around. So then, Player X, what do you have? We'll start with Player X. Okay, excellent. Can everyone see the screen of the petition form? Yes, we can. I'll try to scroll through it as we're discussing as well for your preview. So starting on page, I believe 94 of your packet. Fanatics is requesting a new wager category for Player X next team. That is the title of the wager category. This wager would be where a specified player will play next season. This wager category would only cover the four major professional sports leagues of the MLB, NBA, and NFL, or MLB, NBA, NFL, and the NHL. It would be for which team a specified player will be on at the start of the regular season. A winning wager will be determined if that player is on the selected team's roster by the start of the regular season. Outcomes will only be verified and declared settled once the specified team releases an official announcement on that player. We can give you a few quick examples of some wagers that might be available or could have been available in the past. For example, if this wager category were approved, this upcoming NFL offseason, you could wager on which team current Minnesota Vikings quarterback Kirk Cousins could play for next season. He is an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season and perhaps no longer under contract with his current team at the start of the offseason. The selected wager would offer odds on certain NFL teams, perhaps including his most recent or current team available. If you think back even a few years ago, when Tom Brady was rumored to leave the Patriots, many sports websites, articles, and outlets often published odds on where Brady would play the next season. They listed a handful of teams with specified odds next to each team and perhaps the operators may not offer odds on all available teams, but rather a few specific teams and then offer the field as a wager. So going back to the Brady example, if there weren't available wager with five specific teams and then the field, if Brady was not on one of the five listed teams at the start of the regular season, but rather on one of the other 27, if the customer selected the field, that field wager would win. If he had joined the team, one of the teams selected of those five, that wager would win. And then one other example, I just thought of this morning, it may not happen as often, but you may see it more times in the NBA, if a specific player is still under contract, but is unhappy with their current situation, they may request a trade during the off-season or maybe even during the previous season. The operator could then offer wagers on where that specific player may play at the start of the regular season via trade before the season starts. One very specific example I could think of happened during the off-season in the NBA last year. There was a high-profile player, James Harden. He was under contract with the Philadelphia 76ers. He was unhappy and hadn't requested a trade several times. There was speculation on where he may be traded to. However, he was ultimately still on the 76ers roster at the start of the regular season on October 24th. If the customer had selected James Harden to be on the 76ers at the start of that season, that wager would have won. And I hope all that makes sense. And again, we do have Michael Levine from Fanatics on the meeting to help answer any specific questions. Lastly, Fanatics has stated that this wager category and type is currently approved for wagering in their jurisdictions of West Virginia, Maryland and Colorado. The sports wagering division confirms all requirements have been met pursuant to 205CMR 247.3. This finally operator has answered all the applicable questions on the new wager category form. Madam Chair. Andrew, while the Christians did receive us in their emails, while we're talking, could we just have this come down, please? Thanks, of course. Thanks so much. Okay, questions for Andrew on this new event? I have a question actually. I guess I'll be more for legal. Will this fit into the definition of sports wagering under 23N? You work, I can pull that up while we talk. It's a, you recall the definition of sports wagering is very broad. And so I believe the answer is yes to that, but we'll just double check while we're on it. Also, while you're looking at that, what are the, and this isn't for legal, this is for either Andrew or Michael. What are the safeguards, like when does it open, when does it close, depending on the sport, what are the safeguards around, who has the information, right? Like obviously there's a group of people that know, right? It's gonna be the player, it's gonna be a manager, it's gonna be an agent, right? Maybe a law firm, right? Some people are gonna know how these movements are happening. Are there safeguards around this? You know, are you limiting wagers amounts? Like what's the real story here? Yeah, and Commissioner Mayer, that is one of the reasons why our division did not make a specific recommendation, either way on this wager category, leaving it more to the commissioners for decision and for legal to provide an answer on a sporting category. But as to the specifics, Michael, I'm not sure if you're able to speak to that in your other jurisdictions as you offer this, specifically for the off season and when wagers may close or open and close. Sure, in most of the other jurisdictions, we offer this after the end of the playoff. So after the Super Bowl for the NFL, and then leading up to the first game of the regular season as I'm gonna take the NFL as an example, as the pre-season, you know, a lot of these individuals may or may not be cut during those first three to four games of the season. Apologies, that's my daughter in the background. But we are hearing, we don't get to hear children, so Mrs. Bress, fine, thank you. I have almost two-year-old and a little three-month-old next to me at the moment. Sounds familiar. As grandchildren, go right ahead. So that's when we would offer it. The rules would be contemplated in our house rules, which would, if approved, be submitted to the commission for review and approval. And then from an integrity perspective, is our team would monitor on the back end to see if there are any suspicious wagers, any wagers that are moving lines more than usual. And obviously, if it arose to what we suspect is fraud or some sort of integrity concern, we would apprise the commission accordingly. Would you cap how much? I can't speak to that, Commissioner Maynard, but that would be a business decision. So I did have the same question, Commissioner Maynard, and then I'll turn to other commissioners that I don't see anybody with their mic on. How this could impact the negotiations of contracts and how do you preserve the integrity? Yeah, it does seem like there would be a good number of people who would have access to this information. And I understand we always look at suspicious activity, but we kind of know the guardrails are in place and somehow those guardrails might bail that creates suspicious activity here. I don't know if you've really answered that there are guardrails. And thank you, Commissioner Maynard, for the question. I can come back to the commission with additional guardrails if requested. I know that we do have US integrity alerts and it's on the back end from our data feed providers that do alert us of any concerns and then we action accordingly. And it's right now, Arizona and Colorado are taking these bets. West Virginia as well. It's actually West Virginia, Maryland and Colorado. I'm sorry, that was notes from the other one. My apologies, West Virginia, Colorado, and... Maryland. Well, and I'm thinking about this too. Sorry, Madam Chair. We did, we had a long discussion about the drafting of the players last year too. I'm trying to figure out how I think about this. Yeah. It's going to be that, you know? But I had time to really think about this submission. I've put a lot of thought into it. Interesting. Andrew, can you remind us on the draft because we just saw those minutes, Commissioner Maynard, and I made the same connection. How did we get comfortable with that? It's funny we were talking about previous commission meetings. I spent about a half a day last week reviewing a commission meeting for another upcoming item here for our Super Bowl wagers. This, I feel like this is likened to, is it the Emmy awards or some of the awards, special events that we offer in our category where there's voting and some events like that. As far as the draft, we do offer wagers on the draft. We do offer wagers on which team will select a certain player or where a certain player will be selected by which team in the draft would be NFL and NBA. But I don't believe I got to that part in the commission meeting, but we do offer those in our event catalog. We do, yeah. The Oscars and what was in the draft. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Hill. Are we gonna go back to the Oscars again? Yeah. I spent too much time last week listening to that from a year ago. Commissioner Hill. So, Madam Chair, I actually had a lot of questions regarding this proposal. And the word sports integrity has been brought up a couple of times. So, Andrew and Michael, Madam Chair, if you're all right with me talking to those two specifically right now, let's walk through a couple of scenarios. And I'm gonna use the NBA as an example. So in the last two to three years, we'll say that superstar A, who plays for team B has a friend who he is openly talking to, to come to his team next year. As we know, sadly, whether it's true or not true, the perception is that in the NBA, you can talk to your friend and to come into your team next year. And we've seen that happen with three stars in the last three to five years, Guy Reirving, James Harden, LeBron James, where we knew where they probably were going to go next year after either their contract was up or they were traded, let go, whatever the case may have been. So how do we have sports integrity when the conversation is happening right out in the public for all to see? In baseball, the last two or three years, we have seen superstars reach out to other stars, hey, come to this team and let's build a super team. I look at LA for an example, where teammates have reached out time and time again to build a super team of friends and superstars. So help me understand how, if we were to agree to this, how I am not seeing sports integrity when I know as a consumer where the player is probably going next year, or coach or whatever the case may be. Coaches the next wager category that we'll discuss too. But yeah, as far as the integrity controls commissioner in hell, I made it spoke to that commissioner Maynard as well. Those are one of the reasons that we did not make a specific recommendation either way for this wager category, leaving it up to the commissioners to discuss. Mike, I'm not sure if you can discuss on the made a specific odds related to certain teams and wagers that the player may go to if there's a lower odds or better odds for certain teams based on available maybe rumors or information. Yeah, I think commissioner Hill, what if it was, I don't want to speak for our trading team, but I would assume, and I never want to assume here, but if there were those kind of rumors and it was almost a sure thing, I don't even know if we would offer that player to X team, if we thought LeBron was going back to Cleveland and it was all rumored that he was going to create a super team in Cleveland and every single media outlet is saying such, we probably wouldn't even offer that as a market. So would we be put in a position, Mike, where I make a bet and we start seeing something like what you just described and now all of a sudden your company says we're not going to honor that bet now. No, we would still honor the bet, commissioner Hill. I think the pricing would change accordingly. Similar to every other odds bet. I'm not going to lie to you, Michael. I'm usually, I guess on everything. I'm a little apprehensive about this request and I don't want you to speak on behalf of other jurisdictions, but when you were asking for permission from those jurisdictions, did they ask these questions? Because I would think all the jurisdictions would have the same concern that we are having. Commissioner Hill, in one jurisdiction, it was already affirmatively approved and I believe that was Maryland. In Colorado, in West Virginia, we did not, we just received an approval. I do not have any record of the rationale behind it. Thank you, Michael and Andrew, and thank you, Madam Chair. There are questions on this from Andrew. Director Band, do you have some insights you want to share here? I'm kind of agreeing with what Andrew said is the reason we didn't put a recommendation forward with it, I don't really have a recommendation one way or the other. You anticipated these kinds of questions from us, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Commissioner Bryan, you're one way, you know? I did, so I went back and I should have done my approval to one of the minutes. I forgot I was late to one of them as well, Madam Chair, because when I went back through again about the other drafts that we voted on, I realized I was absent for some of those, which is why I didn't recall specifically. I was sort of on the other side of this definition of sports wagering in terms of the Emmys, the Oscars, the draft, that sort of thing. I think it goes a little beyond the pale into the integrity gets a lot harder in some of these circumstances. And it sounds to me like this might be premature. Like there's a lot of questions we have about integrity and parameters and guardrails that it doesn't sound like Mr. Levine is in a position to answer today. So obviously up to them whether they want to push this, but it would seem to me like we need to get more information about all those questions before it's in a posture to vote. Any, I have a question, Madam Chair. Any jurisdictions deny this, all right? Mr. Levine, and again, we thank you. We know it's not easy to be put on the spot with our questions. And if you don't know the answers, that's just fine. Yes, Commissioner Maynard, there were jurisdictions that did affirmatively reject this. And it was because it was not in compliance with their definition of sports wagering. Todd, you want to read our definition of sports wagering? It's always good to have an easy answer. Absolutely, it might be helpful if I show you the statute. Thank you Mr. Levine for that. So, and that sounds like you were really, you were really comfortable that it was only based on the definition of sports wagering, Mr. Levine, and not the issues that we're raising around integrity. For sure. Madam Chair, three of the jurisdictions that that rejected did state it was not within their confines of sports events or sports wagering, and that one did not provide any rationale, it was just an outright rejection. And that is standard with their market approval. So they don't have you come on onto a public forum and explain and answer all the questions that we have? They do not. Okay, I understand. All right. So commissioners, Todd's going to give us this language. So this is, there's two definitions we're going to want to look at. This, by the way, just for the record is chapter 23 and section three. And the two definitions we're going to want to look at are that of sports wagering and then sports event or sporting event. And we'll start here. Sports wagering is the business of accepting wagers on sporting events or portions of sporting events, other events, the individual performance statistics of athletes in a sporting event or other events or a combination of any of the same by any system or method of wagering approved by the commission. And then it gets into some things that it does not include. And then we're familiar with these things like the outcome is dependent on the performance of an individual athlete in a collegiate sport or athletic event on a high school or youth sporting event or on injuries, penalties, player discipline, or player review. And then it says that sports wagering shall include which will not be limited to single-gling vets, teaser vets, parlays over under moneyline pools, exchange wagering, game play vets, proposition vets and straight vets. So it's fairly expansive, but you then have to look of course at the definition of sports event. And that's right up here. And that is a professional sport or athletic event, collegiate sport or athletic event, a collegiate tournament, motor race event, electronic sports event. And here's where it kind of things like the MEs and other issue items came up or other event authorized by the commission under this chapter. And then again, it excludes certain things like high school and youth sporting event, collegiate sporting events, involving one or more collegiate teams from a common which are familiar areas. So ultimately it comes down to the interpretation of these two definitions and how broadly the commission is inclined to read them. We have read it fairly broadly in the past to include some of those other things, but this is one of those points where you could certainly go either way. And I'm here. Yes, Tricia Hill. I don't know if Michael has heard me use this term in the past and I was told maybe if I turned down my speaker it will help a little. I'm not sure that this is ready for prime time. And I'm not very comfortable today voting on allowing this or just allowing this. I think we're reaching a consensus perhaps. Commissioner Schiller you haven't laid in and do you want to weigh in now? And I think we may have the same kind of concerns with respect to the other as well if I'm guessing correctly. Commissioner Schiller. No, I agree completely and support Commissioner Hill's sentiment. I think there's a lot of questions, Andrew. And why don't we just go right now to the next lead head coach? I feel as though the same issues around contracting and guardrails and integrity will arise. Let's see you even agreeing probably Mr. Levine with us and Commissioner Maynard you are nodding your head. Do we need to have Andrew walk us through that? I see. Madam Chair and Commissioner I can tell you again with this wager category for the Teams X next coach or X Teams X coach. We also again did not make a recommendation either way leaving it up for discussion to the officials. Yeah, and I did see Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill said no need to have you go through Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Rainer you an agreement. Okay. Well, lots of good work done but lots of questions to be answered. And I think that this commission has just indicated that while we are eager to give opportunities to make the market special we are going to prioritize integrity. And we're not probably just ready to vote on this today. Is that clear everyone? Commissioner Maynard did you wanna add in? I don't wanna put, I saw you were thinking. Oh, I was just going to say the coaches it gets even more murky because the NFL for example you don't announce a new coach until you're eliminated, right? And then the next day they're out and they come out it becomes even more, maybe even more problematic for the coaches one. So I agree with, if the other one's not for prime time that one's not for prime time either. Commissioner Hill. I would have already lost the coaching that one. If we were allowed to bet. Yeah. Well, I don't think we're ready. I think it's a very interesting area. I just don't think we're ready for it to be bet on in Massachusetts. So thank you, Mr. Levine. I'm gonna let turn it over to Andrew and director Bann. And I know you wanna probably thank Mr. Levine as well. Yeah, Mike, thanks for being on today and sharing with us. Thank you, sir. Madam chair. Before Mike, please, I would like Mike to come back if there are some safety guardrails being put into place. Can you please come back and we can have another conversation about this. I just don't feel comfortable today that those guardrails are in place. But as you move forward, maybe you can come back to us with the same request and explain the guardrails better once you have a better understanding of what we're concerned about. If that's all right now, chair. Yeah. Of course. The invitation stands. Yeah. Thank you. And what we'll do moving forward, madam chair and commissioners is with these unique requests, we'll provide a primer of the integrity systems that we have in place or any third party has in place to answer those questions affirmatively. So you can make a decision based on what's in front of you not just what I'm saying out loud. Thank you. Okay, before you leave, congratulations. Three month old still warrants big congratulations and it sounds like you have a lovely family. So thank you and thank you for your time today. Okay. So Andrew, you still have item 16 for us. Yep, one more item. Last item for review, I believe it starts on page 105 of your packet. This does not come as an official request from one of our operators. However, we have received emails from several operators requesting clarification on certain Super Bowl pregame proposition wagers. While we have provided the official forms for these types of wagers to our operators, we thought it might be helpful to have a discussion and a possible vote on the wagers highlighted in your memo. Within your memo is a breakdown of possible prop wagers for the Super Bowl and only on the Super Bowl, these types of wagers would be prohibited for all other NFL games, football games or any other sporting event. This is strictly for the Super Bowl and strictly for pregame. These markets would close hours before the official start of the game. I've looked into other jurisdictions that offer these types of wagers and it stated that these markets close approximately three or three and a half hours prior to the scheduled kickoff, which in this case for this year, the scheduled kickoff is set for 6.30 PM Eastern time. So if these markets were to close at three or 3.30 PM Eastern time is plenty of time for the operators to settle any of the coin toss wagers as well as the national anthem length. And speaking of the coin toss, we've made a note in your memo that any coin toss wagers are specified for the opening coin toss and does that include any coin toss related to overtime if the Super Bowl is tied at the end of the fourth quarter. The only other item I haven't touched down here is the Gatorade color over the coach. Historically, the winning coach has a bucket of Gatorade dumped on him by the celebrated players. The specific wager you could select from a few offered colors of Gatorade in that bucket. And again, just like the others, this would be a pregame wager and the market would close hours prior to the kickoff. I did see recently in other jurisdictions, operators are offering this wager on the Gatorade color. And just to highlight some numbers, I thought it might be interesting. Purple, this was yesterday's numbers, but purple is set at plus 225, blue is set at plus 275, yellow, green, lime at plus 450, red or pink at plus 500, orange at plus 500, clear or water, because I think Gatorade offers a clear drink, is at