 We're calling to order today commission meeting number 287 of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission on Thursday. Microphone. I'm sorry. You're not on? Oh, my apologies. Good morning. We're calling to order commission meeting number 287 of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission on Thursday, January 23rd at 10 a.m. at the Massachusetts Gaming Commission offices here at 101 Federal Street in Boston. We'll begin with item number two, Commissioner Stevens, please. Thank you. In your packet, you have some of the revised and updated minutes from the December 19, 2019 meeting. We had made some updates and some additional notes within those minutes, I believe, around the discussion around sealed records. I would move their approval subject to correction for any typographical errors or any other non-material matters. Before we move on to that, actually, if I could just suggest one additional edit. I had asked that if you go to page two, I'd ask that some of my questions and concerns be more explicitly raised in the minutes. Some of them are. The only other area I would ask is just before the 1033 a.m. entry that talks about Director Wells going through the IEB process. If you could just be reflected that she did that at my request. This sentence to the effect of Commissioner O'Brien asked Director Wells to detail for the record the IEB process regarding open source materials and then the possible later discovery of sealed record materials. We can incorporate that language. If you have it written down, we can share it with Shah and include those in the minutes. That makes me feel a little better because I had some additional edits and I was reminded that we have done this now once but where it says where I start at 1108 on the discussion of Region C. I think the sentence is a summary but I would like to just introduce what I remember talking about which was some of the history of this region which included a lower capital investment and that was some of the discussions that happened there as well as perhaps later in that time frame that a point that I made that ultimately this will be a judgment call. There should be no impression that any answers to the questions on an RFI or otherwise are going to make it any easier for us to decide to open this region or not. The best indicator that there might be a market is the willingness of an experience operator to put up money for it which again are points I made in that. Does it make sense then for us to table this matter and have Shah go back to the transcript and maybe look and we don't always ask for this kind of detail. We appreciate that there has to be some judgment around that but it sounds as though you'd like to incorporate that in the minutes more formally and so if we could go back to our transcript which is of course available to the public always. I'll help you Shahra I think you know it was a bit of a you know long diatribe if you will but it's two key ideas that I wanted to it was lengthy it was lengthy is my point and the idea and the idea is not to recreate that or any of that incorporate language. No it's really to extract the two main ideas and I think those are the two ones but I was getting to my point you can't always necessarily do the entire our entire comments but in this case that sounds as though that is important for this topic to get in our written record as well as our transcripts so as well as Commissioner O'Brien's point so we'll table again and we'll bring them back. Thank you Shahra and of course our minutes are already very comprehensive so thank you. Anything else that we need to mention on those right now? Okay thank you. Alright I'm a little hesitant but I'll move forward. Ask approval for the January 9th 2020 meeting minutes which are included in your packet as always subject to any type of graphical errors or any other non-material matters. Second can I offer this is a small edit it's not a lot on page two when we're against again talking about the region C RFI the second to last paragraph where I opined that there is a definite possibility that the RFI will result in a market study. I suggest we continue that sentence to say but it's not a foregone conclusion again this reflects the notion that it's still at least in my mind a judgment call as to even whether to conduct a market study so the sentence would read will result in a market study but it's not a foregone conclusion. Any other suggested edits? Okay with that amendment do we have a second? Second. I think seconded yes. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Five zero thank you. Okay moving on to our third item on the agenda the administrative update from our interim Executive Director Karen Watts. Good morning Madam Chair members of the Commission. There's just a few things I'd like to just bring to your attention this morning one as I know you're aware but just wanted to highlight the racing bill did pass that was signed on January 13th that is significant because the previous law which was the chapter 47 of the acts of 2019 extended the authorization for racing and simulcasting until January 15th so they made it with two days to spare this extension authorizes racing and simulcasting through July 1st of 2020 so that I'll give the legislature and interested parties an opportunity to work out what they want to do going forward just one interesting aside is that the bill became chapter one of the acts of 2020 so on that was notable to remember yes the other thing I wanted to mention to the commissioners just something that's going on within the agency is the the play my way rollout at EBH and at MGM pursuant to an MOU with the operators they had signed an MOU in September of 2018 indicating that the rollout of the program at the two resort destination casinos was scheduled for September 20th we are currently on track to meet that deadline the gaming lab and the IT team is working closely with both IGT and EBH and MGM to implement the program they're in the process of completing the connection to the IGT Advantage system with play my way and once the team completes the connection the gaming technical compliance team will begin testing and we estimate it will take two to three weeks to complete so I spoke with Scott that is something that they'll have the testing and they'll be working in the lab if any of the commissioners want to check that out or see how the testing is being implemented I can recommend checking with Scott to see you know good time and and go in there and see how it actually is working in the testing because it is very interesting it is a really significant accomplishment by this commission and the partners at at the casinos and through IGT and it's it's been a very successful program so if you have any questions on that you can speak to either you know Mark Katrina Scott or myself and we can give you further updates but I just wanted to highlight that that was going on and it's something that's on track for that implementation date of September of 2020 can I mention just one thing and this is something I had told I have spoken with Scott and Mark but it's something I look forward to when when I take upon the suggestion of looking at the testing and that is that we were assuming and we're requesting that there will be some ability to configure that new platform and perhaps for for others the the initial platform play my way in in Plain Ridge was rolled out and it's shall we say it's set there's no ability to now change unless unless we undertake a major software re effort there's no ability to let's say change some of the the way some of the questions are asked since then we've learned a number of things about what people struggle with when they're signing up and what people like and some of the features and the overall the catch all the lesson learned in my view was so long as we had the ability to configure some of the new platform it was going to be very helpful so before I think those were the the marching orders if you will that was the understanding it's just something that I think we should check okay the other thing I just wanted to highlight for the Commission because sometimes you know things go on there's operations you may not be intricately aware of and one thing that just I noticed it is more than the IEB director hat that I'm wearing that we have had a really successful partnership with another state agency in DOR so as you may be aware when applicants are evaluated for suitability there's a financial integrity component to that and one thing that we look at is you know have you been paying your taxes are you complying with that and when we did the opening for PPC that a lot of the troopers did a lot of the work on that and checking with DOR and making sure that was that was appropriate since that time so in 2016 DOR implemented a program where you could go online and get a certificate of good standing with DOR which has been effective for us and I would suggest also for the applicant and the Commonwealth in in how this is is being implemented it's more efficient for us because we ask for a certificate of good standing on the front end so as far as efficiencies and timing as far as turnover for the investigations that was extremely helpful when there were issues to work out with DOR it would take the state police a long time sometimes to figure that out so now it's done on the front end and the way that DOR has implemented it is that they really work with the applicant to move a path forward so it's not as if you have to pay everything all up front all right away in order to get your job they just enter into you know if you've got a deficiency or there's a problem they work out a program so even if you're paying a small amount as long as you're working towards it they will give you the certificate of good standing so it helps the Commonwealth because if there's there's money that needs to be collected it's done but you get the person the job instead of saying nope can't get the job you know you've got this problem so it's just a win-win all around and a lot of times you know we hear about programs that are implemented especially online or technical things that may have bugs in them or problems but this one really worked out very well as far as the rollout I myself went in to test it it was minutes for me to just get the certificate of good standing so that's been a helpful thing and plus the applicant can get assistance to work out how they want to resolve this particularly with the you know lower-level employee that might need some help it's it's something that now is not a barrier to entry for the jobs so that's been just something I wanted to highlight for the Commission it seems to coincide with the Commission's directive yes we want to protect integrity but we want to get people to work so that was something I just wanted to mention and also commend DOR because the program really rolled out well you know it for us and for us and I think other state agencies are using it as well so it's been a success so I just wanted to highlight that for you because that may be not be something you know about you know in your day-to-day operation as commissioners that's really good good news obviously and like when state government cooperates with one another yeah did we make the suggestion that this would be helpful or they they worked on it on there they they had already been in in process oh they take you know something like that it was a big undertaking and it worked out really well I know great is any other comments on that well I appreciate you bringing this to our attention and to the public's attention because it is a collaborative effort there's a lot of collaboration I also like that you mentioned how internally the play my way project really is you know it's originated by our statutory obligation implemented by the the expertise of Mark but you know it takes it takes the entire team right and so thank you for bringing that up right the other thing I just just to put on your your radar screen and also to remind the public is that January 31st is the deadline for the community mitigation fund application so just another reminder for anyone that's out there listening or is going to watch the video and just for your yourselves to be aware that that's coming down the pike so just wanted a reminder on that and then as far as going forward on these administrative updates we have some discussion about what you'd like to see one thing we talked about is sort of highlighting things in in the different divisions and I've spoken to Katrina about the IT so the CIO giving just some information and you know a sort of a briefing on some what's going on in their shop so my expectation is that will be at the next meeting so I don't know if the commissioners of any other comments other things they'd like to see or other information they'd like for me as the interim