plus 1,000. And lastly, no Gatorade bath is an option at plus 3,000. The specific operator, the specific, I believe it was a Twitter expose, orange has moved from plus 550 to plus 500 with 35% of the money, the majority on orange. Again, these were not officially requested by an operator, however, several are seeking clarification and we thought a discussion on those wagers might be best. Manager. Thanks, Andrew, well done. And I'll turn right to Commissioner O'Brien. I thought we had a robust conversation about this, this time last year, when we were talking about things like the draft, like the Oscars, like the Emmys. These are things that don't really fall within things that you can control and have parameters and oversize, et cetera. I have a couple of reasons why I would say the continuing answer is no. One of which obviously is my definition of sportsway during, but also the human element of control and fixing in here is so strong. I just don't feel comfortable that any of these would be appropriate. That's my two cents. Alan here. Mr. Hill, how do you feel about the Gatorade? I saw you thinking. Yeah, so I have a different view than Commissioner O'Brien. If we were to look at the graph that's been sent to us, the first seven, I have absolutely no problem with. The last two, I do have integrity issues with. So I had no problem supporting the first seven on that graph. And that's because, can you just explain? But the two, in case you don't know, it's on the Gatorade. And then of course, the National Anthem Lane. So I would think that you could know, somebody could let it slip, what color Gatorade is gonna be thrown over somebody because of what they're putting in all the thermoses and national anthem length. Somebody could let it slip whoever's singing it. Hey, this is how long it's going to be, blah, blah, blah. The other one's coin toss. You flip it in the air. There's no way of knowing what the result's going to be. The coin toss winner, you don't know who's gonna win it. Coin toss to be retaken. You don't know if there's gonna be a mess. I mean, there's no way of knowing ahead of time. In my view that any of that could be predetermined. The last two, it could be predetermined. Can I ask a question? Thank you, Commissioner Hill. I think we're thinking the same way, but when I saw the coin toss options as well, I'm gonna turn to you, Todd, and maybe your team. I feel like our regulations talked about coins tosses and the probability being a factor. Does anybody have a recollection of that discussion? I'm embarrassed I didn't look at it in advance. I'm sorry. It occurred to me when I saw this and then I just, I slipped my mind to go and look myself. Do you recall that? I have a memory of conversations about the coin tosses, Madam Chair. I do not remember if it also was within the context of regs. I don't remember if it was in the context of regs. I feel sterile presented on it. So maybe it was sports wagering and not regs. It was after the Super Bowl or something, but we could not find it in the minutes or anything. And that's why we're bringing it back to try and get something. It might be a circumstance where the actual meeting would need to be reviewed as opposed to just minutes of the meeting. I hate to say that, Commissioner Maynard, I know you guys work hard on the minutes, but sometimes things get lost. I believe they're in your attitude. Thank you. I feel like the probability of the coin toss and I'm going to admit the fact that I may not have absolutely understood the argument clearly enough to recall it now, but I got comfortable with however we came out. Commissioner Maynard, are you remembering any of this? I remember talking about coins. I can tell you what I thought. I mean, I can remember what I thought, which is I don't want to incentivize creating the national coin toss championship, right? And just, you know, we're now offering coin tosses all day long, you know? But for this particular instance, you know, I see it kind of closely to the way Mr. Hill sees it on this particular game at this particular coin toss, not even for every game, right? Throughout that, but I can't answer to the coin toss. I have another comment on the other two, but I'll hold that until you've explored your coin toss. It may not be resolved because it may be my dating memory. Okay, so let's put aside coin toss. Commissioner Skinner, is that any of that bringing about to you? Not the specifics, but I do remember there was extensive conversation about probability and, you know, how we should be looking at these events if, you know, it is in the hands really of one individual and information could be leaked in advance, like the two items that Commissioner Hill is having trouble with. My question, though, is this is coming to us as a request from sports wagering for clarification. What profits are allowed right now on the Super Bowl? Aside of these. Yeah, so that was actually one of the reasons why I went back and looked through our old commission meetings. I got through to the Super Bowl MVP winner. There was a discussion on the Super Bowl MVP and that's a very huge wager for the consumers and that one is, I believe, part vote and then part media members make that decision. I think it's weighed 80-20. Commissioner Maynard, you were speaking to that last year. So that is the only current proposition wager that I'm aware of for the Super Bowl for this pregame like that. It's other than general NFL wagers that they offer throughout the regular season. Winner, points, sprint, stuff like that. And no operators currently are requesting these authorization to offer these profits? Not officially, no, we received some, we received in recent weeks, we've received some emails from a few operators seeking clarification, but not officially requesting. Yeah, so that's still, I'm a little confused. If we already authorized just that single event, what further clarification is needed, I guess? I mean, if we're talking about adding on to that at the request of an operator, I see that as different as, because we've already decided this, I thought. And I think, it would behoove us to, as was suggested earlier, to go back and really dig into the discussion that we had earlier so that we can be reminded of our concerns and the rationale for only allowing that single event. So I guess just procedurally I'm kind of confused as to why this is even up for discussion if we don't have any operators who are intending to offer these wagers and, and we've already decided on that single event. I believe they would intend to offer these wagers if it were approved. As just Commissioner Skinner that no official request, like a fanatics that requested this wager category for the player, extra coach, ex-next team, those are the official requested to come across our board. As far as the Super Bowl Proposition wagers, they're just asking that official request. But if it allows, they would offer them for the Super Bowl. So if approved, these would go in the catalog as authorized events and they don't need to come forward. Correct. Yeah. But then why not make it this last? Well, that's what I'm saying. I just see a sports wagering sort of making it, you know, doing the job for the operators, I guess. In essence. Also, we have the form that had certain things we said we wanted information on to be able to make an informed decision. So without the request and info from them, it does make it a little more difficult for us to make the decision. So he's saying what Commissioner Skinner was saying, but in a sort of a different way, I guess. Yeah. So we, the few operators that did seek clarification via email, we did send the official forms and they declined to officially submit. Well, that's telling. I mean, it's not that I can't get to a substantive decision here. It's just if they're not asking, I don't see a need really. Yeah, especially the decline. To decide, you know, especially if they declined and the Super Bowl is a week from Sunday, right? That's why we wanted to get it on today's commission meeting. If after discussion it were voted on and approved, it could be wagered on for this upcoming Super Bowl. Commissioner Mayer, do you like the way it is? No, I think they're probably just asking us to reconsider. Right? It's really what's going on. It reminds me a lot when I used to go to my cousin and say, can you ask Dad if I can stay over next week? After he told me no. But that's, you know, it's kind of got that feel to it. But let me listen, the Gatorade, too many people know what kind of Gatorade is. We all know that too many people could know that information, right? National Anthem, I was waiting from the second I got this packet to say that I've seen Reba McIntyre five times in concert. I got a little nerdy on this. I went back and watched her singing the National Anthem in 1978 as well as 1997. The lengths were different each time, right? But the point being that whoever is there doing her mic check that day, we'll probably know within a half a second or so. You know, where she's going to land somewhere between one minute and four seconds and one minute and 15 seconds, by the way. So that's not going to, you know, that's not, that's not going to fly with me. But like, like Brad, I could be persuaded or Commissioner Hill, I could be persuaded on the coin toss, revisiting that and rethinking about it. But that's just where I am. I'd also like an answer on the right question, Madam Chair, that you raised because I mean, part of the reason this was easy to put to bed the last time had to do with that, I'm not inclined to say yes for a number of reasons for more I'm coming from, but that's part of the calculus for me. In addition to that, Madam Chair, I, you know, it was helpful to have Michael Levine on from the fanatics, sorry, yes, fanatics, to help answer our questions relative to garden rails. I know he couldn't quite answer them today, but offered to come back with that information. So that to me is important to this kind of discussion. If we don't have the information available to us, you know, it'd be great to get info from the operators who are in fact, intending to offer these events. The other thing I'll say too is, or I'll ask is whether sports of wagering has a recommendation. On these. Chris, go ahead, Sergeant. I think that this is something that we would recommend at least with the coin toss. I think it's a real popular wager for the public. I don't think that there's a risk in it with the coin toss because it's 50-50. It's done in front of the public. It's not something done behind the scenes. I think Andrew feels that way. Crystal feels that way. We discussed it. I certainly wouldn't go with the Gatorade or the length of the national anthem from our perspective, but I think the coin toss is a pretty safe wager and a very popular wager. So there's also, we don't have any things about like, when are you gonna close it? When's the last time you're gonna have a lot of bet on the timing of the toss? You know, is it X minutes before? Right as they go to the, like, there's a lot that's a little vague about the request that to me and at a fundamental level, if I'm not looking to add to the catalog as one commissioner. And so I would like someone who feels strongly about this as a licensee to come forward and make the ask and identify and hitch themself to the ask rather than go to you guys' back channel and then say, could you go and ask for the redo and the sleepover request? So there's a number of issues that I have with it procedurally, but also substantively where I come from in terms of definition of sports wagering, et cetera, but. Yeah, commissioner, I don't believe it was a back end request, more of our division, just seeking clarification. And then to answer to the point of the timing on the markets, I've seen in other jurisdictions that they close hours prior, even the coin toss, it wouldn't be able to wager up into that very minute when the players are walking out. Right, but my point, Andrew, is because we don't have the form that we've asked them to submit for things like this, we don't know what that is. And so to put us in a position of asking to just sort of generally do it when none of that is really set out in paper or in a form, I have a problem with that. So could I just interject right now on process? Our sports wagering division came to us with a request that wasn't supported by the process that Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Skinner's looking for, is that problematic? Are we saying that Andrews can't come to us and is that pursuant to policy or a drag? I'm going to turn to Todd. Well, I could, since I asked the question, Madam Chair, I'm perfectly happy to answer from my perspective. I don't have a problem at all with a public conversation on policy and to start the conversation. This is keyed up for a vote. And so for me, if I'm going to be asked to vote, I'd like the process we set out followed. That's where I'm coming from. And thanks, Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you. I was only asking because I wouldn't want our sports wagering division to take this approach if it's not going to be welcomed or discussion by the commission as a whole. Obviously they took this approach and thought that it was going to be helpful. And so, and I know none of us are saying it's not helpful, but I guess I just want to clarify so that Director Bannon and Manager Steffen have a good understanding of expectations. I'm going to turn to Todd. Can you give us some guidance here? Absolutely, thank you. Yeah, I don't believe that this is specifically set out in the regulations. I'm going to, in light of this conversation, go back and double check that point. I think this is helpful though. Obviously we're always kind of navigating some slightly new waters. I think this was just a search for some clarification. We do discuss this at a high level in the guidelines within the catalog itself, but it doesn't get into the particulars as to whether these actual propositions would be allowed. So I think that this is a helpful conversation. I don't feel like the commission is dissuading the team from coming forward for clarifications in any way. I think we all understand the concerns, but I don't believe there's a clear process in place, though we will certainly make sure that we have one moving forward. I do think there's a little dissuading because there's a request that they're not getting the paperwork from the operators in affirmative request. I'm sensing for at least two of my fellow commissioners that they wouldn't necessarily want to go forward. And maybe it's because these are harder. Let's just say it was an easy one. We still want to make a better way of asking my question, and it's just strictly processed. I'm not looking for outcome, but if it were an easier decision that we saw the event is without risk, would we be asking for the operator's paperwork as well? Does that help commissioners get on process? Adam Chair, I can clarify. I'm certainly not trying to dissuade sportsway during division from bringing any request forward to the commission. The trouble I'm having is this being presented as a request for clarification when the discussion has already been had, right? And this commission approved a single prop bet relative to the Super Bowl, right? So, I mean, I, as I sit here today, engaged in this discussion, do not have the benefit of having my memory refreshed relative to that discussion. So to me, that's the difference. If we had this discussion already and made a decision, I don't think that there's any further clarification necessary. Now, if this is a request being brought to buy sportsway during to the commission to add additional props to this event, I think it just should be characterized as such. And there is some information that I think, you know, along the lines of what Commissioner O'Brien referenced that would be important to make the decision because it is, I mean, it is a request and for a new event. And I think it's interesting, you know, although I can't really explain why other than that, you know, they declined, but the sports wager operators did decline to bring the request forward. I want to know why, I guess. So that's where I sit. That's where I sit right now. And I no doubt about it. There's a market, I'm sure, for these wagers. And so I, you know, Madam Chair, if we have the opportunity to get this on the agenda for another meeting before the Super Bowl, I'd be interested in doing that. And we have agenda setting. Maybe we can meet for a brief period of time after that before we go into our next meeting. Just throwing it out there, just for consideration. And that would certainly give us time to do our due diligence, just to, you know, come up to speed, come back up to speed on what we've already talked about a year ago. Fisher-Grane. So my position on this is, you know, again, I want sports wager to come bring conversations and issues for discussion to us, but I don't view our role in terms of looking at what is in this catalog as proactive in any way. So flagging an issue for us is one thing. Alterations in addition to the catalog, in my view, whether they're added or not, that's what we decide. And we decide when they're brought to our attention because an operator puts their name on the request and gives us specifics that we've asked for to have a conversation in a manner that allows us to be prepared. So I come from it that way where, you know, if, again, I don't see my role as a commissioner as being proactive to do that. And if it's a request to reconsider, then there would have been a protocol to say, you said no here, you know, whatever, like that's all missing from this. So whether we have, you know, recurring agenda items for sports wagering to bring up topics for conversation with us separately, I don't know, but I don't find my position as commissioner to be suesfante adding things in when a licensee doesn't put their name on it. Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Hill. So there's a process question that's going on here and a substantive question. I think we're, there's a clear consensus that putting process aside, well, I can't speak for a commissioner's, a skinning commissioner right, but I can speak for myself and Commissioner Hill. I think in Commissioner Maynard, that process aside, we're probably not comfortable with data rating and national answer anyway. Okay. Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Bryan, process aside, are you gonna agree? Yeah, I could get with that. Okay, so we got that checked out. So, but I'm going to make my own personal, I'm, you know, private that on the answer now that I've got some information from Commissioner Maynard. So thank you. Now, in terms of the vets, we don't have backup information from an operator. Commissioner Bryan, I think Bryan would look at the reg, it does say that the information has to come from an operator because remember, we were getting some of the requests for coming from integrity monitors. And so we did say operator. What I see here is an attempt by our sports waiting to provide some efficiency. I think that's probably there, right? Director Van, you are seeing some requests for in trying to anticipate. You want more information, Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Bryan, I'm hearing you that you're not even sure how you feel, whether or not it is a sports play during that. I think this commission may have actually already applied and moved on that because we do have some, including the Oscar. Where we looked at the broad definition that Todd just shared. But that would be something that if there were a motion before you, you would, not that, you would vote and explain your rationale on. Now I'm gonna get to the items before us. Commissioner Snell and Commissioner Maynard, you've heard our fellow commissioners expressing concern about process. Help me out, how are you thinking about it? Well, Madam Chair, I, when we had this conversation a year ago about who could ask for changes, I was very uncomfortable with the vote that was taken that would only be an operator. I felt very strongly that, yes, an operator should be able to come forward, but I also believe our sports waiting department should have been able to come forward with suggestions as well. And I as a consumer should have been able to come forward, but that was not the consensus at the time. I understood this at the beginning to be a request of clarity. The sports waiting department was notified by a couple of our licensees to clarify if this wouldn't happen or if this wouldn't happen. I don't think it was a request by anybody. I think it was clarification. And I really am very comfortable despite the concerns that have been brought up by my fellow commissioners. And you know me, I try and be as kumbaya with my fellow commissioners as I possibly can be. But today I really have a disagreement with them on this particular issue. One, because of the timing, it's a week away, two, it benefits the Commonwealth if we do allow this to move forward. I myself don't need anybody to come before me and explain why they think this should happen. I know exactly why this should happen. So I am going to be making a motion today to allow these things to happen. If nobody seconds it, so be it. If it gets voted down, so be it. Understanding that there are some concerns that I appreciate. But I think in my view, and in my opinion, we should be moving forward with allowing these for the Super Bowl. It's a simple adapt for me, Madam Chair. Commissioner Hill, we have not heard from our legal department that there's any reason why we couldn't move forward on this. I'm going to turn to not Commissioner Gross, who's the Interim Executive Director in General Counsel Gross. I can't think of any reason why you can't move forward with this. Certainly, obviously, there's a process by which an operator would come forward with a proposal and whatnot, but the fact that the commission would like to potentially take this action, I think is completely allowable under the statute. And as we talked about before, there's that question as to what a sporting event is and whether it meets the definition and what have you. And I think it's fairly broad, but there's discretion that the commission can exercise there too. So the short answer to your question is, I think you can take this step if you were so inclined to. And I do think the regulation does say operator based on what we had. I don't remember us ever saying, but not ourselves. We are, yes, ordinarily very careful not to restrict our own ability to take certain action or not take certain action. That's right. So I do see a distinction there. That's helpful. Madam Chair? Yes, yes. Madam Chair, I believe the clarification is being sought based on our current approved event catalog. As these are pregame proposition waders, prop waders, prop vets are allowed in our event catalog. And I think that is the seeking the clarification from our event catalog, I'm gonna read quote, the following waders are approved for all approved leagues. Single game vets, teaser vets, parlays over under, money line pools, exchange wagering, in-game wagering, in-play vets, proposition