executive director but I'm happy to accommodate any requests for any information you'd like to see at these meetings that'll probably be a work in progress but thank you can speak offline too okay okay so in our agenda-setting meeting of course is the public meeting and it's very rigorous last week so thank you for that too so that's that that concludes my general update if any if you have any questions I'm hearing answer and before we turn to your update on the Region C matter I just want to point out that this is a matter that we've been addressing since the fall in different different fashions you know the gaming commission is privileged because we have such a thoughtful comprehensive law that the legislature crafted in the governor passed Governor Patrick passed in 2011 that really serves us as a roadmap it's thoughtful and it's thorough our obligation is to meet those obligations and to fulfill our statutory and quite frankly our fiduciary responsibilities our obligation with respect to category one license in Region C is really twofold we'd have to consider of course the interest in the in up and the impacts on Region C and we also have to consider the interest of an impacts on the Commonwealth it's a complex matter and so we have asked for some guidance from the from the public in and stakeholders and interested parties through perhaps an issuance of an RFI and the issuance of a request for public comments we do that because in order to do our jobs we know we have to be as informed as we can be we make no presumptions about our own expertise you know what better way to become informed about such an important matter than to reach out to all the the public members who have an interest in the experts that we know could respond and and make sure that any action we take is an informed action there may be folks who believe that our decision-making process which might include the issuance of the RFI today is process that's unnecessary cumbersome and is time consuming I don't speak for my fellow commissioners they can chime in but I do speak from what I understand our responsibilities are and that it is due diligence that would be done in any other setting and so it is not simply time consuming process it is thoughtful and it would be the proper information gathering that one would do in any other setting the due diligence that's required to make an informed decision so I just set that stage and offer any insight you may want to offer now or we'll wait for your presentation but we are today at a certain decision-making point and and one which we understand also the need to be deliberate but that doesn't mean slow that means deliberate careful methodical smart any comments suggestions okay so I'll go ahead so the one matter for the Commission's consideration this morning so staff has been working with the commissioners with their input from the last meeting to draft an RFI proposal to be posted as a preliminary or preliminary matter I really would like to thank you know attorney Grossman Derek Lennon John Zimba and Mary Thurlow who really worked hard to make sure that the Commission's comments were incorporated that the whole document made sense and and they really came together were a good team again you know emphasizing teamwork in and different parts of the agency working together on a project this is another good example so the the document is in your packet and we've had a chance to review it we do have you know we have the introduction was sort of lays out you know what what the Commission is looking at so the the the landscape there gives an overview of Region C the proposed questions that we are looking for answers to in response to the RFI and then sort of the the administrative process to respond so at this point if the commissioners have any comments or any changes you'd like to make we can make those and hopefully if the Commission's comfortable we have a limited number of changes we don't need to come back before the Commission you could vote on it today with the Scrivener's position provision that we could you know make small alterations but that would be the expectation if you're comfortable with this or some minor changes we could go forward with the process and then issue the RFI but it's up to the Commission how comfortable they are with the document I would just say I'm happy to take the step we need to take to move ahead and issue this RFI just a quick note obviously Commissioner Zuniga gave some very detailed questions I like how you were able to fold them in underneath our broader questions for me just reviewing it again last night and it's really just the wordsmithing suggestion but on page seven question nine it says given the context of the Massachusetts gaming market when would be the best time instead of four I would just suggest when would be the best time to conduct a Regency gaming market study so simple wordsmithing more than anything else but I think the rest of it looks good any objection to that don't make sense to those best time to conduct okay I did have an edit on now page three yep at the end of towards the end of the page yes the total capital investment of those three licenses and we're talking about two category ones and one category two resulted in a total of the amount is actually three point eighty five billion I think that was clarified yeah but John is in the room mr. Zimba is in the back of the room okay okay I think that you're right it was changed it was the three point eight that we've seen but there was some methodology that the costs that are excluded from the minimum capital investment then yeah so can as long as commissioners you're comfortable yeah okay good yeah maybe we can just footnote that these exclude certain costs that we have decided to exclude that's a good idea either as a footnote or not sure and and and I would be comfortable with any kind of a clarifying footnote if you'd like that I think that makes good sense yeah yeah I know that's that I'm glad that was that thought okay to reconcile that any other suggestions or edits I guess the one thing that's outstanding is the time frame I think that we don't probably need to nail down exact dates today but I do think at one point certain number of months that were suggested that it might be required to conduct the RFI I think I messaged to Mr. Lennon at the time that seemed like a long time so you know we want to make sure we give enough time to make it a productive response because some of these questions are very substantive in nature so I mean I defer to our team you know you're Derek and everyone else who would be working on the RFI and issuing it to to think about those states but I suspect you can get input from fellow commissioners as appropriate on it my my hope is that we're aware of it needing to be timely okay so there any outside parameters any concern I mean obviously we don't want this document out for a year but is there any any general guidance you want to give now or we should just consult with you individually and you're directing us to to come up with the time that the submission deadline does anyone recall what the best practice or the typical practice timeline was I was gonna say that there's a 45 day in my mind my time frame that usually applies for RFRs I believe I mean there's no necessarily a guideline but you know 45 days that's in my view as some kind of you know anchor for us if I recall the 45 days is for to comply with World Trade Organization I think that that would necessarily apply to an RFI I know it doesn't right no just getting that I'm just I'm just I'm just throwing out a framework that guiding okay instinctively I given my experience you know I'd say four to six weeks would be probably a enough time to get meaningful responses if you know in the 45 days is not outside that Derek may say it could even be shorter but I don't know without Derek being here okay so well I'll consult with the team and then we can just check in individually to see if there's any any I think if so we move forward on the assumption that we're 45 days is the jumping off point and the question is do you make it shorter or longer you may get any shorter yeah all right that's helpful so that that I can work with the staff and come up with a good day so that that's extremely helpful okay I would just add I think you know having a dynamic communications plan around this I mean that's just putting it out on combines may not get the attraction of the people that we want to see it but obviously you know making folks aware of it either through gaming industry media or what have you I think might attract a little more attention than just saying it's going to be up on combines got it that makes sense all right we'll implement that so given there's only two edits at the commission votes on this today I could I expect this will be up shortly should we vote on the two documents together I have one comment on the request for public comments that's on the next section well what or do you want to separate well why don't if I can make a suggestion why don't we discuss the public comments and you decide whether or not you want to make the vote together or exactly okay yeah that sounds good so as you see in your packet pursuant to ongoing conversations and with feedback from feedback from the last meeting right now we have the suggested five questions in the format you see in your packet if you have any further suggestions or comments or additions or deletions we can do that now and then make a decision on whether or not to post that simultaneously with the RFI or timing wise what the Commission wants to do I just wanted to point out one thing is I had asked for the one to be the fourth bullet to shift to the RFI the fact that it's duplicative is okay too but I just wanted to point out I thought it was more technical and maybe should be in the RFI I just wanted to to mention in case you had missed it in the okay yeah I had that that same thought question number four does appear currently in the RFI and you know obviously we invite presidents of Massachusetts to comment on anything they want to but it seemed to me to be more of a technical question which may be more properly addressed by somebody in the RFI yeah I agree especially the notion of obtaining financing I mean if it was at least broader you know we may get but I think the other questions address the broader one exactly okay no I would agree with that and just from a consistency standpoint just enumerating them instead of just the blank bullets yep just that it can make a reference back to what the person is giving comment on is going to be easier for us okay that's good make sense okay so we'll take out question four that's easy that's basically incorporated in duplicate in the RFI okay any other comments yeah just one and Karen we you and I talked about this this morning question number five or the last bullet I think that's a question that we ourselves should answer I think we've all expressed a willingness kind of keeping with our tradition of transparency that we would conduct a public hearing we already know that if we were to move to an application process we have a surrounding community in the host community agreement or host community public hearing but you know I would say we answer that question for ourselves we do agree that we would hold a public hearing prior to reopening Regency you know in the timing for that maybe when we get feedback from an RFI or if we go to the RFR process but I would say we answer that for ourselves I think we commit ourselves to having a public hearing again question time I would like to also suggest adding a question and it's more of a wrap-up question at the end would be what other factors or issues do you think the Commission should consider or address if Regency is reopened for commercial gaming that's a good idea because it doesn't it may not fit into one of the questions asked so that wrap-up question I like I agree we've always had public hearings in advance of any any major decision we make so I'm I'm supportive of your suggestion I just expect the public may tell us the answer that we we'd all likely be willing to do anyways I think we'd have to be strategic on where we have it because we didn't we wouldn't want it in but are you suggesting we conduct a hearing a public hearing to see if we open the region or not because what we've had in the past are public hearings after we had received applications so we had already opened the meeting we had done a lot of suitability and there was been a vote and etc etc and frankly those were dictated by statute I am not sure that a public hearing and as to whether to reopen the bidding maybe for gone conclusion I just wanted to know that that's the difference seen from the past I I only recommend we have a public hearing prior to making a decision and at the same time we might have information we can share with the public that we gleaned from the RFI process or gleaned from the RFI process so I believe it up to a question of timing I'm just thinking we don't need to include the question if yeah I would agree with that as well we would have a hearing it is a little bit different but I think the region has been a little bit different than the others so any opportunity to get public input I think is that's fine a good thing and I do think it was contemplated more contextually with either results from an RFI or draft or something like that to be part of an agenda that possibly then we would do as we've done in the past it maybe down a plane bill so that there was a sort of a geographic access point for people in Regency closer to here if they did if there was some reason and opportunity to have public comment at that point but I agree with you it doesn't necessarily need to be open to public comment now and what we're putting out I actually think it's a very good point because I do believe we anticipate anticipated if we decide to proceed through whatever direction we we give ourselves or through the information we received from the public was to probably go to Regency to learn more just so that folks who may not answer questions in writing have a easy access to us so I think that's a really a good insight and and and from commissioners and it goes input it looks like we do have some strategy questions to think about and I in terms of the last point it's more person sort of perspective and I think that's fine too I think there's a counter question what are the factors we have to consider if we we didn't too but I think that's captured enough in the RFI you know what are the implications of both decisions so I know we also need to figure out a deadline for comment a submission obviously we take comments or submissions at any time but it may make sense to align it with the RFI deadline for the time being always extended if we had to right agreed okay and and and it can even be explained because Bruce is right off the point we always welcome input so in this case at the timeline because we are seeking parallel information pursuant to a request for information and then we have aligned input any further suggestions with either document and unless Mr. Grossman objects we could consolidate a vote on both both documents so much just to clarify my understanding is that Commission seems to be in agreement that we keep questions one two and three take out questions four and five and add the question at the end what other factors or issues do you think the Commission to consider or address if Regency is reopened for a commercial gaming license and then we'd number the questions that their assessment is it right if we reopen or whether to reopen if I have if that's why it was more perspective as opposed to weather see number one is should we consider reopening so then what happens if and that was my point was it's actually implications for action in it in action so do you want to amend that do you want to keep it I'm fine I'm fine with that perspective so the weather is already addressed these are factors if the Commission decides to reopen with that okay any further questions discussion clarifications do we have a motion Madam Chair I move the Commission move forward with the posting of the version of the our request for information RFI and a request for public comment as included in the Commissioners packet and as amended and discussed here today second all those in favor high high opposed 5 0 and that would include this Scrivener's provisions for any edits thank you yeah of course thank you so much it's in the motion thank you and thank you to everyone for the work on that including Mary who I don't see here but not surprisingly Mary was involved so thank you okay moving on to item number four we have Ms. Wells in her other role along with my fellow Commissioners Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Zuniga on a very important matter with a June deadline the licensed renewal process for Plain Ridge Park casino so I generally will turn this over to Commissioners Zuniga for a briefing on this from the IB IB's perspective licensing has gone forward with the renewal process on the suitability provision so that's in process where Mr. Curtis is working with Loretta Lilios on that and connected has connected with the licensee on that process so that's moving forward yeah let me just perhaps we can do a little tag team here if I omit or summarize too much some of the steps here along with Commissioner O'Brien and and John if we can all talk about this but you should all have received should have received a memo that came from Todd in terms of describing some of the process it is not included in the packet but I'll speak to some of the general ideas that were that are part of that and and that is in general that we will begin to form a record by requesting of of PPC a number of documents and reviewing some documents and aspects on site really that process already started as Karen was saying with the suitability update and review there's some additional qualifiers and that has already started John and the team has proposed that the staff start meeting with PPC on a monthly basis that the first meeting would probably are they're looking to try to effectuate by either next week or shortly after and that is really to go through the aspects that are going to be reviewed in in general I will summarize as compliance review and that has any number of different aspects and topics towards that and examination of the commitments that PPC has done and how that has those commitments have been accomplished, complied with or modified as necessary and an examination of the financial condition of the of the property one that will be done likely on site because a lot of those materials are already subject of a nondisclosure agreement and we'll have some of our team of financial investigators and others look at some of the reports and and financials that there are on site. We expect that as the date comes closer to June 27 which is when the license expires there will probably be more sub more frequent meetings not unlike what we went through prior to the opening or like we we went through in the opening there may be every two weeks or you know depending on how some of the document becomes begins to arrive back from from Penn. We will hold and that's the suggestion to something that we spoke about before we will hold a public hearing and much like we do for the renewals of racing every time there's there's a license renewal there this is very similar will notify the public some of the stakeholders locally certainly and we'll probably go to Plain Ridge like we've done in the past on racing and hope to hear from from the members of the public and others. We could probably target that to be around May but but there's not any set date necessarily a lot of the documents that when when we had the public hearings in the past there was a timing element that that was prescribed in the statute we don't have that in this case. You remember that we had in our regulations an opportunity for the host community agreement to be posted voted and then we conducted the hearing. This really doesn't operate in these three license in case. So as I mentioned the suitability review has commenced there it's there is a lot that we've done also recently in terms of the commitments review and and the compliance review because we did the midterm examination a lot of those commitments were updated but this is yet again another opportunity to refresh or update any as we continue this process. I suspect the same members of the staff that have been involved in those prior efforts John and Joe in the case of commitments and perhaps even Mary everybody from IEB in the suitability etc will continue to have that that involvement and in order to make full one question that I was that I'm bringing today is the involvement of commissioners in any one aspect of this review. When we first had the licensing process we divided ourselves in different groups and that enabled each of us to have a role in examining that part. You'll remember the finance category the mediation etc although these are not the same categories we could conceivably if my fellow commissioners desired be involved in the review of whatever discipline so long as there was not necessary not you know an overlay of that review because that would happen on a public meeting. In other words if we if we were interested in each taking a particular segment of any of these review we could organize ourselves according that's a question I wanted to kind of bring here today. I hadn't thought of that and I'm just not sure of the applicability so I'd really need to take some time and try to try to understand how that would happen. To me it's a very different process than than the initial suitability but I would like to take a look and talk about it. This was just something for us to ponder we will all of us have the opportunity to see and get an update you know before we making the decision with ample time. I should also mention that one of the first the first meeting that we will that we are having as early as next week is one in which we will present Penn with a number of documents to be updated the form a form that we've spoken about in the past you know the current status of certain commitments etc and we need to give them enough time to put that together and come back. So as soon as you know this next week a lot of the work turns into into Penn to begin compiling that information. I also wanted to bring up one question that is not necessary it's not necessary to be resolved today but I may have spoken about it in the past and that is relative to the fee. The statute and I may need the exact citation if you want to be able to look that up but the statute contemplates a licensing fee of no less for category two of no less than a hundred thousand dollars which is what we've spoken about as you know as what we would mark as the benchmark. It also says that it is intended to deflect or defray the costs of investigations and an examination of these three licensing process and it is perhaps not it is perhaps easy to assume that with all the staff time that we will incur in this process we may incur you know that amount of cost in terms of staff costs. The conflict that I wanted to bring up with is that then the statute goes on to say that the the licensing fee that fee is to be deposited in the gaming revenue fund which is a different fund from where we pay for our costs that would be the gaming control fund and so this is not a matter that we need to resolve today necessarily but we have alerted Penn that the initial fee will be a minimum of a hundred thousand dollars that will be payable prior to June 27th or 24th but we need to figure out whether to deposit it in the gaming control fund or in the gaming revenue fund. It's it's not a matter of our discretion. Well it's a matter of conflict in the statute and there's that because of how the funds get directed or is it on that I mean because we're concerned about where the funds get directed or what does the statute actually direct us to do. It directs us to do two things that are odds. I understand that tension so because of the covering of the costs I understand that component but in terms of where funds actually could go regardless of how they're used. What is it. So the statute it's it's section 20 F of chapter 23 K. It says that the commission shall establish procedures for renewal and set the renewal fee based on the cost of fees associated with the evaluation of a licensee. Notably it doesn't say we should keep those costs. It just says we shall set the fee based on the cost. Now the presumption of course is that we should keep them and that's why you should be set based on what it cost us to evaluate understanding as a backdrop how our budget is set in where we get our monies are funding from being from the licensees of course that all the money we take in from them goes to finance our operations. So the theory presumably when it comes to us conducting evaluations and investigations and whatnot would be that we should assess the cost of specific investigations on the entity that's being investigated because it would be presumptively unfair to assess those costs to all licensees for one based because we're evaluating one specific entity. That's the the general theory I would suggest behind our whole budget. And so they said here when you're just evaluating one licensee that when you set the renewal fee it should be based upon the cost associated with the evaluation of the licensee. It again it doesn't say we should keep that money. Then it goes on to say that any renewal fees shall be deposited into the Gaming Revenue Fund which as Commissioner Zuniga points out is not a fund for which we have access to the fees. The statute