vets, straight vets, point spreads, pleasers, round robins, cash out three ways, spread handicap, totals, player game team props, futures, out rights, yes, no, win place each way. So the seeking of the clarification is based, or is being sought off of our currently approved event catalog, seeking the clarification on the language of proposition vets. As these are pregame Super Bowl prop waders. Yeah, thank you. Because that was gonna be my next question. Did I miss that of how, so thank you for reading it. I don't believe this would be a, I'm sorry, yeah. I don't believe this would be a new addition to the event catalog. We could maybe, I'll leave this up to commissioners or legal to make an amendment to our event catalog, including these certain types of waders under prop waders, but the clarification is being sought based off our event catalog. Madam chair, question. You just said clarifying question. So if these waders are allowed generally, right? I mean, why do we need to clarify specifically which of the prop vets are authorized for the Super Bowl? If they're generally allowed, why the distinction? I think, Andrew, is it fair that you got the inquiries and they just didn't want to, they didn't want to offer these without confirmation. They didn't want to offer these waders and then be out of compliance. It's found and offered for these certain waders. They're being, I think, cautious. And so they changed to us, which I respect that. Commissioner Skinner, so. No, that makes a difference with your clarification, Andrew. It, to me, it makes a difference. Do you want that in front of us in any way? Commissioners, it just didn't happen to be in the memo. Is that helpful or do we hear it okay? Or did it okay to push up? I'd like to answer to bring it up if you have it available right now, yeah. And then maybe incorporate it into our documents. But that was my question, Andrew. So thank you for. So we're looking at the event catalog. This is under our guidelines and comments section in our event catalog, subsection 2A. And I do recall this being approved when former operations manager, Sterl Carpenter, was presenting these almost a little over a year ago. These were all approved as approved waiters. So if it was approved a year ago, did they offer this a year ago? They did not. All right, so to me, this is a request to change this, that in my view, should be coming forward with them and giving the detail in terms of when are the bets gonna be cut off, that sort of thing, in terms of us moving to redefine this. Commissioner O'Brien, just a reminder, the Super Bowl usually takes place at the first or second weekend in February and our online operators did not go live until mid-March. Right, but we had three brick and mortars that were working off the catalog by the time. Correct. The Super Bowl. And they've had a year. So this thing that we're doing on the fly, I find frustrating, not for you, Andrew, but that they brought this to you where they have been operating brick and mortar for a year, 10 months for online. Yep, and it could be something where the operator made these wagers live in other jurisdictions and then they're seeking a clarification here in the catalog. Yeah. They've had 10 months to come back, though. Andrew, I think we should also take a look at number six, just so the commission can get the full picture here, which is the impermissible player of prop wagers. Certainly. So this language, it makes it clearer why the clarification is being sought for me. And Andrew, I hate to say it because I feel like I'm going back and forth. There was the discussion a year ago about the MVP being the only prop that we approved for the Super Bowl. So I'm trying to reconcile that with today's discussion. And I just don't know how to deal with it. I just don't have enough information. So there's actually one on awards, too. So anything about 50-50 in this language on permissible or impermissible? Nothing on the point. All right, I hate to make it even more, especially where we are. Judy happened to find in the minutes where we did discuss this. I think 205CMR 247.034A, regarding that we had a conversation where A&K was giving us information about allowing events to term solely by chance. Yeah. And he mentions coin tosses, right? Those are from the December 22nd, 2022 meeting minutes. So they were actually mentioned in the minutes. I know earlier it was said that they weren't, but I just wanted to clarify that for Commissioner Hill when he was Secretary, they're there. Commissioner Hill, thank you. What's the reg citation, Commissioner, please? According to the minutes, 205CMR 247.03 subsection 4A. So I'm going to bring that up for me because it's a little tricky for me. Thanks. There we go. Thanks, Todd. Happy to quote, Mr. Macarius stated that the provision in 205CMR 247.034A, regarding not allowing events determined solely by chance, would be more akin to prohibiting wagers on a coin toss. That's the direct quote. Oh, could you say that again, please? I was trying to read it and now I know you were quoting, okay, sorry. Mr. Macarius stated that the provision in 205CMR 247.034A, regarding not allowing events determined solely by chance, would be more akin or akin, however you want to put the emphasis on this a lot. Prohibiting wagers on a coin toss. There, that's my memory. There we go, guys. It was on, when he said chance, 50-50, yeah. So now let's look at the provision. Not sure why we decided it when I hear today's discussion, but shall not grant the petition otherwise winnings unless the following, the outcome can be verified. And where, and which one is he precisely referring to? Yeah, there it is. Whether and to what extent the outcome of the sporting event or wager category is determined solely by chance. I think we have a prohibition, Andrew, in our regulations and that may be the end of this conversation for now. Am I right, Todd? Well, if you're on mute, I'm sorry to say. Sorry to my heater went off. I'm sorry. Yeah, this all, I don't have a clear memory of that, but that does sound very familiar. I did have a memory and I'm very sorry that I didn't take the time. No, actually I forgot to take the time to go look. I had raised my interest unless we're reading it incorrectly. I feel as though we, our break doesn't allow the point hospice and direct a ban. I can't tell if you're speaking, but we're not hearing you. Yeah, no, I was speaking, I didn't see that right. See that right? I remember, I do remember, that's why they're not in there on visitors and I have to say, I think I understood at the time why we wouldn't want to include it, but it took me a little bit of time during that discussion. What the risk is, Michelle, where it's left up entirely to chance. We don't have, we know what we could, we know what we could do as a solution. Me now will be joining us around one. What if we table this and then we can revisit our regulation and Mr. Macarius can remind us of this? I'm sure, does that make sense? But right now I would say I would borrow, Commissioner Haley just went off on video, but I would say this is not ready for prime time given this regulation. I agree. Okay, Commissioner, did we all set with that then for right now? Okay, Andrew, thank you. Now we know why they were seeking clarification because it wasn't clear. We'll go back to it when we have Mr. Macarius. So in terms of my anticipated timing, we're running just a tab late, but not bad. Andrew, good work. Good work, Director Van. This is all coming together nicely. You're raising the right issues for us and it's all good reminders for us in terms of our regulatory framework. All right, now we're gonna turn to item number seven and then Commissioner will probably think about, well, we'll see. We might be able to get through a, probably we don't need to have some lunch break, but we do have a lot of work this afternoon, including an extensive presentation by Mr. Macarius. So all right, so we're turning now to item number seven and I see, hello Katrina, you're joining us. Good afternoon and- Good afternoon. Is there a lead on this? Is it Carrie? Yes, good afternoon, Madam Chair. I can kick us off here. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Skinner. I'm sorry, I hate to do this. I know we have guests joining for this presentation. Items seven AMB seem to be pretty lengthy items for discussion potentially. And so I would at least need a break, five or 10 minutes if we're not going to break for lunch at 12.36 now after three and a half hours. Yeah, I'm gonna need lunch some point in the near future. Carrie, what do you anticipate for this? I think Commissioner Skinner is correct if there's a chance this could be fairly lengthy. So if you want to take some sort of break now, whether it's a short break or a lunch break, I'm gonna be very mindful that we at some point we have to make sure that Dr. Wall presents because he has a very narrow window. So we're gonna have to go out of order. We've got Mr. Macarius who wasn't available to a one and then we've got a whole group from the Attorney General's office. I'm navigating as well. So I think everyone for their patients, commissioners, could we take about a shorter lunch today? What do we need for time? Well, it's 12.37 now, if we come back by one, that's 23 minutes. Do you feel okay about that? Come back about one. That's fine with me. Yeah. Commissioner Maynard, are you all right? I know you're in the office with me. You okay with that? All right. Okay, everyone, thanks for your patient and thank you, Mr. Christian. Christian, we did see you join. We'll reconvene at one, everyone. Thank you so much for your attention. Commissioner O'Brien, does this sound better or is it still echoing? You sound perfect now. I reset it, but I left the meeting and came back so I don't know what happened. It's just like a glitch. Yeah, it was almost like you had two of them going and you could kind of hear what echoing. It wasn't bad, like we couldn't understand you, but you'd never had it before. Excellent, okay. Thomas, thank you. Hey, Gly, we got that subtle, Brad. And if Katrina is listening, thank you. I thought it was supposed to warm up a little bit today, but ooh, it is still cold out. Well, thanks for that, Brad. Of course, my dog loves that, so she's going, she's barking to get outside every five minutes right now. I have to trench home through that cold, so thanks for that. Sorry, Bob. You don't walk all the way, do you, Bruce? Well, now it's going through that concrete street that's like a wind tunnel up to the de-station, you know? Yeah, yeah. I used to walk home from the train station, but not in this weather. Yeah. I was always told, you know, the old saying about Chicago being the windy city, and they decided to do a wind test, however you do that, and Boston was like number two, or number three in the nation. Because of, you know, the ocean, I'm sure. Yeah, yeah. When I went to school in DC, it was that way too, that wind would just come down the streets and, you know, I guess all the concrete and asphalt just gives up the temperature. I don't know if dogs get sick, and I'm sure they do, but mine's been down and out for the last day or two, just very lethargic. Yeah, probably because of the cold, you know? Yeah, maybe. I feel that way sometimes too. Doesn't make me want to run outside and run around. I have a family member that just came back from Florida. When he got there, it was like 75, 80 degrees. When he left, it was 40 degrees. Oh, wow. So they haven't, they haven't somebody. It sounds like my son, you know, I told you he lives in Fort St. Christy, and he always is playing. So cold. I said, well, what's the temperature? He says 61. I said, stop whining. I always see those pictures on Facebook or whatever. You can tell who the Florida residents are because they're sitting there in their winter coats when it's like 65 and then you see us coming down and we're all without our shirts going into the ocean and swimming. Yeah. In your shorts and everything else, yeah. It's all relative. It is. Boy, things are getting ugly with the teacher strike in Newton, I see. I was just looking at some of the news and one of the teachers got hit by a car and got taken to the hospital while they were out. I think we're still streaming, Brad. It's okay. Thank you. I hope she's all right. Yeah. That's been like 10 days now, is it? I believe so. Brad, can you repeat that please? I was looking at the news and one of the Newton teachers got hit by a car while they were out holding signs and she got taken to a hospital earlier, I guess. Okay. I'll be right there. Thanks so much. Your basketball team all done, Brad? Yeah, we completed our season last Friday. You'd be back next year? I would hope so. That's good. This was a growing year for, I had a very young team, freshmen's and sophomores, and they, you know, they're coming together. Yeah, that always takes time. Yeah, it's a good, good group. I like watching that girl from Iowa play. Yeah, I guess she just came, went into second place last night, I think on the all-time scoring for college. She just has such an outside shot. Yeah. So quick, too, with the release. Yep, it's fun watching somebody play like that. Well, as we're getting into February now, you know, I've been watching the college football games, both male and female, and the cream starts rising to the top, you know, as they start getting ready for March Madness, and boy, there's been some good basketball if you're into it. Oh yeah. I... Commit to hell. Yes. I want to tell you that I have a very, very close friend of mine. I've known forever, he's my college quarterback in high school, high school quarterback, and you know, I tell this in grade school. His daughter is the head basketball coach at Rhode Island College. Oh, nice. She's undefeated, she's ranked like sixth and then eighth, really incredible. So down the road, if you're looking for, if you have one of those kids that come up and it's D3 basketball, certainly think of Rhode Island College. I will for sure. Okay, Dave, thanks everyone. I just have to thank you, I expect to call. So Dave, can you bring down the screen? Thank you. Just seeing, you're waiting for a couple more, I thought it might be last. Great, thanks. Are we live, Dave? Dave, Susan, are we live? Still are. Okay. So I'm reconvening the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's meeting that started this morning at 10. It's public meeting number 498, it's February 1st and I want to thank everybody for a bus meeting but we'll do our roll call, Commissioner O'Brien. I'm here. Patricia Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank you and Commissioner O'Brien. Good afternoon. Okay, we'll get started. So we had quite a discussion around sports wagering, presentation on the general market request around certain Super Bowl clock wagers including coin tosses, which I actually got out correctly, Todd. I don't know if we wanted to revisit it before we end up having Mr. Macarius come on, but I know that you were going to look at that regulation because you weren't sure if it was a strict prohibition or some consideration that the commission would be making. Yes, I did look at the regulation and we can certainly walk through it, of course. But I just, the one point I was just clarifying is that there's not a prohibition on any wagering that involves elements of chance. It's just one of the factors that the commission can consider when making the decision. If we look at the language real quick just a little bit and then we'll move on. And then maybe Mr. Macarius can remind us why it's even in there as a consideration. Sure, so let's see. As I said, I think I struggled with this when we first heard it and it stuck with me. Okay, okay, so this is the section again. You'll recall the talks about petitions for a sporting event or wager category that is considered a new sporting event or category. Yes, that operator made petition, that was our change. That's the operator part, which is not exactly what we're doing here, but it does make sense to certainly tether or disreview to these standards, that's certainly to some degree. And then it talks about what the petition that the operator submits has to include. It says it has to be in writing and it must include at a minimum the following. And then it goes into the name of the event, whether the event is a variation of one that's already approved, the name of the operator who's sponsoring it, and then a complete and detailed description of the event, including a series of things. And one of them that we looked at moments ago was this one, whether and to what extent the outcome of the event or categories determined solely by chance. So that is just in the section that talks about what the complete and detailed description has to include. And then section E just talks about eSports, so I'll submit to you not relevant to this particular conversation. And then it's also required that they provide the name of the sports governing body to the extent known a description of the policies and procedures regarding event integrity, and then any other information that the IEB or the commission may request. Now here's the section we were just looking at, section four, this says the commission shall not grant the petition or authorize the event unless the following are met. And we look at those that the outcome of the event can be verified, that the event generating the outcome is conducted in a manner that ensures sufficient integrity controls. The outcome is not likely to be affected by any sports wager placed, and that the sporting event is conducted in conformity with all applicable laws. So those are things that the reg says the commission has to consider. If they do exist, the commission cannot allow it. But then you'll see as we look through some of these following ones, that the ultimate decision is really discretionary on the part of the commission and the reg was designed to gather all of this information. So you have all of these data points before you. You can require that a certain testing or experimental periods be put in place. You can seek input from governing bodies or the entity conducting the event. If there's any technology that can be used, you can investigate and look into that. And then here's where it gets into the decision-making part. The commission may grant and I limit, restrict or condition a request made pursuant to this rule, may revoke, suspend or modify any approval. This gets into any changes. And then it mentions down here, the commission may use any information it considers appropriate, including but not limited to information received from the governing body and determining whether to authorize or prohibit a particular event or wage your category. I just wanted to read through the other two. So what's really not elaborated on in our regulation but commissioner Maynard and thanks to Judy Young found that our minutes did reflect our discussion about events that are purely of chance and to commission Maynard's point akin to a coin toss, but it doesn't really help us understand what why that should be a consideration. And that's why I'm wondering if we have wait for Meena to join us commissioners, does that make sense? But now we know it's not a prohibition but rather a consideration. And I don't know if we have enough to really reflect on that as a consideration, substantively, is that fair right now? Yeah, I think that is, I bet those are my sentiments exactly and I expressed them earlier in the meeting is just the justification for why we decided what we decided is gonna be really important here because I think it's important that we be consistent. Yeah, okay. So if you don't mind then Tom will wait to see, given that Meena made a statement that was reflected in the minutes, it makes sense to ask for his assistance. Then we're gonna move and Andrew again, that means you've got to kind of stick around a little bit, I'm sorry to say, but don't go far. Thank you and thanks for everything. All right, thank you director Van. Now we're moving on to two more matters that are sports wagering relevant and first we'll turn to item number seven and back to attorney Theresa, thank you. Yes, thank you madam chair. Good afternoon again, madam chair and commissioner. So on January 23rd, the sports wagering division received notice from both better and Wynn-Vett that they intend to cease operations in the Commonwealth, more specifically better plans to cease operations on February 16th and Wynn-Vett on February 23rd or such earlier date as may be approved by the commission. I'll just note here that there's a typo in my memo. It says the February 24th, but the date in the Wynn materials is February 23rd. So my apologies there. Both operators have submitted their cessation plans pursuant to 205 CMR 258 and those plans are included in your packet beginning on page 110. And today they are both seeking approval by the commission of those cessation plans. In addition, where 205 CMR 258.01 requires that a sports wagering operator intending to cease operations provide notice of such anticipated cessation no fewer than 90 days before the cessation is anticipated to come effective. And where here the notice from both operators was provided with fewer than 90 days before the anticipated cessation of operations both better and Wynn-Vett are also seeking a waiver from that 90 day notice requirement that is outlined in 205 CMR 258 and those waiver requests are also included in your packet. To get started here, I'll walk through the regulatory process and requirements for you. And then I will turn it over to director van to discuss the actual plan submitted. As you know, 205 CMR 258 is the commission's regulation governing a sports wagering operator cessation of operations in the Commonwealth. The regulation outlines particular actions that may be taken by the commission upon receipt of notification of a sports wagering operators anticipated cessation. Options available to you pursuant to the regulations include ordering the operator to cease offering or accepting new wagers within five business days or such longer period as you determine, appointing a conservator or receiver to manage and operate the business of the operator in the Commonwealth through and after the intended date of cessation or taking any other action that the commission deans necessary to protect the integrity of sports wagering in the Commonwealth or to otherwise protect the interests of the Commonwealth. In terms of the cessation plans themselves, the regulation requires the operator to submit plans addressing certain areas within five business days of providing notice of intended cessation. As I said, both better and WinVet did submit those plans with information addressing the identified areas in 205 CMR 258.03A through H. I'll just run through here what the regulation requires the plans to address. And those are the distribution of winnings to patrons holding unredeemed wagers, the refund of pending wagers that will not be paid out before the cessation of operation, the distribution of funds in a patron sports wagering account maintained by a sports wagering operator to that patron. The closure of sports wagering accounts maintained by the