does direct us to go. That's very clear. It says that the fees shall be deposited into that fund. The guidance is about amount. I understand the practical attention and that was clear before hand but the statute does direct the funds to a particular fund that just would not accomplish the practical attention. Very yes. That's exactly right. I think it's also important to bear in mind and we pointed this out in the memo that there are a number of levers that the commission can pull to ensure that we are made whole for any investigations or analyses and including provision of the statute that we haven't looked at in quite some time. It's section 56A which discusses the $600 per slot machine annual assessment and it says after five years the commission can reassess that fee and determine how much it should be. So there are ways we could adjust the assessment upon any particular licensee if you were to determine that the renewal fee has to be deposited into the gaming revenue fund as the statute suggests. So there are a couple of things that are clear though. The fee has to be at least $100,000 and certainly any excess over and above the amount it costs to investigate or analyze the application would have to be deposited into the gaming revenue fund. But otherwise there is perhaps attention in the statute that you should certainly resolve in advance of us assessing the fee. I don't know if the legislature can work that fast. Well we I mean obviously they won't do that but we would need to make a determination as to what the statute means and attempt to read it in harmony in order to reach what we believe the intent of the legislation was. I happen to think that it would be we needed to highlight this distinction. So it seems as though we need additional guidance on this point I think we weren't going to vote on it today because I don't I do want to hear from Commissioner O'Brien on this on the process as well but in terms of where there is statutory language it seems quite black and white in terms of where revenues must be deposited. We want to you know exercise proper care around that but I also would want to know about best practices in terms of the amount and and also if we're able to estimate how much it's likely to cost internally. So I don't know if that's that's just well my guess I don't I don't I have not done numbers necessarily and this is a good exercise to try to estimate but but my guess was that the cost of investigating them we're going to exceed a hundred thousand dollars. And this came up with there is a manner in which I be tracks. Yes I will have one caveat that because this is a modified protocol for the renewal you know if you compare it you can't compare it to the initial suitability the initial suitability would have been clearly over a hundred thousand dollars but given that we have the renewal protocol and comparing that we you know we've spoken internally and looked at some other vendors that you might compare it to you just in the amount of qualifiers the amount of investigation I think it would be less so you are you including the staff time of others not just the investigation remember you have the investigation piece but you also have all the other pieces which I don't know the number on that but you know you've got Mr. Zambos time you've got you know other individuals who would be working on the renewal you've got Joe's time so if you include that you know plus the investigation you're guessing you probably at least hit the hundred thousand but I would have to check to make sure. Are you able to use that same tool and apply it to staff outside of IEB? Well we have to see what the process would be so what we do is we do a blended rate and then investigators track hours so we have that mechanism which we could have staff use for for the renewal process to track the amount of time now projecting it is different than retrospective. Yeah no and you know so here's here's one thing if it's less the statute says it's a minimum of a hundred thousand so in my view that's that's easy if it's more the question is you know what do we do with well if it's exactly that or more the question is what do we do with the where do we deposit the hundred thousand and the plain bit of the statute by the way would direct us to put it in the gaming revenue fund and we continue to assess our licensees for all of our costs proportionately. I think it would be helpful if we could try to have a projection you know thinking about what staff would be important pieces to get this done properly and you know just I know it's any projection is just that right but I think that would be helpful. You know as we've been talking here I thought also mentioned the question policy slash legal question as to our authority to raise the $600 per machine assessment I would I would say there are at least there's another there's this question as to where to deposit the the funds and there's a third one that we were discussing the other time and that is whether there is a requirement on the real licensing of Penn that they continue to conduct racing. There's a clear language in the statute for the first licensing period that if anybody has been a racing licensee and become a gaming licensee they have to retain and conducting racing. This is a matter of legal question if they and one that we could also ask Penn as part of this process what are your intentions as you get re-licensed but we could conceivably take these three legal questions together and try to resolve you know in the near future as we continue to undertake the process of examination in parallel. Just to be clear for me the dollars go into the fund and the concern is strictly that the other licensees would be absorbing some of the costs related to the license renewal licensing process of PPC and that's strictly it. We would be able to cover our costs it's not as though it's going to the outside of our operating dollars it's just that it's the sharing component and it is not lost on me that the legislature could have contemplated that that was an okay cost for everyone to share because everyone at a certain point would be likely for renewal rather than necessarily each absorbing those dollars. That while it may seem like it's either a conflict or a mistake that could have been something that they may have said you don't cover it but it's okay for the sharing because that is the single question here. So if we do read and we do have you know the obligation to comply with the statute I don't necessarily know if our concerns as a regulator about that sharing or the equity of that sharing was necessarily adopted by the legislature. I don't know if there's any legislative history on that particular matter but I don't necessarily believe that they may have said that you know because the fee should reflect costs that it didn't that's not necessarily followed that means they couldn't share those costs. That's right essentially we would just pay for the cost of the evaluation out of our budget. Right. And it would be fine. But that is the issue I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing that the dollars went outside to a different fund that we couldn't access. Okay. Great. Thank you. I'm not trying to over to to complicate matters more but for background the initial fees and they were really substantial. They were 85 million for for category one and 20 or 25 million 25 25 million for category two. They were directed into the gaming licensing fund. That was an entirely different fund that had a number of uses and that fund expired you know since we since since we were conceived. So there was a clear presumption that a licensing fee in the future would not go in the same manner to different you know to different funds and that adds color to this discussion at least in my view. But again it would be in my opinion harder to go against a very clear directive of where to deposit the funds in this case the gaming revenue fund. Before we move on to all of our questions about this process I do want to hear from Commissioner O'Brien to supplement clarify any of the process. The only clarification would be that one of the things I pointed it out that was while everyone presumes that Penn wants to renew their license and it's been a successful relationship and no one should presume anything and then in terms of actually kicking off the recitation of what's required the process to fees etc. There has to be some overture from them in writing saying that they want to renew it. And so part of what this process is also going to entail is just that trigger is that once there is a clarification from us to Penn of these are the requirements of the timing this is the expectation there would be an expectation of confirmation back from the from Penn that they want to go forward. But everything else in terms of the questions raised the process that was laid out by commission is you know my understanding of how this is going to proceed. Yeah we did discuss that. Thank you. And we may have already either advised them that that would be necessary of maybe they have already responded that they are they intend to. Maybe they really need to do it in writing and we we establish a record as you say. Right. But they clearly intend to questions comments from you Commissioner Stevens and Commissioner Cameron about the process of the outline. I appreciate the update from our from our colleagues. Obviously some of the questions that are ahead of us. The one thing I would want to raise with respect to the public hearing and I think Commissioner Zuniga you brought this up before. It is not only looking at what Penn has done over the past five years but giving them the opportunity to say what they will do during the next five year term of their license. Maybe answering the question about racing is included in that. But you know the original application was looking at what they plan to do during the term of their license. I would like to give them the opportunity to say this is what we plan to do in the next term of our license. I think that's just as critically important. Very good point. We'll make that clear. I do not have additional questions. Thank you for the effort and time and thoughtful discussion about it. Very thoughtful process in terms of the public hearing that prompted my thinking about the timeline and I know that John Siamba and team and I presume that both of you are working on a timeline that kind of starts backwards and goes forward just so that everybody's expectations are informed and so that the licensee can be timely because it's not fair to them to shorten the time unnecessarily for them to deliver to us. In terms of the public hearing, the only caution I give is that it be sufficient and it sounds like a main deadline would work sufficient so that we can actually incorporate any public comments in both a timely fashion but a meaningful fashion. So if we get it too late, we may be down, we may be so far down the pike, we can't really undo some of our decision making. That's just a thought. I don't have it got sense on that but I was thinking at least timeline on it and enough time to be not to make it meaningful. And then in terms of feedback on the fee, obviously we have a couple of legal questions on that but also as Commissioner Cameron mentioned, we would try to figure out if we can project the entire cost for the staff. And then if there are any, you did look at other jurisdictions, correct? Yeah, so I don't know if we end up doing any kind of a memo for the public if that input could be included, that would be great so that we have some knowledge of what other jurisdictions are doing. Yeah, yeah, we've that's been part of our prior discussions. We have we have materials. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, excellent. That was that was we can dig that up. And then on the horse racing piece, that sounds as though that's a critical piece for us to address. It's not an automatic condition of the renewal license. Well, is it? Yeah, well, it occurs. It's a legal question. It may be a little academic. It may be that, of course, Ben intends to conduct racing. I believe that this if they if there's a question as to whether the legal requirement is still there, it's clearly something that I would suggest we should impose as a condition of the next re licensing. But again, something that that I wanted to highlight as that as we look at all the what we everything we did in the past when we did the original licensing, and why as to whether any of that still applies when we re license. This was a another another element for for these kind of discussion. Can I ask if there are legal decision that it's not legally required? Could we learn if we have the power to exercise discretion and impose that condition? Well, I think we'll have to vet this a little more closely, but that's an open question. I think we include that is not a legal question. It's an open question. I think we talked about that. What if it is in possibility to satisfy through legislative act or lack thereof? What does that mean? Or do we have discretion? What's our authority? Yeah, okay, thank you. What's our authority to exercise discretion one way or another? Okay, that would be really helpful. And I would submit that these would be the time to try to exercise it when we've released in somebody for another five years and establish a condition or not. If we re license them, we didn't answer this question. And then later came to realize that you had no legal authority. It could be gone. For all for all we know, racing that is. I don't think I'm not speaking on on on behalf of Ben. I it could be that it is clearly their intention to conduct it. And this may be a mood point. But it is a legal question that we should resolve. And if and if it's not resolved, exercise what we believe would be our authority and the easiest one that occurs to me is to place an additional condition in on the license. There's also the other question of legal impossibility to satisfy the condition, which I'm wondering if that's what you're going to get, which is if because there's either action or inaction and a part of the general court on the legislation, what does that mean to any condition that we've imposed? Does it then eradicate that condition? Exactly, to have no authority behind it. Right. So there's obviously some plenty to do on questions. Got your list, Todd. Any further questions and thank you. Thank you for helping. We we have been briefed along the way on the suitability, particularly in terms of the whether we could achieve some efficiencies. We have that process underway. And so this is obviously a work in progress. But I think we should keep this on our agenda with some degree of cadence to answer these questions along whether or not we have to perform a vote. And we can and get just brief updates so that we keep our cadence going. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Do you need a motion? We don't have a vote than necessarily today. Do you? Well, we had a provisional vote, and I believe there may have been a provisional motion. But frankly, I don't know if we have a consensus today on I don't know that we need a vote to for IB and others to continue doing what they're doing. Well, then thank you. Moving on to item number four. Number five, excuse me. Racing division, Dr. Leibn. Company. Good morning, commissioners. Good morning. If you could make introductions, please. Oh, thank you. I have Chad work our senior financial analyst with us. And for the first couple of items, Steve O'Toole, the director of racing for Ben Casino is here to help with any questions you may have. What I might do is have Steve go ahead and talk about the winter wonderland happy handicapping contest, which is the item that's five a and then if you have any questions, you can ask him and Chad will actually talk to you about the promotional fund consideration. So, Mr Good morning. Good morning. Morning. So, with the promotional fund, we were kind of looking at different things that we could do. And one of the things that we have questions all the time from our customers is, you know, what can you do for us in terms of some type of racing? And so we do have our rewards that we that we rolled out a couple of years ago for our racing customers. But a lot of the a lot of the customers are very happy with the jackpots that you approve than we've been able to offer. And a couple of those jackpots were hit over the course of the last year or so to 250 and $60,000 as they grew. So that was really good. One of the things that has kind of taken off over the years is some handicapping contests at other at other tracks. And so ours is a little different than what there's a lot of different styles. The last one that we held was called a survivor contest. So it went for a whole card one night on the metal lands. And when he calmed around my announcer and public relations guy, he set it up. And so we identified the races at the metal lands and people would come in and they'd have picked throughout all 10 races. And whoever survived to that last race would be the winner. Unfortunately, the horse that won the first race paid $178 and only one person had it. So the contest didn't go on very long. So but it was a lot of it did have a lot of excitement. So what we've done with this particular contest is we're trying to push our rewards cards into more customers hands. So with a rewards card or with a sign up for rewards card, you're eligible for this contest free of charge to enter. And $5,000 in total prize money, $2,500 to the winner. This one's a little bit different. It's a mythical $2 wager win place or show. And at the end of the races on Saturday, I don't have the date in front of me, but on the on the contest day at the end, whoever has the highest mythical accumulation of winnings would be the winner. And then we're going to pay out to 10 places. So the contest just I'm just curious. So anybody picks all the races in the metal lands and but they're not betting on those races. It's just a contest among people here, right? That's separate. Yeah, they can go off and bet on there. They can bet if they want to, but they don't. And we're hoping that they will. Most of the time, the customers and the patrons put in and the handicappers put in a lot of time into something like this. It's on a Saturday and it's coming up shortly. So this one is some major races from Gulf Stream Park. There's some major races on that day. So the day has a lot of interest anyway. Next week is the Pegasus Cup. And that's we're rolling it out for customers to sign up that day as well as the following Saturday. So it's two weeks. It's in two weeks. And so the races are identified. They're not at all the same tracks. We have a different, there's five from Gulf Stream and some other tracks. We have some of the five races from Gulf Stream, the major races of the day. And we'll print special programs for those customers with just those 10 races. And those will be the those will be there. So it'll be an all-day event. And the money for those prices comes from the promotional trust fund. That's what I'm requesting, correct. And some of the contest is a pay to enter and then that's where you where you funded from. In this case, as I said, you know our customers are what have you done for me lately. We thought a free to enter was the way to go with using the promotional fund as the kicker, which makes sense because you know advertising to use the promotional fund for advertising is difficult because of the cost of all the advertising and the limited funds that we have in the promotional fund. So we thought this was a good way to you know get a little bit of a you know something into our customers hands. And a lot of times you know a lot of times our hand they'll use that money to bet winners will use that money to bet back into and increase the interest in that card which would have the potential of increasing our handle for that particular day. Yes, it's more people looking at more prices even if they're around the country and they'll stay longer perhaps and what I would like to do this I'd like to come back you know multiple times if this is successful which we think it will be. There's already been a lot of excitement at the plant for it. So if it's successful and we think we believe we'll be able to come back multiple times within the year to have different ones have one highlighting our live one or two highlighting our live card as well. So you know we're hoping this I think it's I think that the staff did a well did a good job thinking outside the box and putting this together and everything that has been submitted was through brainstorming in that thought process on what our customers would really like and we use the Lenny's model and we kick that to the side for the survivor for the survival which is which in other jurisdictions has worked out pretty well but for that particular night. So just roughly if you if anyone can estimate just how much does the promotional fund kick scene generally for the year or for PEN? I have a little bit more history with it so we haven't used the promotional fund for a while because there was a hiccup in the transition period between our way in PEN. It was a hiccup where it was overpaid so we've actually been making up for that hiccup over the course of the five years since PEN took over. So it's just started to grow and we didn't tap it because we wanted to take to gain some traction and get some I mean Chad probably has the number but yeah we want to let it grow before we started to try and do anything constructive with it. Sounds good and if you can get back to me on these that's that's fine I'm just sort of would like to get a sense as to kind of like what's the universe of money that we might be seeing and then how do each one of these requests might compare to that amount of money. It's a much smaller percentage than the capital improvement trust fund. Yeah that goes in. That was my sense but again just order of magnitude for future requests. I think it's a great idea by the way and I think it's the way to keep people engaged but. And I like to come back as many times I can with these requests so I can see the smirk on Commissioner Stebens face. I agree that it's a totally entirely appropriate it is a promotion. This will drive business you've done your done your homework here. I see where it can really gain excitement and people like that so six different winners that's that's a nice thing too so I think it's just it's appropriate way to use those funds. And you have to enter in person is that correct. That's correct yep we actually have to be there to collect as well. Oh okay. We want to keep them there all day. Keep them there all day. Before we move I just want to point out that Mary and Dolly had us at 1115 at the start of your presentation and we were at exactly 1115. Thank you. Wow. She is she is she's killing it projections are strong. Thank you for coming today to explain this. Do we have a motion. Madam Chair I move that the Commission approved Plainville gaming and redevelopment LLC's request for consideration and the amount of five thousand dollars to the harness horse promotional trust fund for the winter wonderland handicapping contest on Saturday February 1st 2020 at Plainridge race course. Second. Any further questions. All those in favor. I five zero. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. The next item we have is also with Plainridge Park casino and this is for funds from the harness horse capital improvement trust fund. And this is in the amount of 40 thousand three hundred thirty seven dollars and 81 cents. This consideration was approved by the Commission on December 5th. And so they went ahead and moved forward with the purchase of a tractor from big boys toys. I have included in the packet the opinion letter from Dickson Salo who provided all the documentation. I have reviewed the documentation. They included pictures exhibits invoices copies of checks made payable to all vendors and the request looks like it is in good order. This does require a vote. No smirk required but I'm happy to get it. Madam Chair I move the Commission approved Plainville Gaming and redevelopment LLC's request for reimbursement in the amount of forty thousand three hundred thirty seven dollars and eighty one cents to the harness horse capital improvement trust fund for the purchase of a tractor from Massey Ferguson big boy toys LLC. Second. Any questions. Thank you very much. All those in favor. Opposed. Five zero. Thank you commissioners. Thank you. Thank you. And onto local aid. So each quarter in accordance with budget and appropriation ten fifty dash zero one four zero local aid is payable to each city in town where racing activities are conducted. The amounts are calculated at point three five times the handle from the quarter ending six months prior to payment. The local aid payment for the quarter ending December thirty first two thousand nineteen is in the amount of two hundred and fifty five thousand three hundred fifteen dollars and ninety one cents. This amount reflects the total from racing that took place in April May. In June of two thousand nineteen. And on the second page you will. See a breakdown of the handle as well as distributions that are payable to each city in town. And this item also requires a vote. Any questions for chat. We have a motion. Madam chair I move that the commission approved the two thousand and nineteen local aid poorly payment in the amount of two hundred fifty five thousand three hundred fifty and ninety one cents pursuant to the commonwealth of Massachusetts two thousand and nineteen budget and appropriation is described in the memorandum dated January thirteen two thousand