sports wagering operator. The closure of the sports wagering operator sports wagering area, sports wagering facility or sports wagering platform. The sports wagering operators plan to satisfy outstanding debts and obligations, including excise taxes due to the commission pursuant to chapter 23 and section 14 and 205 CMR 240, which relates to adjusted gross sports wagering and adjusted gross fantasy wagering receipts. The sports wagering operators plan to communicate the cessation plan to the public patrons and vendors, including applicable timelines for cessation and a description of the status and current balance of the letter of credit or other financial assurance mechanism held by the sports wagering operator pursuant to 205 CMR 238.126 and any information necessary to permit the commission or it's appointed conservator or receiver to access and use such letter of credit or other financial assurance mechanism to satisfy the obligations in 205 CMR 258.031A through F to the extent feasible. So again, both operators did submit plans related to these topics that I've just outlined, but of course the sufficiency of those plans is a question for the commission's review and that's something you may want to consider today before approving the plans. If you feel that the plans are in any way inadequate, you can deny the request for approval of the cessation plan or you can require reasonable modification to the plans or impose conditions on the plan. Before I turn it over to Director Bandel also just walk through how the rest of this process will work pursuant to the regulation after the cessation plans are approved, whether that's today or at some date in the future. If you request modifications to the plan, we would ask the operator to amend their plans and we submit and we would return a later date for commission approval of those plans. We can of course work internally with the operators on amending any areas that the commission deems insufficient. Once the cessation plan is ultimately approved by the commission, the operator must then publish notice of the plan within five business days on the sportsway drink platform, on the operator's website and social media platforms and also in a daily newspaper of general distribution in the Commonwealth, including online. That notice is required to include instructions on how a patron may collect winnings or unnamed wagers and how a patron may collect remaining funds in their sportsway drink account. Additionally, following approval of the cessation plan the operator is required to submit reports to the commission on its implementation of the plan at least every 10 days. I'll note here that this requirement comes from 205CMR 258.04 and there seems to be a slight ambiguity in the reg which we can add to our cleanup list. The regulation suggests that the reports might be required to be submitted 10 days after notice is received but of course the intent and the most practical application would be that the reports are required to be submitted 10 days after approval of the plan. These reports are required to state whether the operator is on track to complete cessation by its approved effective date or whether the operator needs additional time and whether the operator seeks to amend or deviate from its approved cessation plan. After review of these reports the commission or its designee may require reasonable modifications or imposed conditions on an operator's cessation plan. The question of reporting is one that we'll wanna revisit following your approval of the cessation plan whether that's today or at a future meeting to determine how you'd like to manage review of those plans moving forward. Once the operator has completed all actions required in its cessation plan or on the approved cessation date whichever is earlier the operator must submit a written report to the commission notifying the commission that it has completed all actions necessary for cessation and requesting that cessation become effective. Following that report the commission or its designee will issue a written decision approving or denying the cessation request. If the cessation request is denied at that point the commission or its designee may require reasonable modifications or imposed conditions on the operator necessary for effective cessation. And just to remind you that cessation is not effective until the commission issues that written decision approving the operator cessation request. So if there are any questions on process I can answer those and otherwise I will turn it over to director band to discuss the actual cessation plan submitted by better and Wynn-Bett. Then I'll note as well that we do have representatives from both better and Wynn-Bett on the call should you have questions for them. Yes, Madam Chair, commissioners, I'd like to... Director Band, before we go on I'm trying to re-seat Director Band is gonna go through the plan. Will you be helpful helping us go through the checklist at the same time? Yeah, that was how I was gonna kind of do this for you. I also wanted to start by introducing the representatives from better who's Ashwin Krishman, Robert Warren and Alex Ursa. And from Wynn-Bett, we have Jackie Crum and Jennifer Roberts who are all here today to answer any of your questions on the plan as well. So to get on process just to be efficient I'm hoping that attorney to re-see can kind of let us know from a legal point of view has it been, Matt, is that coordinated efforts here? I think that, so from a legal standpoint their requirement that they submit certain materials as part of their cessation plan has been met. The question as to the adequacy of those plans I know that Director Band and also our IT director Katrina and our finance director intend to raise some points on those as well. Okay, and okay, I just wanna make sure we get the legal sign incorporated in. Okay, great, thank you so much. Madam Chair, I just have a clarifying question for Carrie, please. Carrie, the reports that you talked about the first one being due 10 days after approval of the plan, is that every 10 days? I mean, although we probably don't have that at this point just given the timing here and the expected cessation date but it is every 10 days. Yes. You talked about a clarification that needed to be made to the regulation that I missed. Could you review that once again? Yeah, the language of the regulation sort of says that the plan is required both, the way the sentence is written suggests that the plan is required both 10 days after the plans have been approved and also 10 days after notice has been received but of course that's not really possible in the practical sense. So it would make more sense that the plans would be approved 10 days after, pardon me, the reports would be required 10 days after the plans have been approved so that they can report on how their process is going with the approved plans. And thank you. And thank you to the team because you answered my process question how are we going to get all the information needed to be able to make this assessment? So thank you very much, Carrie. Okay, now Director Van, my apologies for interrupting you. That's fine. I'm going to start on page 111 which is Better's Cestation Plan. And they jump around a little bit according to our regulations which is 250-803-1. If you look at their first part, number two is section eight for that which is Better does not offer future bets. So that kind of eliminates the problem with any future wagers in there on the distribution of winnings to patrons holding that so that number two addresses that for them. Any questions on that? Okay. Those are straightforward. Thank you. Yeah. And then as far as the second the, you just kind of, this one's a little tough to match up. As far as Better informing the Massachusetts customers about the change on February 12th, we thought that was a little close with them ceasing operations on the 16th. We would suggest that they notify the people similar to what Win Bet's doing, which would be 48 after getting approved for the Cestation Plans 48 hours, which would give everybody plenty of notice. Thank you for speaking to that because that was one of my questions is why not upon approval of the Cestation Plan? Yeah, that was kind of what legal and actually all of us in the group would recommend that they go with 48 hours after approval, which would give plenty of notice for everybody. Do we have any like a red line or anything like that? So that's my apologies. Yeah. So the first change that would be recommended if you could say that again, please. Yeah, the time where it says February 12th in line three. Yeah. Yeah, that would should change to 48 hours after approval is the Cestation Plan. Okay. And then we had no problem with the publication of number four, the publication of the Cestation Notice. Well, I had a question. I have a question. Would that also be with 48 hours within 48 hours after approval? Yes. Thank you. Do you want that clarification, Commissioner Skinner? Yes, please. I think it needs to be clarified. Yeah, a lot of timing. Yeah. We recommend in all this that staff work with better on clarifying dates and times in this. Well, I think that we're going through this now, Bruce. So we're gonna just exercise a little care so that we have to do a vote. We know what we're voting on. So for we'll say that the timing is that 48 hours notice. Hopefully. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Okay, then it says on number five that on February 16th, better will release any deposits that might be locked due to sign up bonuses. And just to clarify what that is, is a lot of times to get a bonus, you have to put a certain amount of deposit in there and keep that in to get the bonus. So that's what it's referring to. We needed some clarification on this to some extent too, because they say that this all happens on the 16th. Is it the gaming day? What time on the 16th does this happen? Beginning, we're recommending that this actually happens on the 17th, at the end of the 17th at a certain time. And we would get this clarified with them then. Ashwin, if you have a time that this would be best for you guys. Does that work for you guys? Yep. Just one minute, please. I see commissioners. Yeah, I've got all kinds of people who want to talk. So that's good. But first you Chris just kind of gonna go with Mr. Ursa and then I'll go to you Lucia. Okay, thanks. Chris just gonna, I bet you might be asking the same question I'm gonna ask. Go ahead. Yeah, perhaps. Just hoping to get a little bit of context for this item. What, why February 16th? Why not now? Or I'm sorry, why not upon approval of the cessation planner within that 48 hours? What is the distinction here? And can I answer on this one? Right now? Sure. Yeah, so the reason we thought about it is like, if we would all do that today basically, we would open ourselves for bonus abuse during this time between the moment we like this, the plan is approved and the moment we see this operation because basically someone would, could we draw attempted to, we draw both those funds and play the bonus and that's the reasoning behind it. But if the commission feels strong about it, I think that's something we will look to accomplish and find way to mitigate it. But from I would say anti-fraud perspective, we thought that this is the best practice to do it after we close operations. So there's no ability to abuse the bonus offer. That was the reasoning behind it. Well, thank you for that, Madam Chair. I have a follow-up. Just I don't understand. So are you still offering bonuses right now or would you still offer bonuses upon approval of the plan? I think that's actually a good point that maybe we should have considered. I think we could do one thing where once the plan is approved in, let's say also 48 hours, we could stop offering the sign up bonus, basically not tying any more deposits. We might actually need a bit more time for that than just 48 hours because we might need to do some technical adjustment. And then in that case, we could release the deposits well ahead of the day of when we plan to stop operation. So we are, I think that could work really well for us but I think we might need more than 48 hours from the plan approval because for example, theoretically, let's say the plan would be approved today or tomorrow, we wouldn't be able to accommodate this over this weekend. Do I get that there may be a business incentive to continue offering the bonuses but just in terms of what you're trying to do here, the practicality of continuing to offer them when you're trying to wrap up operations is lost. I just, I don't see the... Yeah, I totally agree with you. So I think that's something that honestly we haven't thought of. I think it's a really good idea that we're very open to integrate. I think the request would be, again, depending on when the plan is approved to have like a reasonable timetable to disable the bonus and release them. So we have time to do that rather than over the weekend. So what you consider bonus abuse is only applicable during the period of time where you are offering the bonus but then also allowing people to withdraw. Yeah, so the way it would work, I'll give you a real example. So basically, if I sign up today, I do a deposit and I get my bonus. If I release that bonus right away, they could withdraw their, sorry, release the deposit. They could withdraw their deposit and also play the bonus. So basically they would play the bonus with actually not respecting the wage rate requirements. And again, I think if we would do this in a way where we stop bonus at, let's say, in 72 hours or like four days after the approval and then we release the bonuses one or two days later, I think that could work really well for us to achieve that well ahead of the date. And also to reduce and mitigate as much as possible the bonus abuse. But if the commission feels strongly about it, we will accommodate and we will take that, let's say the cost of that specific bonus abuse as part of this closure. Yeah, I just, I for one, just in the spirit of your ceasing operations, I think it makes sense to just stop it all, just stop offering the bonus. I understand. Yeah, I think that's, again, it's a great idea. And I think again, depending on the timing, we would definitely accommodate that. I think that's something we can take on both right away. Okay, commissioners, so this is a point of, commissioners raised a good point. I'm still not sure about the date because we're giving like a February 17th, but I think I'm hearing it still based on the 48 hours after the approval of the plan. So February 17th doesn't necessarily seem magical to me, but that's just logistics. How do we feel about the policy decision? And I guess our reg is silent on it, right? On the bonus question. In terms of the cessation, yes, there's something specific. What is it about? Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Bryan, Mr. Maynard, I've heard from Commissioner Skinner. I understand the meaning, Madam Chair. I understand the reasoning behind Mr. Erse's explanation and I'm okay with it. We need to give them time to make sure that there is an abuse taking place while they're leaving Massachusetts here. So we need to give you time, Mr. Erse, but we also I'm hearing what Commissioner Skinner is saying. So there's gotta be a happy medium here in the middle somehow. So if what we could do is I think, what we could commit is I think the idea that was proposed is really, really good and we can accommodate it. If it's a two-step process, we agree on a specific number of hours or days to stop bonusing after the cessation plan is approved and then a couple more days after that to enable to basically release those. Well ahead of that, I think that's something that's very reasonable and we can accommodate. I think my only comment on the communication, again, giving the proposal was to do it in 48 hours from the moment the plan is approved. Again, depending when the plan is approved, it might be hard to accommodate it right away. So we might ask for like 72 hours or like just half time to have it ready to be delivered. Again, just for the sake of the exercise, if this would be approved today or tomorrow and we would need basically to publish something in a Massachusetts newspaper or the weekend, which might be difficult. Madam Chair, I think that's an appropriate plan and I think our staff can handle those discussions. And Director Bandy, you're following it and does that make sense to you? Yes, that would be fine. Okay, I'm not hearing any objection from Commissioner O'Brien or Commissioner Maynard on that. Mr. Jerry, is that working for you too? Yeah. Yeah, no, it sounds reasonable to me what Commissioner Skinner proposed, what he's talking about. Commissioner Skinner, are you okay with that? I am, so I'm clear. For any patron who does not redeem any bonus bets, they would have the equivalent of the value of those bonuses refunded or they would be available for them to withdraw upon their cash. So the way it would work is anyone that has a bonus that is tied to a deposit, so the deposit actually is protected, we would remove the block from the deposit and they would be able to withdraw right away as soon as we remove that block, which we already agreed to be ahead of the station plan and we will let the customer know. On the bonus side, that's not, let's say that's something we awarded to them, they could use it and withdraw any winnings or once we close operation, those would be forfeited and as those were funds that were granted by us part of the promotion. So Madam Chair, I think we need, I guess, legal to help us confirm how we want that reflected in the plan. Yeah. I think Director Vance got it. Yeah. And one other thing that we need clarified to is exactly what time on the 16th are we talking midnight or? So if we do it ahead, as we discussed, then like we'll give you, let's say again, we can discuss offline, we pick a day and a date, I think we could agree before a specific hour, again, this process might take a few hours so it's really hard to commit for a specific hour but we could say this is gonna be done on this day by this hour, something like by conclusion of the business day and I think that's something, again, we can easily accommodate. We just need that to be more specific in the plan. Okay. Okay. And so, sorry, just again, Madam Chair, just you're, we're kind of marking up this plan in case we are going to be voting on it today. And so I ask, I think legal again, how we should reflect the proposed changes in this document that we're reviewing. Well, I think there are a couple of options. If we find that there are, you know, many amendments and changes today, you can request that the operator make those amendments, the staff work with the operator to make those amendments and we can come back with those updated plans for your approval. If you're comfortable given the conversation, you also can vote on approval on the condition that all assertions and statements that were made today are inserted into the final plans. I'm not sure that we have given, depending on how many sort of amendments you're seeking today, I'm not sure that we'd be able to sort of turn around an updated plan today. I think the hope was that we would discuss and see what sort of amendments you're seeking given what was provided in the plans. So then what would that do? We don't have another meeting until I think the 15th, right? The proposed cessation. We can always have another meeting. Yeah, we'll be there with me, Chair, but I guess what I'm getting at ultimately is the temp license expires when February 23rd. And so that, is that not the drop dead date, right? Or, you know, they've, I think better is withdrawn their temp license request or maybe haven't even submitted it, but either way, upon the expiration date of the current temp license, they're no longer authorized to conduct sports wagering in Massachusetts, right? So like just how do we deal with that in terms of timing? I mean, and I'm just asking that we factor that in. Right, and if I can just add here, I mean, we're happy to commit to timeframes to try to get this, you know, done here, understanding the time constraints here. You know, if we can agree on, you know, reasonable timeframes, whether it's three business days, five business days, we're happy to do that just so that we can, you know, move forward here and not, you know, have to do this all over again or especially if there's no meeting until the 15th. So this is what I'm gonna suggest, let's continue. So far they haven't been significant, significant changes. And I like Kerry's approach that perhaps the changes will reflect our discussion. If they're so complicated that our discussion isn't gonna be sufficient, we'll work on that then, does that make sense? I do know that our regulation takes into consideration, I believe, the impact on the business itself too, right? Kerry, that we, in terms of timing, so let's just see how we proceed, okay? Conscious Skinner, maybe it will all work out better. Yeah, I can shoot, we can shoot for that, but I will say that I consider these changes significant because they relate to the timing of notice to consumers. Well, they are, oh, I'm not saying, I'm saying just, I'm sorry, the wordsmithing, that there's significant in substance, but maybe not significant in terms of actually amending the language, if that's helpful. No, I'm not in any way diminishing the significance of the notice, et cetera. Thank you for that. Mr. Erso, thank you. Thanks again. I think if the commission feels comfortable, we are happy to make commitment, specific commitments for the call today on like dates and hours if needed. I think we were open to that then. Yeah, just wanted to let you know. Okay, how are we feeling about item number five? The February 17th needs to be revisited, Bruce, I think, right? Yeah. If we can get a time for the 16th or just make it straight February 17th. Let's make it February 17th. Let's make it February 17th and I'll work for us. All right. Okay, I'm sorry. We're talking about item number five still, right? Yep. Correct. The original issue that I raised was the February 16th date. Why is it not sooner? But what I'm just hearing is you're proposing to make it a day later. That was the proposal that he first started with this February 17th, okay. So now answer, let's answer. Commissioner Skinner's wondering why it's not a sooner. Well, can we maybe do this? Can we commit that we will communicate to all patrons our cessation Tuesday, February 6th, which is about four or five days from now allows us to prepare and then allow any bonuses to be withdrawn. Sorry, any deposit that were tied up to be withdrawn on February 7th by 5 p.m. Eastern. I think that's something we can commit right away. It gives us a few business days to accommodate and execute on these items. I'm looking at Carrie, Katrina, and Derek that look like you might have questions with that proposal. I just wanted to make sure I followed, I think we jumped back to one of the earlier items. So you would be proposing in number three that that date, because we had discussed changing it from February 12th to 48 hours after