and twenty in the commissioners packet. Second. Any questions all those in favor. I opposed five zero. Thank you. The next item for racing is the two thousand and eighteen Suffolk Downs unpaid winnings as we discussed previously these are in a year past. For Suffolk Downs for the unclaimed tickets in two thousand eighteen was two hundred and forty six thousand six hundred ninety two dollars and ninety cents payable to the common wealth of Massachusetts. Financial analysts at work has gone over to this amount with Suffolk Downs. And just as a note we do have another guest at Jessica here on behalf of Suffolk today. And this does require a vote from the commission. I have a question. It's just a out of curiosity. Do you know. So Suffolk. Has closed so we will have this report next year for twenty nineteen right. Yes. Do you happen to know what twenty seventeen was. I'm sure. I wonder if there's an amount. It's amazing how similar it is from here to here with all the tracks. Last year Suffolk it was two hundred and thirty six thousand eighty four. So it will be interesting to see if the year of the closing if people are more vigilant or. I just think it will be. That's correct. It's been pretty steady. At some point they will be closed but we will still have outstanding tickets that will be due so we'll have to work with Suffolk on. And these are both from the live raising and the simulcasting correct. Yeah. Yeah. So it'll still we're still right. Yes. They're still simulcasting. So the amount may not change that much from. For this year coming up. That's right. So the science that's right for simulcasting if simulcasting continues then. They will not be a close out because it's correct. Thank you. With the track closed. Does somebody now go to the simulcasting location. Because you've got the year to cash the ticket in. How does that work. Just out of curiosity. I'm trying to remember what the dog tracks we did. There was a mechanism in place and I'll have to go back and look at what that mechanism was. But we might work it out with the tracks so that those could be that could be done. No. But your question is as to where they're going to observe the simulcasting. It's at the track. But can you put cash. Is that where you physically go also to cash in the cash. I'll wager on a horse race potentially even though the live raising right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This on the simulcasting you can still do it. If at some point it was completely shut down. Then we would work out a mechanism like they did when the dog racing. And supposedly everyone's on notice for that. It's a year. But they they. Yes. Would the question would be if they are wondering because they have if they have a alive winning they could still go. Correct. To. Yeah. So maybe we could help on the outreach. Good question. And maybe on our website. Reminders remind people that they're still open. Yes. Like always it's only a one year but they are still open. If that's in fact how they can cash out. Yes. Interesting. Okay. And you need to vote on this. Yes we any further questions. Alex. Do I have a motion. Madam chair I move the commission approved the payment of two hundred forty six thousand six hundred ninety two dollars and ninety cents from Sterling Suffolk race course. To the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for unclaimed winnings from twenty eighteen. As described in the memorandum did it January sixteen twenty twenty included in the commission. Second. All those in favor. Hi. Hi. Opposed five zero. Thank you. Moving on to that. So the next one is the unclaimed winnings from Wonderland and that was determined with Chad and Suffolk which is using the Wonderland license at Suffolk Downs to be three thousand eight hundred and forty nine dollars and thirty three cents and this is requires a vote of the commission. I'm sorry I put to the wrong page. Any questions on this. Do I have a motion. Madam chair I move that the commission approved the payment of three thousand eight hundred forty nine dollars and thirty three cents from Wonderland Greyhound Park to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for unclaimed winnings from two thousand eighteen. As described in the memorandum did it January sixteen twenty twenty included in the commissioners. Second. Any questions. All those in favor. Hi. Hi. Any opposition. Five zero. Thank you. Okay the next one is the recovery then claimed winnings from Plainridge and Chad in determination with the folks at Plainridge determined that it was one hundred and eighty seven thousand dollars two hundred and fifty two point forty seven and again this requires a vote of the commission. Any questions. Do I have a motion. Madam chair I move the commission approved the payment of one hundred eighty seven thousand two hundred fifty two dollars and forty seven cents from Plainridge race course to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for unclaimed winnings from twenty eighteen. As described in the memorandum did it January sixteen twenty twenty included in the commissioners packet. Second. Any questions all those in favor. Hi. Opposed five zero. As always thank you for the great preparation. Oh do we have one more. We have one more. One more my apologies. We have the unclaimed winnings from Rainham town in Massachusetts Greyhound Associations. And that amount was determined to be one hundred forty two thousand nine hundred seventy seven fifty five and again this does require a vote of the commission. Any questions on Rainham. Do I have a motion. Madam chair and move the commission approved the payment of one hundred forty two thousand nine hundred seventy seven dollars and fifty five cents from Rainham taunton Massasoid Greyhound Associations. To the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for unclaimed winnings from twenty eighteen as described in the memorandum dated January sixteenth. Two thousand twenty included in the commissioners packet. Second. Any questions all those in favor. Hi. Opposed five zero. Now I can say a proper thank you. Thank you. Thank you. As always. So well prepared. Thank you. So now we're moving on to item number six which is the commissioners updates. I'm just going to look at my time. Three. Yeah. Three two minutes ahead. That's pretty good. Mary and. Rest assured I won't call you out if we get behind because it will be it will be reflective of me and our team here as opposed to you. So thank you. We now looking at item six a the last meeting we had begun our discussion around process for the search for a permanent executive director. We now of course have the benefit of Karen Wells is our interim executive director. As I said in earlier it's critical to not only my fellow commissioners and me but I believe for the entire staff and for the good of the commission and the benefit of the commonwealth in our licensees that the process be open transparent and competitive in order to meet all of our obligations and to do so under the open meeting law of course. The last time you were here we tabled a vote although I'm not sure we really anticipated a vote necessarily around whether or not to decide to retain an executive search firm or use internal resources. Before I turn this over to commission Sunica who is assisting in this process. Commissioner Brian you had recognized then that you needed to learn a little bit about the history of what had occurred with the past to executive directors and I wondered if you wanted to either comment or if you if you've gained the benefit of that. I did. I talked to commissioner Stevens about his involvement in the prior to exercises and I also talked to tripti head of HR in terms of what the process was looked at what was followed at that time. So I feel more comfortable being able to take a position today. So I would defer to commission Sunica in terms of process. Good. And then we outlined or you outlined the pros and cons of both that we at least had highlighted between ourselves. I don't know if you want to summarize the discussion briefly and then seek some guidance. Yeah. I will try to summarize briefly. I we've done. We've had two instances of searching for an executive director and we've done one of each one with internal resources and one with an executive search firm. I think there are you know positives and you know and on both we can gain the perspective of an outside firm that perhaps comes with if we conducted a search if we decided to engage a search firm that may come at the expense of perhaps delaying a little bit more of the process. But that doesn't mean it would be any less of any less quality necessarily. We talked about that in the past. I don't think it's necessary to to rehash all of that although we could. I am frankly you know indifferent as to both. I think there are positives on both approaches but perhaps you know leaning more towards you know having a search firm help us out. The provisional or the caveat that I would put in and also remind ourselves is that we looked at all the existing contracts for professional services and we did not find a firm. We felt we did not find a firm or a group that could really fit within all of those pre-approved contracts by the by the state procurement OSD. So we believe if we went this route that we would have to do a procurement of our own and you know designate procurement management team and and and we certainly are confident that we have those internal resources ready and able to to execute on that. I have had some time. I initially a couple of weeks ago kind of assumed or was leaning toward an inside process because of I thought we we we handled that well on the one occasion we did it. But I have really looked at the added value that that a firm can bring as well as I was persuaded by CFAO Lennon who talked about resources and the resource drain it would take to do this properly. And I think it's important to all of us that we do it properly and thoughtfully and really you know make sure that that's part of our process. So I at this point am thinking that using a search for firm would be appropriate. So I guess I'm a spoiler in terms of I'm not a post to it but in the extent we move that way I think there's and I don't know how this votes crafted but I don't think it's an all or nothing because I do think we can move forward with an internal process and internal resources that's then supplemented by an outside firm that can then help push out further head hunt if that falls short. And to me I felt like that was a better use of addressing the resource issue and then making the most of a search for my conversations on the scope of those services could be anywhere from soup to nuts drafting everything the postings handling it betting it screening it etc. Before it came up to you do your own if the push out isn't satisfactory the return is not satisfactory you can also pull in teams that function more like headhunters and so talking about resource issues when I talked to everybody about process I was almost coming down in the middle ground that we did some on our own and then pulled in when appropriate. You know I that's a very good point and I think we should have clarified that the alternative of using an executive search firm presumes that there will be a lot of internal resources involved because we have that experience we have that capability there will be you know consultation of you know the job descriptions and the attributes that we feel are necessary and that all goes right to you know internal resources. So I think that is the presumption of the second alternative rather than doing it all on resources but that is clearly something that we would pay attention in terms of the scope that we write for an RFP as well as how we can begin to gain traction and you know not be too delayed while this procurement is going. There's a lot that we can also draw from the past two searches that's already in our archives as to what was valuable and how staff interacted here. Yeah the only thing I would add and you know the discussion of where a search firm may be able to add value you know if we find we're not seeing the candidates that we look for and we really need somebody to go out and kind of knock on doors and you know entice or recruit people who might not have been thinking about the position I think would be you know a critical resource to have. I do want to go back to one step that I'd raised the last time which was and it might be through a search firm but taking the step of also having a conversation or having a professional have a conversation with our directors perhaps the five of us you know the MGC team to create a piece that could be used in addition to you know a regular job description but something that gives that candidate an idea or feedback as to what the current life is of the commission what we're focused on what some of our staff what we might be