approval of the cessation plans, but you would be amending that to from February 12th to February 6th. Yes, and the reasoning again, it's like it's a weekend assuming it's approved today, we need to prepare, like we have a few days to prepare and execute and would be ideally sooner but up until then to be done. We wouldn't let it last minute, but that's our proposal for the communication. And then just to make sure I understood your proposed amendment to number five, it would be that you would stop offering signup bonuses 72 hours after approval of the plans and they would be released by February 7th at 5 p.m. So I would say on that one, if again, if it's okay, we would propose that we stop offering bonuses by also by the same date as the communication. So we can communicate that part of just one communication that covers both bonuses and cessation. So we don't send customers multiple emails with different things. And then up until the eight, we would allow people to anyone that has a tight deposit to withdraw it or to be able to withdraw it. My only question is for number three, does that date need to be consistent with the date you're proposing in five? Why couldn't that remain within 48 hours of approval of the plan? Again, if this would be approved today or tomorrow, it would be very hard to accommodate in like Friday afternoon, for example. Let's say it's approved today, 48 hours takes us to Saturday lunchtime. And it's gonna, would be hard to accommodate by then. I think that's the only thing that we were bringing up. What will be hard for you to accommodate to stop accepting wagers? No, to like, for example, all of the things being able to communicate the plan and stop offering the sign up bonuses, there are some operational steps we need to take. Towards that, we need to likely review terms and conditions faster. So it would be hard to execute all of those items in 48 hours from today. If today would be a Monday, I think we would feel comfortable with 72 hours but given it's a first day afternoon, we don't even know if the plan would be approved or not. I think it would be hard to commit it for 48 hours. But if we put a specific date into it, I'm very confident we can accommodate that. So you wanna merge three and five here, just for ease. Yep, okay, thank you. May I ask one more clarifying question, just so I'm keeping track of the amendments properly. On number four, we had also discussed adding for the notification, the social media notification within 48 hours of approval of cessation plans. I just wanna make sure I understand that sounds like you're saying you want to sort of lump all of your communications together. Would that, is your amendment that that one would remain 48 hours or would that also become February 6th as your proposal? February 6th, again, I think it just would allow us to coordinate and make sure we execute the plan correctly and we cover all items. And that's Tuesday, February 6th, yeah. Yes, yes. Making it a date certain that she will help us out, right? Carrie? Okay. Bruce, back to five, are we all set on five? Yep. Okay, then number six is better will inform all the customers that have funds, how they can withdraw their apps, their funds through the app. Anybody have questions on that? Okay. Would this also be included in the notification on February 6th? Yes. Yeah, we wouldn't wait for it. So basically we would cover all the communication that needs to be done by them. And of course, I think we all agree with the best practice from us to follow up on those communications to repeat them a few times, especially for those who need to withdraw funds. So we will continue to do that through the process before and also after the cessation in case the patients still have funds in their accounts. Okay. All right. Thank you, Director Ban. Number seven, customers will be able to withdraw their funds from the app until March 16th, 2024. After their funds, after that, any customer that has not withdrawn his or her balance, a check with their funds will be sent to the fiscal address they have on file. Any questions? Okay. Number eight, on February- Director Ban, did I jump in there just on one point? I have a question here too. Because I don't think that, yeah, I don't think that follows the unclaimed law that the treasurer asked us to follow. But unclaimed is three years without action, right? So if the check is not cast within three years, they would then have to follow that process, right? Well, it's a whole process of trying to reach them first to make sure the address is accurate. So there are all different sections of that law. And I don't think this appropriately addresses it. That can be one form of trying to contact them. Right. Now you bring into the question of is 30 days sufficient timeline? And I know that the next proposal we'll have is also referencing 30 days, because it's basically gives them 30 days to take their money out. Well, it gives 30 days and then says they're gonna attempt to disperse the funds to them that way, which I don't think is illegal. The question to your point accurately is, if that fails, what's the next steps to comply with the law? Correct. And we don't have that here. Should we? We can certainly request that amendment. Yes. You'll see that the second association plan submitted does include language to that effect related to unclaimed properties. So we could insert, let's say similar language be inserted here. I suspect attorney Roberts and attorney come down line sharing that language. Should we readjust that now? No, no, no, no, not you, Dan. Okay. Following section 200A of the. Do we have some language that you've already added that we could borrow? Yes, following section 200A of the mass general laws, I think is the exact language. Okay. Could you, for the benefit of the commissioners? Thank you. Yep. Okay. Anybody wanna share it? And you don't have to share it on the screen, read it. I'd be happy to help. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So we have one bed customer representatives will use good faith efforts to contact all patrons with any remaining balances. Any unclaimed balances will be handled in accordance with chapter 200A disposition of unclaimed property, which sets both the, I'm just at living now, which sets both the process for contacting and ultimately turning it over to the state if it remains unclaimed. Yeah, I forgot that your plan is right below this one. So I could have gone to it myself. So thank you, Jackie. Not surprising you're helping us out here. Does that make sense that we just, that we, would that address your concern, Derek? It would address my concern. And how does the operator feel about that, Adam? We're happy to add that in. Yes, thank you for that. Oh, okay. That was a really important pickup to win bets. Thank you and Derek. Thank you so much. Adam, Sarah. I apologize. I lost connectivity for a little bit. And so could I just have a quick recap? It's with the whole plan. It's all good. I understand Derek raised the concern, perhaps. And Derek, it was a good concern on it. And one, particularly relevant to you, it's about the treasures. Priority, Derek, why don't you bring on Treasurer Skinner up today? Yeah, so under number seven, it's just their plan to deal with the closure of accounts that people don't withdraw was to send a check. And that doesn't necessarily follow all the guidelines that the Treasurer's Office has. So Encore had included in there, WinBet had included in theirs a language. And we're just going to adopt the language from WinBets and the operator. Better said, they're okay with that. So this should be a relatively quick fix and we'll move on from seven. And Jackie and Jennifer were kind enough to share. So thank you. All right, does that work then? We can move on. Okay. I'm looking at my, I'm looking at Kerry because I want, if I see that, that's a good sign. Commissioner Valsett. All right, let's move on Bruce. No, number eight on February 16th, they'll modify all revelant help desk articles that mentioned our operations in Massachusetts. Any questions on that? Number nine, we'll create dedicated. Director Band. Yes. I apologize before moving on, if we are going to request that they notify customers where they're anticipating notifying customers on the six, the help articles, it would be my recommendation to have those updated to match as well as consumers may be going to their sites for information. Okay. I think that's a fair request. We just didn't want to, let's say before the, we stop operating in Massachusetts to have no mention of Massachusetts in our help desk files because we felt that might be a bit strange to our customers. Maybe we do like an intermediate step where we introduce just language that we would stop operating and then we remove all mentions of Massachusetts on that. That is just again, if the commission prefers just to be moved it faster, but we're okay with it that we just felt we didn't want to create some ambiguity with the customers. Yeah, based on the language and the item as it's written on February 16th, we will modify all relevant help desk articles that mentioned our operations in Massachusetts. It doesn't specifically state that you're eliminating it. So based on that language was my recommendation to make sure that the articles is reflective of where you are in your process of cessation. I think that's a really good feedback. So then what we can commit is like on the same day we do all the communication, we update mentioning that we are stopping, stop operating on this specific date, the data will be approved. And then after we stop operating, basically we remove mentions of mentioning Massachusetts and removing the Massachusetts houses and so on from our app. And Madam Chair and commissioners, are you okay with that suggestion? Yes. Thank you. Are you okay with that suggestion, Kachina? What's your concern? I am now. Number nine, they will create dedicated fact page within the help desk that will explain to customers all the steps they need to take to withdraw their funds, address other anticipated concerns. And I would include how the customers get their tax forms in that. So the good news is that the way we set up our operations so far we haven't triggered any tax form. So we could just mention that no customer should expect tax form from us. And I just wanted to mention that. Okay. Any questions on that? Kari, are you okay with that? Yes. Just get her, you're monitoring. I was just gonna ask if we could have a copy of the FAQs. Okay. Okay, so we will make that available to the commission. Let me look at the calendar. 6th of February, end of May. And number 10, you have all vendors have been notified about your plan and they'll be informed about the substation date. You've already notified them. Do you have a date that they were notified? So we notified them that our plan to stop operating Massachusetts. It's the same day we notified the commission. We also told them that we would get back to them once the plan is approved with a specific date and specific steps that they need to take. Most of them do not need to do anything. But again, we committed to them that we will go back once the plan is approved. Okay. When we update this plan, we'll just put in a date that they were notified as for them. Question. What about communication to any occupational licensees? Has there been notification? Just looking at the regulation 258.06, surrendering of license. And my other question relative to all licensees is whether there's anything affirmative required by our licensing division to notify individuals or end vendors. I'm gonna turn to Todd and Carrie. I don't... There is a requirement in 258, Ruka, that the plan needs to include how they will notify vendors. So I think their response here is saying that they have notified vendors. So we hadn't necessarily asked for additional information about how they would make such notification. But hearing that there will be additional notifications to the vendors, we may want to insert more language here for a date that they will provide that additional information to the vendors with the specific cessation date and any additional requirements for the vendors. We can commit to that today. Again, it really depends on the approval date. Assuming if this would be approved today, we can commit again, communicating to all vendors Monday, February the 5th, in case this is not approved today. I think we can commit to 48 hours after approval. And the occupational licensees work for us, so they all know. So I'm not sure what the concern was there. I'm reading the regulation, which states that their licenses shall be surrendered. And I don't know if there's anything required, in particular from those individuals or from our licensing division. So that's the question that I have. Is there anything more that needs to be done on our side? We can look into that question further, Commissioner Skinner. I know that we have a little bit of time on that one, given that that wouldn't be part of the cessation plan itself. But we'll occur once the cessation plan is finalized. And I'm sorry, not the plan. The actual cessation, the written determination is issued and it's finalized and approved. So we can take a closer look at that. Thank you, Carrie. Of course. Any other questions? Okay, on to number 11. They'll introduce a geolocation block for Massachusetts that no wager could be accepted on February 16th or 17th. Yeah, there needs to be a different date now. Yeah, 17. Yeah. And is it after February 17th? Is that? Yeah. Is it going like this? And you're saying? We would do February 17th, again, I think 16. The reason we were thinking 15, 16, I think it's worth mentioning why we chose that date. Basically, there's an NBA All-Star Break that starts and the last NBA game is on the 15. So basically 16 would be a very quiet day from a sports perspective and would be the perfect day to wind down the operation. It's also, it's not a Saturday. Sorry, it's not a 16 would be a Saturday. And again, we would need a vendor to apply the block and while they said they will be ready to accommodate, again, I think we would appreciate if we could do that block on during business hours, during the work week. So if in case the vendor needs to intervene, they have the relevant support. If I may, Madam Chair. Yeah, we need to know what exactly the timing is. Thanks, Katrina. Exactly. So if this was actually a clarification point that I needed as well, if there are no events according to number one on your cessation plan, no events will be available for wagering on February 16th, but then in number three, I'm sorry, in number, where is it? Yeah, in number three, it states that you will stop accepting wagering on February 16th. It seems a little conflicting. The geolocation block would have to be executed at the same time that no wagers are available to be placed. Correct, but it's like a succession of plans. So the first thing we would do is make sure there are no events published on the app. So that means anyone that goes inside the app is not able to place a bed. There's nothing to bet on. Once that's happening, we need to execute some technical things on our side. And one of them is for the geolocation vendor basically to disable the Massachusetts specific geolocation license. So that means patients, there would be multiple blocks in place to stop a wager. No events to be available to bet on and they couldn't pass the geolocation check. Like that's, let's say, a set of steps we wanna make sure we actually block the wagering. Well, we believe the first one will address it. I think we cannot leave the geolocation on after that specific date. Yeah, and that is my... We can choose an hour. But we can choose an hour. So I'm having, this is, I'm gonna note that this is probably not the most efficient way to run this meeting. And we suggest that probably staff and operators get together and really agree upon these before coming to us. Because right now I've got the team and the operators debating. But we need to get through because it's important. We have a request for some better. So Katrina, I'm getting confused because you were mentioning February 16th and I thought we had different dates now of February 6th. And so... My unders... Without redlining, I'm really, I'm having a little problem following and I bet my fellow commissioners are too. My understanding, Madam Chair and Carrie, feel free to jump in and correct me from wrong. The February 6th date is the date for all notices and communication regarding their intention for cessation in the jurisdiction. And then February 16th, it was like February, 48 hours after February 16th at the very beginning, what is number one? Still February 16th? Or is it now February 17th on number one? I thought number one was still February 16th and that's why the geo block would happen on the 17th. And that was the confusion with number 11. 11. Right, okay. So 16th is still on the first. Now in terms of number 11, I understand why that was confusing that if the 16th was still the right number. So are we deciding by midnight of February 17th or is it after February 16th? Can we commit by midnight, February 16th for both items? I think that makes it clear for us. Yes, that works for us. I think it's just a misunderstanding here. Like we definitely don't want to make the process more complicated. Okay, so thank you. So February 16th, are we all good? And I want to turn to my telecommissioners because I'm turning to the team too. How are you up and are you okay? Commissioner Bryant is off, but Commissioner Hale, are you? Okay, so far, Commissioner Skinner? I know you don't. Oh, go ahead, Commissioner Hale, fine. I said fine. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Skinner, and thank you for all your very fair questions. Are you all set for right now? Okay, and Commissioner Maynard. I'm all set. Okay, good. All right, so now we caught our breath on number 11. I understood why that was confusing. Number 12. Okay. Beginning on March 16th, any person in Massachusetts that downloads the app will receive an eligible location message in the app, and they will not be able to log in, but the account will still remain open in our system. This is because we're ceasing operations in Massachusetts and not closing the entire platform. Any questions? Is that a typo? Should that be February 16th? And if not, is there any reason why the messaging couldn't be deployed sooner? So we will have part of the communication plan. We will have these kinds of messages before the ones that we agreed on February 16th. But if we do not allow patients to log in before, sorry, on February 16th, they will not be able to withdraw their funds. So that's why we were thinking, and we thought about it. It's a month of us trying to communicate to the patients and make sure we're able to give them the opportunity to withdraw the money from their accounts from the app and then following what we discussed before the other procedures for the funds after that date. That's why we chose that date. Well, for downloads, those are arguably new patrons. Correct, but the way our platform works and we have one app across the US and people can sign up from different states to our app. So we don't want to block sign up everywhere, but the way we do work is we block usage of the app in Massachusetts all together after this date. So I need a little bit of help. So if you are in Massachusetts physically, you have the capability of having a dedicated message for individuals, saying that the app is no longer available because whatever your message says. So help me understand. So if you're downloading the app for the first time and you're in Massachusetts, that would seem to me to be a different population of folks than the folks who might need access to the app that they've already downloaded for the purpose of withdrawing their funds. Correct, but as any other operator in the US, the way it works, you have one app that works across the entire US and the moment you download the app, like they could have the location services turned off, they could sign up without allowing location services on. So like from a technical perspective, we will not be able to guarantee in any way that we block everyone from Massachusetts. So that's why we said after this date, consumers in Massachusetts will not be able to like log in or create an account on our app. That makes, you know, would make us comfortable that we only allow usage of our app outside of Massachusetts in the bomb structures. I need to pause for about three minutes. They're, and I will return to think about how we continue on better big-cast and that is not criticism better. It's not criticism of anyone who wanna make sure we're being really clear to the public and they're getting some increase. So I just wanna double-check on where we are. Carrie, perhaps you can call me, that would be great. Thank you. Just so that we can stay organized on our meeting. Thank you so much. Good afternoon again, I'm so sorry. Jennifer and Jackie, thank you so much. And thank you to all. I will have to do our roll call again. Okay, I've got everybody, all right. So this is a recent meeting of the Massachusetts Game Commissioner and I wanna thank everybody attending for their patience. I have to do our roll call because we're holding this meeting virtually. Commissioner O'Brien, good afternoon. Good afternoon, I'm here. Excellent, good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. Hello, mommy here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. And good afternoon, Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. So I first off wanna thank both operators. We understand that this is a very big decision for your businesses and it's also really new territory for us. When we wrote the reg for cessation, we probably had different scenarios in mind. And it includes a 90 day notice and we all know that that hasn't been met here and we do have a waiver request from both of the others. I recognized immediately, well, sort of immediately that this was a complex matter that probably will most efficiently be resolved in two steps. And I've spoken with Carrie and Carrie, thank you and thank you to our team. We rely on the expertise of Katrina and Derek, the IT and finance respectively and of course, Director Van and so does Carrie. It became clear that there were enough questions coming up today, but the best way in Carrie's an agreement, is if Carrie and team go back and meet in two separate meetings with the better and with WinVet and then resolve to our team's satisfaction, the outstanding issues come back with a red line for the commission. The commission may still have some questions, but I think it will be efficient. And honestly, I know that I was losing track and I believe that the public was losing track of our conversation and we want to be very transparent and clear in our meetings. And I think we agree that in this case, this is the most efficient way to approach these two questions today. I am very sorry for the disruption and I'm sorry for the operators that didn't go as smooth. We pride ourselves in our meetings and this time we just need to do a little bit of a pivot and we appreciate your flexibility. How does that sound to you? Alex, I'll turn to you. Does that make sense? If we can get that meeting as quickly as possible and then we can make ourselves available, of course. And Jackie and Jennifer, I understand that yours still has some treatment to do too. I'd rather have it all vetted with the team and then come back and then again, both of the commissioners will have, it'll just be much clearer to us. Commissioners, how does that plan feel to you? Okay, I see it. And Commissioner, I have one question if possible. Yeah, I see it. I'm just going to check in with my fellow commissioners. That sounds good to me. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Skinner, okay. And Commissioner Maynard. Okay, excellent. And yes, Alex, thank you, Mr. Ursa. Given that we kind of floated some days before, I think we need to meet either later today or tomorrow morning first thing. So the commission has a chance to review this as soon as possible. So we can even if we might need to move things one or two days later if needed. Like we still also have coins and that the date is coming fast and we don't want to delay it. So we would make our sense available whenever the staff is available. And Carrie and I did talk about timing. We understand the sense of urgency. Commissioners, we may have to be a little bit nimble in terms of what we can do for a meeting date, but I am going to ask Carrie to take a little bit of a pause, look at the calendars and work with Mr. Ursa and with Ms. Roberts, if that works. And then of course our calendar, okay. Commissioner, is that okay? What one request that we would have if it would be possible to receive all the questions before the meeting. So we complete that with answers rather than debating in that meeting. I think if we had those questions ahead of time, we would have maybe submitted another plan or a revised plan. I think just meeting, if we don't have the questions ahead might take long because again, we might debate or we might discuss about it. But if we get like a list of these other things that we have questions about and these are the things you need to address in the plan, we can come up, we can send in advance of the meeting and updated plan to answer those questions and any deficiencies that are deemed. So the meeting should be streamlined then. Yeah, well, and Carrie did mention that, maybe back and forth, I'm going to defer Carrie and you as the most efficient way, but I do think you all got to get into a room virtual together and come up with an agreement on these matters. You can do back and forth, back and forth, that may not be that efficient. So whoever gets into the room should be able to be nimble enough to be the decision maker on some of these questions that come up. Does that make sense? Carrie, am I putting this in the right light for you because right now I want you to be able to proceed in the most efficient way and Director Vann, how's that feel to you? Yes, it's good. All right, okay. So thank you to all of you and to Chief Lennon. Chief Lennon, thank you for your expertise. And I think we will now move on to our next item, which will be IEB's presentation. Again, my apologies. I anticipated a little bit of a challenge on this, but it just became more challenging than we thought. Thank you so much. Okay. Moving to item number eight. Good afternoon, Chair. Thank you. There you are, Kathleen. We have a single memo from you. You want to remind us as to the page on 134 commissioners. Sure, happy to get started. Good afternoon, Chair and commissioners. The IEB has three sports wagering non-compliance matters to bring to the commission today. As you recall at the agenda setting last week, we discussed a new process in which the IEB will be providing a shorter overview of these matters to the commission. So our plan today is to implement that practice, go through the three matters that are outlined, provide the commission with some basic information about the non-compliance, including the statute and regulations that were implicated, the type of non-compliance and just a general idea of the number of wagers and total stakes involved. After providing those briefings, we'll be asking the commission for some guidance as to how to move the matters forward. And as the commission recalls, there are the three options available to you. One being to set the matter up for an injudicatory hearing. The second option being to refer the matter to the IEB pursuant to 205, CMR 232. And then that third option is the civil administrative penalty option that the commission hasn't utilized as of yet that's outlined in section 16 of 23N. So we can get started if that works for you, Chair, on the matters. And the first matter we have involves MGM Springfield and Géandre's gonna present that to the commission. Thank you, Kathleen. Good afternoon, Sam. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, Géandre. Thank you, you're going first. Okay, thank you so much. Sure, good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. The IEB has conducted an initial review of a sports wagering non-compliance incident, which occurred at the sports book at MGM Springfields, a category one sports wagering operator. The non-compliance involved one wager that was less than $10. On a regular season, Northeastern University men's basketball game in violation of mass general law, chapter 23N, section three and 205, CMR 247.01, 2A2. The wager was part of an eight leg parlay in which two unrelated legs of the parlay already lost, making it a losing wager overall. And at this point, I'd ask the commission its preference for next steps as to how to handle this non-compliance matter. Want to go over our options again, please? Sure, I can happen. So the options available to the commission are to set this matter up for an adjudicatory hearing similar to what we've done with other matters in the past. The commission is also, can send this matter back to the IEB pursuant to 205 CMR 232 either for further action or review from the IEB or the steps that are available to the IEB under that particular reg. And the third option is the civil administrative penalty option that's available under 23N, section 16, where essentially the commission has the ability to issue a civil administrative penalty and that would then go to the operator to see if they wish to challenge it. Commissioners, looking ahead is a similar matter if they'll come before us in a second. Zach, I believe, what do you want to do? Commissioner Bryan, you want to weigh in? Can you, what was the status? I'm sorry, of what happened to the bet? So the bet was part of an eight leg parlay and two unrelated legs of the parlay already lost which made it a losing wager overall. And then what have they done with it? Dispositionalized nothing? To my knowledge, they void the part of the parlay that's part of the parlay that is- That was illegal with the parlay. And then they, because the other part lost they didn't do an adjustment. They just said there's nothing to do. So they have not reimbursed the bet. Yeah, Commissioner Bryan, we don't have any real facts on this except that's in the, so this is where we are doing this. Yeah, I mean, it's walking somewhat of a fine line but to me, without knowing that it's hard to decide where to put it. So it was under $10, is that what you said? Correct. Yeah, and ultimately a losing parlay. So the question really is, there's two questions for me as one is what do you do with the bet? Do you make them pay back the money that was put down or do you just walk away because it was all a loser? Or do you give so much of it? Is there some portion that goes back because a portion of it was illegal? And then in terms of a fine, is it sent back to IEB given the nature of it? I know Commissioner Maynard is probably gonna remind us this is a statutory violation which I know we've been treating somewhat differently. Well, and also right now we wouldn't be deciding, we would just be deciding the process. Right, I guess what I'm hinting at is while it's a statutory violation, the amount is de minimis and I wouldn't wanna consume a lot of our time adjudicating it that way but I also know we've been treating all the statutory college violations by kicking it to an adjudicatory hearing. I think we should move this along and treat it differently but I would love to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say. Who wants to go first with Commissioner Skinner? Yeah, I'm in agreement with that. I think because the amount involved is so small and the number of wagers is so small, I would like to see this proceed under the IEB under 205 CMR 232. And I think the facts that we've been presented, I know they're more minimal but I think the facts that we've heard so far sort of lend themselves to this test case, if you will because I'm very curious about what that process looks like. I know we've been holding adjudicatory hearings on these statutory violations but I am curious if there's any matter that I think would be good to see how the IEB process plays out for the first time. I think it's this one. Madam Chair, I'm in full agreement and just to take me back a week or two when we were discussing the one, the twos and the threes, at any point as a commissioner, I can look at the dashboard of everything that's been sent one, two and three. And if I feel that something should be moving up the level, we can do that. Am I accurate in my statement about that? We still have to finalize that policy but I think it would be that you could come to the commission and ask the commissioner to take a vote. I mean, I think this should go there first but as I look at the dashboard, as it's moving forward, if I do have an issue, I certainly want to be able to come back to the commission and I'm hearing that I can do that. So with that caveat, I have no problem sending this to the IEB first. Well, just to clarify, I'm sorry, can I just ask a clarifying question? Just under that 232 process, it does, it comes back to the commission for like a ratification of whatever IEB is deciding. Is that right? My understanding, and of course, I'll defer to Todd and Harry assuming that they're on is if the IEB were to decide that this warranted civil administrative penalty, then it would come back to the commission for essentially ratification of that civil administrative penalty. If we were to recommend suspending or revoking the operator's license, something of that nature, that would also come back to the commission for the commission's ratification. If the IEB determined that just a notice of non-compliance, a formal notice coming out of the CEC office were the most appropriate. I don't believe that would come back to the commission for its approval under 232, but certainly any sort of fine or more significant action as to the actual license would have to come back for the commission's approval. Is my understanding, and if I'm saying something wrong, Todd or Harry, feel free to chime in. I don't think that's wrong. I just had one more thing to Commissioner Hill's comment. The idea of looking at all of the potential violations and being able to request that some of them be handled in a certain way is really just for the group one or category one. This one is here before you. So there's really no mechanism to pull it back another way. What we're talking about now is what you would like to do with it. So it's a little bit different from the kind of, what you were mentioning earlier. Can I make a suggestion? Thank you for that clarification. Sorry, Commissioner, can I just... So I'm wondering, because this will be the first time should the commission decide to send this matter that way to the IEB, is there an opportunity? Just given that we haven't finalized the group two process yet, is there an opportunity to have this go to IEB, but at the same time, have it come back to the commission regardless of what the recommendation is gonna be. So penalty, period of, you know, these talked about suspension, which I don't know if that's even reasonable for this particular incident or a notice of non-compliance. Just so that we can get an understanding. Am I frozen? No, we can hear you. No. Okay, just so that we can get an understanding of sort of what the IEB's process is for reviewing these particular items that do get sent back to you. Does that make sense? Yeah, I would just... Yeah, I think, so Commissioner Skinner and Kathleen, please feel free to correct me if I have this wrong. I think the only instance under the reg that you wouldn't necessarily see this again were the IEB were to find that there were no violation ordinarily, and that would kind of put an end to this particular matter. But otherwise, if they were inclined to resolve it or propose that a penalty be imposed, it would come back before you. So I think your ask is a narrow one, which is in the event that the IEB finds there's no violation, you would like to know that. Well, just Kathleen talked about a potential notice of non-compliance option. So even in that instance, I'd want it to come back just for a review and understanding of, again, the IEB process. So a notice of non-compliance, inherently is a finding of that there was a violation, right? So, Commissioner Skinner, did I make this recommendation that we give them, if we're going to give them permission to manage this, that they manage it the way that we've imagined, and then let it, the decision stand, except to the extent it has to come back to us. And then if they just issue a non-compliance that we can get informed of that, but we wouldn't change it. Is that what really, you just want to know what, how they decided it, but that you're not saying you would overrule that, right? Yeah, yeah, that's fair, but most importantly, I'd want to understand what their rationale is for whatever recommendation that they're, whatever they impose. For me, an equity issue because we've had at least one other incident where there was a relatively small dollar amount involved and a relatively low number of wages. So I'd want whatever decisions that come forward from the IMB to be consistent with those that we have, this commission has already decided. But we haven't necessarily decided those. And that's, I just want to remind everybody, we do have some adjudicatory hearings coming up. We have some decisions that still are coming out. When we first started this, Commissioner Maynard, I know that we were working to set the tone. And I think that's what you're looking for, Commissioner Skinner, consistency. Those decisions aren't all out yet to the IEB. So, you know, I'm not sure we're just gonna catch up first but we have this one in front of us. Do you, you know, I think we're gonna let them make a decision, we gotta let them make a decision. If you think that they still need more data from us, share part of this is to really understand what the proposal is for the group to matters, right? And I think a way to do that in order to get comfortable with vesting the authority and IEB to make these decisions, I think it would be helpful to understand how they would go about those decisions. That's just me as one commissioner. So I guess I'm wondering what, okay, so let's just look at what's in front of us right today. We have to make a decision. Do we want to keep it and go through an adjudicatory hearing on it? Do we want to ask IEB to decide it when we get their decision, you know? I'm asking for IEB to, I'm asking for this to be sent to the IEB with sort of a tweak in what the current proposal is around these group two. I am proposing that they come back to the commission sort of just to report back. I'd like to see, you know, the report that they've drafted up relative to their fact finding and, you know, what they base their decision making on. And I'd like to know what the decision is. I don't, I'm sorry. And Caitlin, first off, I do want to know about this regulation, but before we get started, first off, Caitlin is not feeling well today. She's not going to appear on video, but first we do want to congratulate you again. Thank you. You're selected. Yesterday after quite a grueling public process, you were fabulous and we want to congratulate you on your selection as our new director of the investigations and enforcement bureau. And you should be proud of your team today as they appear in front of us now. So thank you. Thank you so much. And I knew the team would handle this today without me here. And I'm sorry I can't see everyone in person, but I'm honored and excited and ready to get to work. But with regard to this particular, this question, Commissioner Skinner, I would be very comfortable if the commission decides to refer this matter to the IAB. Once the IAB decides what to do with the matter, that we would come back to the commission in sort of, I think, one of two ways. If there were a penalty or some other more serious action, as Kathleen describes, that would come back to the commission by reg, so that the commission could review that and you'd understand the IAB's thought process as part of that review. If there were going to be a notice of non-compliance, I think, per the reg, it doesn't state that that would have to come to the commission, but in this instance, very happy to bring it back to the commission sort of as a notice of, this is what the IAB decided to do. This is the rationale and this is how we proceeded. And then I think in that way, you'll have a sense of the IAB's thought process behind what it's doing and the commission can provide feedback at that time. So if that's what you're proposing, I think we'd be very comfortable with that. I'm changing my mind. Thank you. Caitlin, I have a question. Are you saying that you would come in front of us for the notice of non-compliance to say what you're going to do or what you've done? I would suggest that we would say what we have done and then explain the process. And then if the commission, we wouldn't be seeking confirmation or approval of the notice of non-compliance or saying that there was no violation if that was the case based on the facts, but it would be more of a, here's what happened and here's how we got there and then we could get feedback. Yeah, and I think that's what I was proposing to commissioner Skinner. So, and that follows the regulation. Yes, that's my understanding, yes. So commissioner Skinner, is that okay? I'm not particularly case you just want to hear their thinking, but not, but the decision will have been made. That's right, yep. Okay, excellent. So that would be a proposal. Commissioner Hill, I think you were saying you were good with that. Commissioner Maynard, how are you feeling about that? Do you want to, and this is I think that, again, reminding us of the three choices will focus on either adjudicatory hearing or sending it to IEB. I think commissioner O'Brien has said she was comfortable with sending it to IEB. Yep, okay. And then she also acknowledged that you have mentioned and I think all of us stand by that. We look at statutory violations with a different eye. So how do you feel? I think there's a majority here. I think the only cautionary tale I have is that when we delegate our authority, we delegate our authority to make decisions and to make changes. And I totally trust the IEB. It's not that at all. It's just, you know, sometimes I see things a little different. I guess I would say this, what puts me off a little bit about it is that, you know, that we can't make changes. We're just going to hear kind of what the decision was. I don't ever like to be put in a situation where I can't make a change if I feel like that's my job. I feel like it's my job. I mean, it's in the statute on 23 in, but happy to delegate it, happy to see how it goes. But I am not going to just accept whatever happens and not give feedback if I don't like the way it went. I'm just going to say that right now and that's not to offend anybody. I'm just telling you right now. So, you know, I'm level setting that, you know, if I don't like the way it was, I will tell you I didn't like the way it was. And it's not because I question the expertise or that I think my expertise is better is that I have a job to do and I got to do the job. So, that's where I come from. If I could just respond to that commissioner Maynard, I think if the IED were to recommend a civil administrative penalty or any sort of fine, I think it would have to get the commission's approval. I don't think it would be that the IED would be coming forward saying we are, we find the operator if hypothetically that's what the IED felt was appropriate. I think by statute, the commission actually would have to sign off on the civil administrative penalty. So in the event that it were a recommendation that the commission did not approve, I think that that would prohibit it from being finalized. So I think that what Caitlin was proposing, the notice of intent that that's what the IED were to decide that I do think is would be a more final decision that we could certainly get feedback that perhaps the commission thought it was more serious and was more worthy than the notice of intent. But if it were a fine, I think that the commission has to say as to the amount and whether that would actually be ratified, it would be the IED's recommendation of a fine to the commission if that helps at all. So I'm gonna add in and I'm hearing Commissioner Maynard, you know, delegation authority is a big topic for us because we were appointed to do a job and impose our judgment. Sometimes it's not always aligned with each other or with members of the team, but we all know we're all working to do our best in our jobs. One of the concerns I've alluded to is that we had hoped to give a little bit more of our values and our thinking around these issues to you when you start making these decisions, IED. And I know we are a little bit behind on our judiciary hearings and our decisions. And I'm gonna turn to Todd. This is where we've got a little bit of a schism here because, you know, Commissioner Maynard would like, and I don't know if that word's your name out, if you can correct me, like me would like to have had those, that tone, the setting of the tone out there so that when we came to this juncture, you would be informed of it. And, you know, I think that that's, when I envisioned this delegation authority it just seemed as though we would have more of our tone set to our decisions. So, you know, I guess I'm looking for a little bit of a timeframe on that. And I know it's with IED, it's with you legal, there's a lot on your plates, but Commissioner Maynard, is that what you're thinking? And we have a few decisions that would be helpful. Yeah, that's fair. I'm not trying to be unfair here. I'm just trying to get my position and I hear the position of the team too. So, you know, and, you know, there's, in state government, there's an expectation that when one group says, this is how it is, it's hard to question that in public. And I'm just level setting that I will question it in public. I've got an issue with it. I'm not gonna rubber stamp it. So that's, you know, that's just where I'm coming from. But I wish the decisions were out, but is what it is. Can I just add into that in terms of, I feel like we've messaged pretty strongly what we feel about statutory violations and some of what we have at, you know, is out in terms of repercussions. And the only thing I would say is that this exercise wouldn't stop this commission from moving forward in another way. We're not gonna be a stop from saying in that circumstance, we expect you to pay out the patron in this manner. Like if, so I do this recommendation to send it down to them, trusting that of course they've been listening to what we've been saying and what we prioritize. And also as a commissioner understanding, this is not going to, you know, foreclose us taking a matter and saying, you know what, this is how we think you should reimburse the patron or fine going forward. Anything else, Kathleen? No, I hope everyone, I've heard everyone appreciate the comments and I'm happy to turn it over to Zach to turn to the next matter, which involves fanatics if that works for the commission. Thanks Kathleen and thank you Zach. And thank you, Yandra, we appreciate it. And so this is, I think actually do we need a vote to direct it to IEB? Don't, and historically we haven't done a vote on these, it's been a consensus for how to proceed. Okay, well, we'll go with history. IEB, well, we'll direct the subject. The one that was just presented to IEB. Thank you, that'll turn it over to Zach. Thank you. Thanks, Kathleen. Good afternoon, Chair and commissioners. This is an alleged incident of non-compliance by temporary category three, sports wagering license holder, FPG Enterprises, OPCO LLC, doing businesses, fanatics, betting and gaming. The statute and regulations implicated in this matter are general laws chapter 23N, defining a 23N section three, defining sports event and 205 CMR 247.01 2A2 prohibiting wagering on any collegiate sport or athletic event involving teams from the Commonwealth unless they're involved in a collegiate tournament. The incident occurred on December 13th, 2023 and involved a single wager on an unauthorized event featuring a Massachusetts college team. The wager was one leg of a five leg parlay bet. A substantially similar incident also involving fanatics was presented in the January 18th public meeting and the commission shows to move that matter to an adjudicatory hearing. If the commission decides to move this matter to an adjudicatory hearing as well, I anticipate there will be significant overlap for joint or scheduling purposes. Thank you. Commissioners, same choices. I would move this adjudicatory just because we've already done part one and we've decided to go down that route. And so I think we need to finish off given the overlap on this. What was the amount, Kathleen, as that, I'm sorry, do you remember of the first one? The first matter was $50. I believe this matter, the total handle was $2. And sort of any other fact that's distinguishing from the one that we just handled? No, I can represent that I've had conversations and read reports from fanatics and it would appear that as far as reasoning, et cetera, on this, there will be a significant, if not lockstep overlap with the other matter. And in terms of the one that we just dealt with, in terms of facts. And from the other fanatics manager? No, that DeAndre, that we just decided to delegate to IED. Certainly, I would say that similar resolution with a different operator in regards to avoiding one leg of the parlay, but otherwise, as I said, it's more similar, I guess due to the nature of the event, similar to the other fanatics event. It's just that in the earlier one, we decided to do an adjudicatory hearing. That is correct. And that was $50. Correct. And that was the future spent. Yes, that was a bet that was made in the first week of December for a football game that was to occur. The last week of December, I believe this is a matter that the wager was placed in the morning on the same day of a basketball game was canceled shortly thereafter. Okay, commissioners, thank you, Zach. Thank you. I'm okay doing the same thing, Madam Chair, that we just did. The commissioner held the, the commissioner O'Brien just pointed out that because on the first fanatics, we decided to do an adjudicatory hearing that we should treat this one similarly and combine them in the adjudicatory hearing. If we can, if we can join them, then that would be the proper thing to do, obviously. And I'm sorry, I missed that. But, okay. And so, commissioner Maynard, are you thinking the same thing? We can do that. Mr. Skinner, I guess the decision to have the commission handle it by adjudicatory hearing extends, how does that impact the operator? Is it more burdensome for them to go through an adjudicatory hearing versus the administrative process with IEB? I think the adjudicatory proceedings already more to deal with for everyone. Okay. I know that they asked to have it treated together. I had hoped that we could do these two together and now I'm realizing why I'd hoped that because we decided the first one to do an adjudicatory hearing and I'm wondering if we had held over, would we be making that same decision now in light of the decision we just made? Commissioner, as I do need your attention, I'm looking for eyes here. I hate to say that to you, but I'm reading the room, I need to know. So, Madam Chair, my memory is that I had suggested that the prior one that we treat it, you know, that we either hold off and we didn't do that. And so the recommendation was to go adjudicatory because that's how we have been doing it. I do think if these were both in front of us, we might be in a different posture. We'll be sent them both consistent with the first one. The reality is we've already sent it down to IEB for adjudicatory. So, this is working out the case. Could that be reversed is what I'm wondering. Yeah, I don't know. That's really my question. I don't know if the hearing notice has gone out on that matter yet. That would be the only thing, but I think there's a misdemeanor to that thought yet. So we knew that from IEB, we knew the second one was coming, Madam Chair, and we knew there'd be a potential bundle in them together. So we haven't yet sent out the hearing notice. So the wheels have not started turning yet, so. Yeah, and Justin, I appreciate that. It's really helpful. Commissioners, we can decide to join them in an adjudicatory hearing and do a fanatic student adjudicatory hearing and then do, it was NGM Springfield that we just decided to go through the administrative process. With IEB. If you're looking for opinions, Madam Chair, I would rather send both of them to IEB and not having a adjudicatory hearing. If we're allowed to do that, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think that would be my opinion. Madam Chair, I think I'm of the same mind. Could you just, Zach, remind us of the amount of issue in the other matter? $50, did I hear? That's correct. The first incident was $50. The instant incident that I would briefed on today was $2. Both involving a single wager. Single wager, correct. The first one, I believe was an independent wager and this one was one part of a five leg parlay. Okay. Yeah. I'm comfortable with sending them both to IEB. With the same conditions, the same expectations is that they report back to us so that we can have an opportunity to comment and give feedback on the path they've chosen to take. Justin, can you remind me if we've issued the second, we haven't yet issued the second EVH matter after that decision? Is that ready to go? I can speak to that. Go ahead. I circulated that to the commission for final approval and I basically need signatures. So I can finish that and get that out. Justin, is that one of the ones that you're managing? It's what I'm wondering. Caitlin, we've got all the process. I'll take it over from Caitlin now. She's a twice engaged. Sure. A little different process. We're trying to navigate that because it's hard to do it by email. All right. Then we do have a little bit of data for that decision making to inform because I think one of the concerns we had was the equity in between and the commissioner's going to yield it to it. Commissioner Maynard? I'm fine. Let's just send it down. Okay. And let's finalize those other decisions. Thanks. We'll do the two. So that do we need, I don't think we need a vote to reverse our decision. Looks like IEB and legal anticipated this very discussion. So thank you for that. Okay. I'm going to move on then to. One more for you all today. The last matter for the commission to consider is in a non-compliance matter involving that MGM which holds a temporary category three sports wagering license. This non-compliance relates to violations of general laws chapter 23N, section three, as well as 205CMR 247.01 subsection 2A2. Todd actually I think pulled up the specific portion of the statute earlier that this one implicates. This involves college football player props through the same game parlay component of the platform. And just to break that down, it means that wagers were placed with an outcome dependent on the performance of an individual athlete. And this took place over the college football season. In total, it involved over 15,000 wagers and the total stakes were over 200,000. Could you say the last fact of 200,000 again? The total amount collected involved over $200,000. $200,000. So this one I think should go with Judicatory. I believe this is hats off to our sports rate during team for some auditing work that caught this as opposed to a self-reporting. And so the breadth of it, the statutory violation, the number of bets, the money, et cetera. I think this warrants a Judicatory. I agree. And no one has any objection. Thank you for the facts that you've presented, Kathleen. Sure. I'm just going to show her Hill. I'm just looking for him. I am now on my phone, because as you know, I have to go to appointment, but I am in agreement. Yeah. And I think, I do think that this is a very, this is, as we hear these facts, I'm hopeful that we can, with new director Monaghan, think about the timeline for this process. Props on bets on students is a statutory violation here in Massachusetts. And it isn't a conversation that's starting to happen across the nation as to whether it's ever appropriate. Massachusetts, I feel got this right. So I know I'm personally interested in resolving this matter as quickly as possible. For the protection of student athletes. So thank you. We've got our director there. I'll set Kathleen. Yes, thank you. That concludes the matters we have for the commission today. Thank you. Thank you, IEB. Thank you to Beondra, to Zach, and Kathleen, and to Caitlin. I do feel better, Caitlin. All right. So I know that we have, I've been trying to manage this meeting a little bit because of timing. And Attorney Keras is going to come forward on the reg that we rolled over. That's on the data privacy reg 257. It's my understanding that would probably be about a 45 minute presentation. I've asked if it could be rolled over today. And I was told that, despite our regulatory timeframe, that it would not impact that I need to confirm that if we rolled it over. I also don't know if we want to take the time for Nina to advise us on the issue around the coin toss while it's fresh in our mind. I don't know if he was even prepared for that, Carrie. How are we, how are we in? I was just going to respond to your question about rolling over 257. That's perfectly fine. This would be coming for an initial review of changes. So we can certainly push that to the next meeting. Right. And it's extensive. We want to take, it's, and it's involved. So we want to be fresh in mind. Just, did you have a chance to mention to Nina that that issue around the coin toss reg came up? I see Nina, I don't, I see Nina, but his video is off. But anyway, we will check in with him. It's just a time we'll continue on. So we are now turning to responsible gaming and thank you to all the individuals who are, have been waiting so patiently. I am going to bump right Dr. Wall and of course, Director Vandal Menden because I know Dr. Wall has a different timeframe and I did see you early in the morning. It's so nice to see you, nice to see you again. Good to see you again. Great. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. Yes, I'm joined with Dr. Michael Wall. He's a professor in the School of Psychology at Carleton University. Today we're going to be talking about providing an overview and Dr. Wall will be sharing an evaluation that he had done on Play My Way. Just first off, Play My Way is an important harm reduction initiative that's available at all casinos in Massachusetts. And in short, it's a budget setting tool that allows players to set a budget for the amount that they want to spend on an electronic gaming device. And it can provide reminders of where they stand in terms of the percentage of the budget. So you can receive notifications at 75%, 90%, 100%. It does not stop you. You may continue to gamble but the idea is about informed player choice. It became available at Planer's Park Casino in June of 2016. It became available at MGM Springfield in April, 2022 and finally September 12th of 2022 at Encore Boston Harbor. One of the unique aspects of Play My Way is that this is a cooperative effort with each of our casino licensees. All three operators came together along with the gaming commission and identified this as a priority. So as a result, the experience of Play My Way, whether you go to MGM Springfield or Planer's Park Casino is very similar. So just a call out to them as we continue down this presentation. So with that, I would like to turn over the first part of this presentation to Dr. Wall. I will chime in about midway through to provide some additional information about Play My Way before he talked about some of the interesting results from the evaluation. So Dr. Wall, thank you for joining us this afternoon. Thank you, Mark and thank you, Madam Chair, for the introduction and providing me with some time to discuss the results of an arm's length evaluation. I conducted on the utility of Play My Way, the responsible gambling program that Mark just highlighted with funding from the International Center for Responsible Gaming. I do have some slides, which I will be sharing with you. There we go. Sorry, I just have to adjust. There you go. Yep, a little bit more. There we go. I'm assuming everybody can see that now. We can, thank you. Wonderful. So I know that time is limited and the day has been long, but I think that it's important to provide a bit of background on why a program like Play My Way is of great importance to players in the state of Massachusetts and why do players need to set and adhere to a money limit. So with that, I will be providing a bit of a background. Gambling, I'm gonna, just give me a second, I'm gonna move everybody's tiles here so I can see my slides on myself. Gambling can be a very fun pastime. It's no wonder that 80% of people indicate that they have gambled in the past year, but how do people manage their gambling expenditures? We've all heard the stories of the gambler who comes to the casino, says that they're gonna spend an hour playing and only spend $50 out of their pocket, but four hours and $400 down, they leave or are dragged out of the casino. Why does this happen and what can be done to minimize such occurrences? What I wanna do before jumping in to Play My Way is to discuss why players might exceed their monetary limit. Now, there's a number of reasons. I'm only gonna provide a few here, but one of the issues is that the human mind is not well suited for understanding probabilities and odds. As you hopefully can see on your screen that the people's perceptions of odds and the public outcry about certain events and hazards are sometimes very different than the actual odds, the actual hazards. So in this virtual space, I'm sure many of you or some of you really don't like flying, right? But the chance of something happening when you're flying is very small. You're scared about jumping into a plane but not into a car, which is far more hazardous than jumping on a plane. Some of you may smoke, okay? Don't think about the hazards of smoking and cancer-related harms, yet the hazards of smoking are quite large. Gamblers overestimate their odds of success, typically and underestimate the odds of developing harms. Related to this is that the human tendency to believe that you can control objectively uncontrollable events. We call this in psychology the illusion of control. And many players, many gamblers believe that they have some kind of skill or ability that maximizes their chance of winning when in fact the outcomes are determined purely by chance. And least you think that this illusion of control is silly, how many of you took an elevator today? I'm sure many of you took an elevator and then you press the button to activate the elevator and then waited and then pressed it again and then pressed it again. Well, I've got to tell you there's no gnome at the bottom of the elevator shaft saying, oh, Mark is in a hurry. I guess I need to pull the pulleys a little bit harder. But we do that because we have a sense that maybe this will increase the speed of the elevator. And this again factors in when people gamble. All of this together ends up leading people to misunderstand also how slot machines, how gambling works. They believe that persistence will pay off. So they don't understand that every time you play an electronic gaming machine that the odds reset, right? That there's a common misperception among players that the longer you play, the better your odds are that you're going to win big. And that's simply not the case. And so this put together has great implications for players developing gambling related farms and exceeding their limits. And so one of the things that people in the field of gambling studies have argued is that there's a need to educate people on setting a limit and how they would adhere to their limits and creating tools that do so. But I must say that for the vast majority of the history of the gambling industry that the idea of providing players with means to assist them in setting and adhering to a limit was a foreign concept. The only motive was the profit motive. This all began to change in the late 1990s with a rapid expansion of legalized gambling and the recognition that problem gambling is a public health and social justice issue that impacts individuals, that impacts families and impacts communities. But at the beginning, you might be wondering why you're looking at a picture of Kenny Rogers right now. Is that I tend to term this the Kenny Rogers phase of responsible gambling where it wasn't really based on sound empirical research. It was really just based on intuition and telling people, hey, you've got to know when to walk away, right? And that there were posters that were plastered around casinos for insurers that told people about walking away and oh, wait a second, that doesn't work. Maybe we need to have bigger posters and better brochures. It wasn't based on sound empirical research. In 1999, the Australian Productivity Commission referred to the concept of pre-commitment and a recognition that there was a need to implement pre-commitment systems to help players set and adhere to limits and that this need, it wasn't just a need that we needed to understand how to implement this and that it needed to be evidence-based. And a real game changer was the Reno model which was published in 2004, which really popularized the term responsible gambling, now responsible gaming. And according to the Reno model, the gambling industry holds a duty of care, but ultimately the responsibility to gamble in a responsible manner rests with the player. Falling out of this was the development of an array of tools that were evidence-based to see whether or not what tools work and whether or not they actually do minimize gambling related harm. And so here for you today, I'm sure that a fundamental question that you're asking yourself is do responsible gambling tools reduce gambling related harm? Overwhelmingly, the data does say the answer is yes. However, there are some fundamental problems. Number one, so most players think that gambling tools work, but there is stigma associated with their use. Why is there stigma associated with their use? Because there's a strong brand association between responsible gaming and disordered gambling. So a question that the commission and people in the field of gambling studies, et cetera, should be asking themselves is how do we change this norm, right? How do we increase the uptake of responsible gaming? How do we make sure that players understand that everybody should be using the tools, okay? And we need smart and engaged stakeholders who value evidence-based decision-making, okay? And that's in part why I stand before you today. The research that's been coming out of the Commonwealth by way of research and the research and responsible gambling division of MGC has contributed immensely to our understanding of not only the impact gambling has had in Massachusetts, but also how to minimize gambling-related harms. The research that I'm gonna be presenting to you shortly is moving the needle. And in fact, we in the research community have become very aware of the knowledge created in the state of Massachusetts and the mobilization of that knowledge in the States and how bridges have been built between research policy makers in the gambling industry, which with necessary firewalls, as you will see shortly, are advancing harm minimization. As a shorthand, many researchers and policy makers the world over, we do know what's happening in Massachusetts and we refer to this lovingly as the Massachusetts model. So with that, I'm gonna pass over the proverbial baton to Mark VanderLinden to describe this model. Mark. Yeah, thank you, Dr. Wall. You know, a couple of things that Dr. Wall pointed out is just the inherent risks associated with gambling. And if we know that there's an inherent risk that is associated, that may be associated with gambling, there is a duty that the gaming commission has identified to proceed and introduce responsible gaming tools. Early on, there was a responsible gaming framework. We adopted a precautionary approach where there's evidence of risk. We won't sit back and just wait for the evidence to emerge. We will make an informed decision about what measures could be implemented in commonwealth that has a great degree, that we have a great degree of confidence that it will end up reducing the level of harm. And so just like Dr. Wall pointed out with the Reno model that the ultimate decision to gamble lies with the individual just as I said in my introduction in order for them to make that decision, they need to be an informed gambler. And so that's really what the point of many of our responsible gaming tools, Game Sense and Play My Way. We wanna provide them with the information in real time so they can make that informed decision about how to proceed. He also mentioned the role of the gaming operator, the industry in doing this, which really highlights again the cooperative effort from each of our licensees with the gaming commission in order to develop a tool that really supports that. The