looking for and in our next executive director something that's just beyond the nuts and bolts of a job description and it might be something that a search firm could do it might be something that an organizational consultant has some expertise in I don't think it's a lot of dollars you know I know our bidding allows us to find somebody if we get three competitive bids under ten thousand dollars and that might be sufficient to do the work but I don't want to forget about that piece because I think it's not only to be helpful for us in helpful for a team to give us feedback but I think it's going to be helpful for the candidate we've now been up and running for almost eight years you know where is the life of this commission what are we doing what's what are going to be some of the issues that we need to focus on going forward and I think that might be a good tool for us to use as we look for candidates or if we move ahead and engage a search firm to use as well so I don't like the idea of adding another step to the process but I think it's important and could have a more condensed time frame I actually think that's an essential step to the process and that's where I do disagree with Commissioner O'Brien and so don't feel like you're the spoiler because I'm a spoiler as well when I stop to think about where we are as you say in terms of the life of the commission there have been two executive commissioners executive directors hired in the course of that period you've used different processes I think it's a good time to pause and really assess what are the qualities we are looking for in the executive director at this juncture and in order to do that in a safe and open way particularly in the event we have internal candidates I do think using an outside resource will allow us to get very genuine and comfortable input that does not imply negative and so they would have those skills in that first step that input will allow us to really get the job description that we want because I don't know if we only heard internally I might be more likely to agree with our own team with a consultant it might make me think you know in a more rigorous fashion and that's not because we just rubber stamp anything but I just would probably think they've been here I came in February those insights so having someone who does this for a living the development of a job description is one of the most crucial pieces of research we could flip it and you know I think we thought about when we talked earlier commissioners in a guy that maybe a hybrid approach would be to use the outside resource at the beginning develop a job search and then use internal for posting recruitment and then and assisting in the interview process and with that comes some caveats because again I am concerned about our internal resources if we have a convene of procurement management team and give some very clear guidance on timelines and we include a contract that is rigorous that will come with the price and I understand that you know when you ask for faster service you pay more but it may be that we will be able to have directed resources rather than stretched resources to help us so I think this is a big job we are going to talk about compensation next it's a big job in state government compensation reflects that I think investing in the process of the juncture requires outside expertise and we have a very lean team here on HR we have a very lean team which is something we need to think about the future but right now we have one person in the spring field and one person here well I assume that we would be involved in others as well I am you know I would imply that we would be just I'm sorry to cut you up but I just want to make sure the other thing to clarify Commissioner Stebbins said you know interviewing us and the management and directors and then you went on to the MGC I think this is an opportunity to go through our entire team and I don't mean to go like this it's this I mean we are an entire team we are a small shop but to get input all the way through so if you are questioning somebody or using our resources it's going to feel different if it's somebody who has that skill set to like you suggested you know an outside consultant would know how to navigate how to question appropriately to get feedback and so that's the only thing I wanted to add. Yeah I know I mean we are making assumptions as to how a process like that goes I think there's invariably anybody that comes from the outside is going to be as good as you know the conversations that you know that they have internally and I understand that there may be a different comfort level but I think everybody is a professional here and he's going to be candid with whomever is going to be you know trying to compile all these attributes and edit the description we have a role in that we could do it in a public meeting and come to any number of times and say you know I think more of these less of that whatever the case may be I just we again some of these things have to play out and it depends on the firm that's outside but there will nobody is going to be effective if there's you know not a lot of input from internally and I just envision that it would and we would find ways to make sure that that happens in a candid and professional way. I think for the five of us and we will be candid I do think there's some merit when we talk about this and speaking to other people in the organization there may be some hesitancy. Yeah no and this is not a lot or nothing I mean I'm just agreeing with Commissioner Bryan that it's a mix and there's a balance there I cannot tell you exactly with precision what that is because you know we don't know who we're going to get and how that plays out but you know assuming that we'll have a good outside resource we'll use it in the most effective way we can and that includes a lot of internal input or thought you know I just perhaps we're just sort of you know saying the same things saying the same thing from two different you but I do yes and I just think that I am trying to be sensitive of the fact that we're at a certain juncture where we want to make sure our processes is really understood to be a process that embraces our entire team and with an outside resource there is I think it's quite understood in organizational behavior that when certain people inquire of questions that require candidacy not everybody feels as safe and open as one would hope but one would understand and I think you would express it is you know among us of course and even among our team that we interact with but you know there is in order to be to truly get the input that I think I would be seeking to inform our job description having a degree of process that's safe and fair and open would be really helpful at this juncture. I am absolutely willing to you know use our internal resources and understand that any search requires that as I mentioned at the last meeting I just came off an extensive executive search for a non-profit in which I serve and it required a lot of internal resources we really are short on here at a starting point and I think it was the director of those it was Derek Lennon who said we are short handed so I'm very aware of we want to continue to make sure our HR department does everything it needs to do to keep our team going strong here now and of course you've already accessed the input in the past of course we'll be seeking those resources to help but I think just the fact that we have some division here might indicate that having an outside consultant could help us. I think that's a consensus. I think we may be trying to speak at this point. I think what is a semantics for me in terms of this motion is sort of in discussion. I think it hinges on executive search for which and maybe I spoke prematurely to say I knew enough to take a position today but to me that's a term of art that doesn't necessarily encompass what Commissioner Stevens was talking about which I agree with which I think should be happening even if we weren't in the position of looking for any red and I guess I'm not 100% convinced that saying go ahead and get an executive search firm is actually going to achieve what Commissioner Stevens is talking about which I think there is unanimity here that that's a process we should undergo. So maybe if other people with more experience can educate me on it. You know finding something in it again it may be the talent or skills of a search firm to conduct this first step or it might be the skills of an organizational consultant to kind of come in and help us do this first level of review and I think we could possibly undertake that step at the same time issue an RFP for a search firm and I think to the next phase which is help us go out and find candidates doesn't mean we have to accept the proposals you issue an RFP and choose not to select somebody or change our work plan but you can almost have those two tasks I think on a parallel track. I do think there are firms that and we might be by doing that adding a lot more costs and maybe you know the next step would be and I would recommend that Commissioner Zuniga convene a procurement management team. He would be permitted under the open meeting law to include another commissioner. I think that there's some education to you know about how we could include what I think you and I were in agreement on in terms of the initial steps of getting a pulse of the you know internal pulse to inform the job description. I do think that that is something that executive search firms that is their first step in the process and then the search part is something that follows. It's not they're not it would be a misuse depends on the firm. Well that's right. That's right. My concern. They might be drafted. This is a narrow agreement forward that I don't think actually that's where we could say the one place we are all in agreement. Maybe we could say outside resources resources or resources but try to get the one that's most efficient to accomplish what we want. In other words it doesn't have to be a consultant and a firm a consultant and inside but if we can agree that it's external and you know whether it's one or two external as to getting the pulse versus. I mean so Commissioner Stebbins sort of approach of you know getting the pulse is one is one thing and I guess I am conceptualizing it differently than proceeding from the get go externally. I am I am concerned about if we try to do this on our own it will not be. I'm not talking about the pulse internally. No but even afterwards I don't think we have the resources to conduct a very competitive open process that includes the potential for strong internal candidates in an efficient and fair and open way if we decide we're going to rely on such limited internal resources. So I don't feel moving forward in the first instance though says we're stopping there so I guess I'm just envisioning it moving moving forward. So but I'm getting a little lost here are we are we talking about two firms. That's what I'm hearing perhaps. No what I'm saying is potentially and I don't like the wording of what's put in front of us in terms of what would you say going forward. I that's I didn't I didn't see that motion could educate me in terms of the verbiage I didn't see them on because I absolutely embrace the idea of going out either under the thresholds in terms of getting you know verbal written three quotes to move forward on that and or an executive search firm that has that capacity while you're also doing an RFP for a search itself. You know what is the terminology we're talking about here. Like Mr. Grasman you look like you have an idea. Oh well I thought I looked that way. I mean I do think that it apparently there's language and emotion I wasn't involved in that crafting. So no one should ever be tied to that language. Do you have a suggestion in terms of what you would am I mean I but I do think we have a disconnect in terms of no no because I might be in we might be aligned is what I'm wondering is moving that the commission approved the search process for the ED by procuring external I know how you would phrase it external assistance in conducting you know organizational baseline assessment and or a search team so that it's there is the possibility that we get to the end of this and say you know what. Yeah we need something beyond or we can move speedily with you know what we can do is under the procurement threshold and we can very quickly and I envision first of all simple basic step is we want to one point and Rike is well can I just break it down before because I want to make sure she understands that I am aligned with that exactly and you should know that what could happen with the PMT coming together you sit down and you start writing what you're anticipating would be available there could be some you know there could help in terms of doing