problem was that when we launched Play My Way back in 2016, the state of the evidence was somewhat ambiguous. And we proceeded, but we always say that if we're going to employ this precautionary approach, let's make sure that we have rigorous evaluation that's being done. So this is actually our second round of evaluation with Play My Way as it continues to evolve in Massachusetts and become much more widely used and spans across all of our operators. So Dr. Walmick, slide please. So just, I'm gonna spend two minutes just talking about Play My Way. So Play My Way allows patrons at any of the casinos to set a budget and receive notifications as they approach their budget. They also have the ability to go into the tool and see how much they've spent on a day, on a week, on a month. Completely involuntary to use. Enrollment is simple, that was a key element. You can enroll either on the electronic gaming device, the slot machine, or with the game sense advisor through a game sense kiosk. You can change your budget at any time, you can increase it or you can decrease it or you can unenroll at any time. The key there is to put the power in the hands of the individual who is gamble. There are notifications at, you can enable notifications. So as you approach your budget, meet your budget or exceed your budget, you'll continue to get those notifications and form player choice. And one key piece here is there's an enrollment incentive. How do you incentivize responsible gaming? So we offer with the cooperation of each of our licensees, just a food voucher, some upon initial enrollment and the program. Next slide please. So two goals, sustain recreational gambling by establishing feasible parameters. So make a decision up front of how much you want to spend in that cool state of mind and this supports or reinforces that decision to stay within it. Goal number two, eliminate regret that arises from loss of control or chasing losses. It isn't just a matter of knowing when to fold as Kenny Rogers would say. It's really giving people the tools that giving people the tools so that they can avoid that avoid losses that are out of control or recognizing their losses and chasing and trying to recover their recover those losses. So next slide please. The other thing that Dr. Wall pointed out is that there tends to be low uptake of responsible gaming tools. So while people support it, they believe they're effective, there's low uptake. And so the other key piece of play my way is that how do we make this an integrated part of a person's experience when they step foot into the casino? So that it doesn't, so responsible gaming isn't stigmatized, rather it's a normal part of an experience at a casino. We recognize that play my way isn't for everybody, maybe they want to use it, maybe they don't, but we want is there not to be a stigma associated with these. So we created a communication campaign, the look, the feel of it embedded in the machine, embedded in the casino to be as easy as possible to use. Next slide. As I said, the role of play my way actually spanned a number of years and largely because there was quite a lot of development that went into it. As I said, it initially launched a plan with Park Casino and followed by on foreign MGM. But you can see there may be very subtle differences because they're built on different types of casino management systems or slot management systems, but overall the overall look and feel is the same. Next slide. So the result of making this more of a normal part of an individual's experience when they go to a casino is that we've had what I would consider a successful adoption of these types of tools. So we have 46,185 people and we're currently across the Commonwealth, 30,552 of them are at Cleaners Park Casino. A big shout out to Cleaners Park Casino as the smallest casino in the state with the highest uptake. They are also the first and I think that accounts for a large degree of that. Followed by MGM Springfield with 7,412 people in role and on for the last to adopt but still has over 8,000 people that are enrolled in play. All right, Mike, I'll turn it back over to you. Thanks so much. So I'm going to jump into the evaluation that took place and why it's so important, the methodology that we implemented and why what's happening in Massachusetts and what we're calling the Massachusetts model is so important in terms of the relationships that have been built with the regulator, with the industry, commission, that the research that is out there right now with regards to the uptake of responsible gambling tools and their utility have really, all of it has been done post-launch. So anything in regards to players' perception, you really don't know, we know very little about what predicts people's intention to role because there's been no research done before the launch of a tool like Play My Way and little research has been conducted in terms of the change in behavior. So spending behavior, visit behavior and in large part, that's because it's been terribly difficult to get access to player account data, to truly understand the change in behavior. So research that I've conducted as well as other people have conducted typically rely on players' recollection of how much money they've spent. But players are terrible at recalling how much money they've spent. So I've published some papers showing that in the province of Ontario when we ask people about how much money they've spent in the past three months, on average they're off by $700. So it's very important to get player account data. And so because of things like section 97 and the relationships that have been built in the state, I was able to conduct an evaluation of Play My Way before it launched at MGM Springfield. Very unique, this is really important data, this state-of-the-art data. You are seeing it before many people in the world have seen the results of this particular study. So to give you a bit of a background through MGM Springfield's MGM Rewards LiftServe, we sent out an email to regular players. That is people who visited at least three times in the last three months and have spent about $100. And asked them questions about their intention to enroll in Play My Way as well as some individual difference variables which we'll get to momentarily. And then we gave them a $10 Amazon gift card for participating. We also asked them for permission to access their player account data so we could match up their survey data with their player account data. Again, I have to underscore how unique this is that there is almost no published research out there in the published literature where we have been able to assess players and ask them how they think and feel and then map that on to their player data. And really, this is one of the only jurisdictions that I know that enable that kind of thing to happen. So in terms of the measures, we asked them about the extent to which they accept personal responsibility, how much, how literate they are in terms of gambling, how gambling, whether they know how gambling games work, how honest and in control they are of their play, the extent to which they say they pre-comment, we assess disorder gambling symptomatology as well as whether or not how impulsive they are. What we found is that 11.3% of our sample enrolled in Play My Way after that initial survey. Okay, so remember we initially surveyed them before the launch of Play My Way at MGM Springfield and then of our sample, 11.3 enrolled. At first blush, this may look quite disappointing to some, but it's important to know that most research shows that the uptake of similar tools is between one and 5%. So the uptake of Play My Way in this sample far exceeds anything that appears in the academic literature, okay? Now in terms of who enrolled versus those who didn't enroll, what we found is that enrollees were higher in impulsivity and lower in honesty and control. So what does this tell us? This tells us we know that people who are impulsive, okay? These are people who are more likely to exceed their limits. We also know that impulsive people tend to know they're impulsive. So this is quite heartening. What we're seeing is that players who are impulsive see this program Play My Way as self-relevant and then they're more likely to enroll, okay? What this also tells us, as you'll see in a couple of slides, this also, what's really important about this survey data is it also points us to what messaging may help advance enrollment, increase enrollment and what these data are saying is that perhaps messages that speak to how good this program is for people who are impulsive or for people who are low in control of their play that we may see an even further increase. We didn't see any difference in enrollment in terms of disordered gambling symptomatology or the extent to which they accept personal responsibility. This is something that we need to probe a little bit further but this is also heartening in a sense that there were no differences in terms of disordered gambling symptomatology because the literature is saying that people, that these programs at least people think that they're more for disordered gamblers. So people who do not have a problem don't enroll. What we are seeing is that this does not seem to be the case in at least at MGM Springfield. So we need to probe this a little bit further. Why is this the case? Maybe it's about the messaging that was conducted before in advance of the launch. Now, of course, the critical question you might be asking yourself is, okay, well, what about their play? Did it influence their play? And so MGM Springfield provided us with those participants' player account data. And what we found is that among those who enrolled, we actually see a significant increase in their number of visits relative to those who didn't. You go, well, that's interesting. Why are they visiting more? But before we dive into that, I wanna show you the next slide. Although they visited more, they lost less money on average per visit compared to those who did not enroll. So what we're seeing here is that they are maybe visiting the site a little bit more, but they're spending less money overall. So the program is working. They're losing less money. They're feeling, and probably one of the reasons why, and we have some data as well to show, one of the reasons why they might be visiting a little bit more is that they're more satisfied when they leave. They're happier players. Because if you go to a casino and you say, I'm only going to lose, I only wanna lose $50, and then you walk out down 400, you're going to be a very unhappy person. But if you say, hey, listen, I'm gonna go to the casino and I only wanna lose $50, I'm only willing to lose $50, and then you leave $50 down, you're a more satisfied player. And so in fact, when we look at, I'm gonna show you the next slide where we ask people, am I more likely to play at MGM Springfield because it offers play my way? Okay, so this is about attitudinal loyalty. And what we see is that players who enrolled in play my way after enrollment post launch are agreeing more with this sentiment. They're saying, yes, I'm more likely to play at MGM Springfield because they offer this tool. Why again might this be happening? Because they're more satisfied, right? They're not leaving the casino down more than they had intended to spend. And this tool is helping that happen. So take home message, play my way seems to work. We're also seeing by way of this evaluation that perhaps how might you increase enrollment in play my way? Well, we're seeing that perhaps targeted messaging around impulsivity and control may increase uptake, okay? Again, I don't wanna belabor the point. What we're finding is that those who enrolled are also more satisfied patrons over time. And so one of the things that we may wanna be asking down the road and I'd love to continue collecting data in Massachusetts on play my way is maybe considering what proportion of players should be enrolling in play my way, right? So right now, what we're seeing in the literature is about one to 5% enroll. That's double in Massachusetts, right? One of the things to consider is at what point do we think that 100% of players should be enrolling in play my way? Maybe, yes, maybe no. It's a discussion that should be had. What we do see from here is that more sound research, arms length research is needed. And so I'll end my presentation by saying as an outside observer, okay? I'm gonna add that I'm thoroughly impressed with the research that's coming out of Massachusetts and the willingness to engage in evidence-based innovation. What I'm seeing from research and responsible gambling division and the research that is quite remarkable and the research community is taking notice, okay? Important things are happening in Massachusetts and I hope to see this trend continue and I hope that I'm a part of it. So with that, I'll stop. Thank you. Not saying a nice closing slide. So commissioners, do you need to go back to any slide for Dr. Wohl or not? I guess we can if need be. Yeah, we can if need be. Madam Chair, may I just say one thing before, I wanna, there's three things. One, the ICRG funded this project and that's an important partnership. It's wonderful when we can benefit from that arms length research and that we have a research partner that provides funding for that. Two, MGM Springfield and the assistance of Daniel Miller very specifically but the entire MGM team holding this data, launching this type of study is really, really challenging. And then third, not least of which when we talk about uptake and how do we foster this? I did mention how you position it, how you communicate it but I see our game sense, we have some game sense advisors that are here. They are really important champions for this. They help people enroll, they help people understand how to use the tool and how to maximize the use of it. And so just a shout out to them. So that's it, thank you. Thanks for your comments with Dr. Long. So that's pretty good finding in terms of how the decision to use Play My Way impacts their behavior and the idea that it makes for a more satisfied customer. We're really lucky in Massachusetts, Michael, that our three casino facilities have voluntarily engaged in this. To the extent we could get all of our fellow regulators to have their licensees do the same. One, you'd get more data, right? But two, word about the effect of Play My Way would spread customers as well. Very good presentation. Anything else, commissioners? You had the privilege of hearing Dr. Wall a few times and you're just always very compelling and appreciated. I just wanted to say thank you for it. Also, you get a sense that it's working, but it's nice to see it put out there how effective it is as a program, so. And if I can add, I want to underscore, I think I would be remiss if I didn't underscore how special what's happening in Massachusetts is. So the relationships that have been built that enable this type of research to occur is incredibly unique. I've been conducting research in this arena for 25 years. Massachusetts is unique, protect it. The relationships that have been, I've mentioned already the relationships, none of this would have been able to happen without those relationships. And the trust that's been built, as well as the regulations that you have in place, protected at all costs because the information that is coming out of the Commonwealth is incredibly valuable, not only for the people of Massachusetts, but beyond. And it is my hope, it's my dream that other jurisdictions see what's happening in Massachusetts and adopt it. There was a healthy debate back in 2015 when we were talking about what to do with this type of pre-commitment tool, enclave management tool. And the commissioners thought long and hard about how to proceed, how to proceed. And just a shout out to them for taking a brief and adopting this type of responsible gaming tool to see it in Massachusetts. But it's also, you know, it's essentially with every single one of our sports and operating operators as well. It's a play management tool, allowing people to set different types of budgets and then supporting their decisions as they continue to handle. It's common sense, but it hasn't always been that way. It's a really good program. So excellent work. Next steps in terms of the, this research is that market. Where can people go and find it? Right, so it's in press right now. Dr. Wall will be publishing that relatively soon, correct Dr. Wall? Yeah, we're just finishing off some other analyses and it's very, very close to being finished. I'd be happy to share the manuscripts before, you know, knock on wood. It's accepted for publication of an academic journal. I think it was important for the commission to get first clients at this, since it's the commission that fit to believe in adopting this type of tool. And there's also some lessons that we can learn to continue to evolve this type of tool to maximize the rate to the extent that we possibly can. I don't think it's a hundred percent, but my hope is that it's greater than than what we currently have than whether that's communication and the synchronization, how we talk about it, whatever it may be, but I want to continue to plug away at that. Well, thank you. And again, thank you for your patience today. I know we kind of operated outside of your window and thank you. Commissures, I have been working as I anticipated at the beginning that perhaps this agenda was just more robust than what we can even handle. I've had a chance to communicate with Mark and he's been very understanding and recognizes that the best way to manage our meeting is to have the items, some 9A, 9C and 10 all connected with his division roll over for the next meeting. We're gonna have to look at the 15th, but we will prioritize your work if that works for your schedule, Mark. I am very sorry. And I am most sorry that we had those lovely James-sense advisors with us all day. And I am heartbroken over that. I have, however, we have two executive sessions that are timely and we have the Attorney General's office waiting for us should we decide to move to go into executive session. So I am making that call. And then of course, too, I think Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Briney went mind if we rolled over the mission statement, of course, right? That's good work, but it's not time-sensitive. I am terribly sorry, but the good news is that we just have a lot to tend to and we got a lot done. So thank you, Mark. My apologies, but it is lovely to see Dr. Wall and we appreciate your work so much. And look forward to the final report. Thank you. Great seeing you. Thank you. So, commissioners, does that all make sense? And Mark, thank you, thank you, thank you. So that would mean that we would turn to item number 12 and commissioners as you, we've reported in the agenda setting meetings, the Attorney General's office is eager to update us on a matter that we've been thinking about closely and that is the impact of the illegal market on our licensed operators as we work hard to provide a regulated safe market here in Massachusetts. They're going to give us an update on their work and also their regulatory work with respect to DFS. They have suggested, however, that it's most appropriate for an executive session. As you know, in order for us to go into its second session, and I know this language has been carefully vetted, I do need to read it into the record. And then you can decide if we should vote to move forward. The commission anticipates that it will meet in executive session in accordance with GL Chapter 30A, Section 21A3, to discuss with the Attorney General's office strategy with respect to enforcement or litigation concerning the illegal sports wagering market. Public session of the commission meeting will not, it will not reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session. Now, before we vote and return to Todd, we have a second executive session. Should we vote on them each separately? And the idea would be that we would go from one to the next and then conclude our meeting, but we would not come back to the public session. Yes, Madam Chair, I think that's the best practice in this case, vote on them separately, but we can conduct them simultaneously. One after the other. One after the other. Thank you. And I'm not sure what that word is either. So, question. Second. Concecutively. Concecutively, thank you. There we go. Commissioners, do I have a motion with respect to this first and second session? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Second. I'm sorry, Madam Chair, did you read the language into the record? Yes, I did. You did. For a 12A. This is 12A. Yeah, and then we'll vote on this one and then, but we'll treat them consecutively and not return the public. So I'm seconding 12A. That's fine. Thank you so much. Any questions? Okay, it's a long day and I just, I'm so thankful for everybody's patience and commitment. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. The next executive session is with respect to something that interim executive director, Grossman and Chief David Maltry brought to our attention personnel matter and it does belong appropriately, best in an executive session, but we should, so we have to decide that. As you know, I have to read the language into the record. The commission anticipates that I'll meet in the executive session according to GL, chapter 38, section 21A2 to conduct the strategy session in preparation for negotiations in Mark Vanderlanden, a non-union employee of the commission. Public session of the commission meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of the second executive session. Should we so vote? So moved. Thanks, commissioner. Second. Thanks, commissioner. And I'll go straight to commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Thank you very much. And in terms of commissioner's updates, I'm presuming we don't have any that are so, or you do, okay? Commissioner O'Brien. Chair, I have a commissioner's update. Okay, sorry. For the commission. Late last year, the Massachusetts attorney general's office welcomed commissioner Brad Hill, director Vanderlanden, and me to begin preliminary meetings with a group of interested stakeholders on how to combat underage sports wagering. The group's still taking shape, but it initially consists of the AG's office, the mass council on gaming and health, and various private and non-profit stakeholders. Given that the work is starting to move forward, we wanted to update the commission and continue to update the commission as the work gets going in earnest. Don't know if commissioner Hill has anything to add, but wanted the commissioners to be aware of that. Any questions, commissioners? Okay. Thank you. All right. So we will go into an executive session. Now that we've had our vote, and thank you for that update, commissioner. Mills, do you want to direct this? Yeah. Everyone who should be in the executive session has a meeting invite for MGC executive session on their calendars. You can join that meeting. And if someone should be and they don't, please feel free to shoot me an email. Everybody have an invite?