some initial due diligence to find out what these firms do have available for resources in the range right because whether it could be an organizational consultant plus or something and then draft the RFP we're convening back that would be my recommendation to vote on the RFP so if that helps it would be we come back and at that point we say you know what we really do need to you know divide and conquer and do something different but at least we'd be taking initial step to convene if we decide to go only internal or only external for one thing we might be missing an opportunity so maybe the procurement teams efforts will reveal this does that help you know yes I think I'm sorry to make these throws a technical wrench here but the what I'm leaning from this discussion I find hard to believe that we might be able to get outside resource under ten thousand dollars this notion that we could just you know competitive yeah you know this notion that we could for for whatever the first phase that we might be able to actually been opt so isn't it closer to 30 I don't know about that I thought it was in writing but not necessarily over 10 I think it's good I think that I've been told most recently no but in terms of RFP versus soliciting written bids that's short of that but I think I was over 10 I think I don't know because of our last one that we had where we didn't do a bid but I think that this could be aired out in that process and we could come back with some solutions and maybe do split but I think the main thing is whether or not we're going to seek any external resources for help initially I think there's a consensus on that so I'm wondering if the motion is more along the lines of approving the commencement of the search process for an executive director in the mass gaming commission by convening a procurement team to draft you know an RFR for executive search skills and an internal organizational assessment survey something like that that gives more specific direction to the PMT team designating commissioner Zuniga as the commissioner as the point person on that PMT but with a little more direction in terms of what we're looking for. Sounds good. And again I think you can do I'm very parallel tracks. I think the commissioner Zuniga's point this first step may go above a quick process and finding and getting three bits to come and do the work based on. Maybe we can find quickly but we can't do that. Maybe we find quickly that we cannot. I think that I actually asked that question that's why the idea of convening a procurement management team was needed because it's exceeds the cost. I mean we recently used a consultant and that was under ten thousand. If we're envisioning that you know very limited resource you know perhaps I think because the process is going to you know as we envision maybe require enterprise wide input it will just be more costly and ten thousand was the unless we had a statewide resource that we could use. But doesn't sound like we don't have that. No no I mean we can gain here by doing parallel as you suggest we could request three bits find out quickly whether it's anything is doable or not. If it is we would proceed if it isn't we could write anything that would be a two step process quote for an internal assessment and we may decide to do the search on our own or do additional work that sort of thing. It's it's it's we could come back and update at any point. I might my caveat is one efficiency in terms of dollars and time. Yeah. And that this does not become so piecemeal that you've lost the efficiency. Absolutely right. That would just be a caveat. Yeah no no. And I would also say that I have some other just as you're thinking convening little notes. You know I wrote in my notes that certainly efficient it has to be extensive and rigorous search for the resources but compressed in time. I would like to see an organization that's committed to strategies around diversity. They should be comfortable working with public entities subject to open the open meeting law and that they have the capacity to really be able to glean input from all all our team members. Not just at the high level. So that would be just a I would be looking for that once we reconvene with respect to the actual approval of any RFP. I would like to have also we have a motion. We'll need to have a second. We should informally learn I guess at our next gender setting meeting a timeline. So we have a motion. Are we going to read your motion? I've got a revised motion. OK. I've clarified it a little bit. If this makes sense. Madam Chair I move that the commission approve the commencement of the search process for an executive director for the mass gaming commission by convening a procurement management team to commence the procurement process for finding finalists for the new executive director position and or conducting an internal organizational assessment. It's phase one. He's phase two. And then commissioners in you get leading that would be motion. Could I'm sorry. Say it again. Please. I move that the commission approve the search process for an executive director for the mass gaming commission by convening a procurement management team to commence the procurement process for an external firm for the purposes of finding finalists for the new executive director position and or conducting and conducting an internal organizational assessment. I'd like keeping it and or and or because we might find a firm that could excel at both and it also helps leaves the wither to expedite the timeline. If we think we can do the first piece without doing a full blown. All right. So every state third time. No. I think it's amended. I think it's I think. Do we have it? Yeah. I think you have it. I think that's their eyes are glist. I second that motion. I second that motion. Thank you. And do we have any further comments? This is really helpful. And I hope feels very open to all of our our team here. OK. So all those and we have a second and all those in favor. I opposed five zero. Madam chair I further move to appoint commissioner on Riki Zuniga to manage the above referenced procurement team and execute all steps necessary to procure an external firm for the purpose of finding finalists for a new executive director and or conducting an internal organizational assessment. The second. Any questions? All those in favor. I. Sting for with the extension by commissioner Zuniga. Thank you. Thank you out of the annual. No, I know it's still a majority. He's already ducking out on ducking out on business already. There we go. On the next part of our commission and we're we're doing you're doing still pretty well, Mary Ann. We have to address interim executive director compensation publicly because the commission does set the executive directors compensation and. I left it last time that I would work with commissioner Zuniga to look at best practices. We had already commenced that work. And what was missing was that we thought it would be most fair for director Wells and interim executive director Wells to be able to participate and and give her insights. We did have a meeting with Karen and. We considered best practices that we've learned generally by using something called Google. And we also did quite a bit of outreach to within the state to learn about how interim. Compensations are set. Generally the rule that we've been employing reflects all that we learned with respect to interim compensation. So that was good guidance for us. The general rule commission Zuniga was if you disagree interject was you know a five to 15 percent boost but that you look at factors as the what additional tasks are absorbed in the interim and with an understanding that of course it's not the actual position. You know we've already talked with Karen that there are certain tasks that an interim would it would be it would be inappropriate for her to do because they're long term tasks and it would not be the right juncture for her as an interim to tackle them. So we we took into consideration also the fact that Director Wells did have this position in the past. The general guidance also mentioned the length the tenure of the interim positions and whether it will be short short term or longer. That's why it's important as we talked about the time the timeline for our search. So I think that we came to recommendation and I'll leave it now to you. Commissioner Zunica. Yeah the only thing I would add to those remarks is we also look at past practices and consistency among other positions not only the one interim executive director but other interim positions we've had in the past. And with that five to 15 percent in mind we're recommending a 15 percent consideration or increase to Director Wells that would still work under to satisfy other things that you pointed out chair. It would be slightly less but not much of what our prior executive director was making in his full time capacity. It's it's I'm going to actually help on the math because you know we have to be transparent here is our requirement. Director Wells is continues to do her job as IEP director and it's currently paid one hundred and fifty eight thousand four hundred and forty five dollars. That's of course is all matter of public record with a 15 percent increase it would come up to one hundred and eighty two thousand two hundred and thirteen dollars. The prior executive director was his salary was at one hundred and eighty five thousand. So that would be the practical and result and result. And as you mentioned before but maybe I'll add additional clarification within that same guideline that you researched relative to the five to the fifteen percent if this capacity in if this role of interim exceeds three or four months and we'll have to come back and evaluate whether you know these compensation still is appropriate and we can come back at any time. I think it sounds entirely reasonable I appreciate the research rather than just saying this is a good number you know really looking at best practices and whether it be time and prior experience in the position that makes a lot of sense to me. I would agree I appreciate the due diligence in looking at the process that's been used. I would just raise a caution flag that what we're setting Karen's interim salary at isn't necessarily a determinant for what salary will be for the next executive director because that's all based on years of experience and other factors so I don't want to necessarily pigeon hole us in saying this would be the salary for the next executive director I think that's still up to our discretion. And that's an important addition. No I would agree I think given the nature of the experience and the position of the departing ED and then the roles that Director Wells is taking on and also maintaining the primary responsibilities of an existing unit absolutely warrant doing what would be the 15 underpass practice. Right and I should also note that she has in the executive director position not the IAB director position has absorbed additional management responsibilities so that was also another factor for us to consider not lost on us. Any further questions comments on that? Not so bad. It is our requirement. So thank you. Do we have a motion? Madam Chair I move the commission approve an increase of 15% to the salary of investigations and enforcement bureau director Karen Wells as compensation for her performance as interim executive director for pay period beginning January 19th 2020 until the commission appoints a permanent executive director. Second. Those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Five zero. Thank you. Now we have any further business? Any further updates that you want to discuss? I have just one real quick one. I had a chance about a month ago to speak to a group that we've regularly been in front of which is a group of hotel finance and tech executives. They periodically heard from us on what's happening with gaming. And I threw out the question of this group is primarily centered around they primarily work in the Boston area. And I asked the just broad question of what impact have you seen since the opening of Encore Boston Harbor. Considering that summer is a busy month for hotels in the Boston area, the few that responded said we saw no impact really in terms of occupancy during the summer months obviously following the opening of Encore in June. So that was good to hear and that we're not having that our licensee is not having a negative impact on some of the other businesses, but may actually be contributing to the success of everybody. But just anecdotal, not scientific feedback. But something where research will eventually address, I suspect, so anecdotally. Something we'll eventually get to. Anything else? No. Move to adjourn. Second. Those in favor? Aye. 5-0. And we're at 12-14. Thank you. And thank you to all who helped put this together today.