 everyone. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and because we're holding this meeting virtually, I'll do a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you. All right. Good morning to get started. Today is December 1st and it's actually going to get pretty cold one. Today is public meeting number 405, the MGC, and we're going to get started with some minutes. Commissioner Hill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the commission approve the minutes from the August 18, 2022 and the September 12, 2022 public meetings that are included in the commissioner's packet. Subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Any edits or discussion? I actually have an edit. On which set, Commissioner Maynard? If you go to packet page 21, that's the September meeting, and go to paragraph three, Commissioner Hill. Yeah. It says, Commissioner Maynard stated that the application for course racing should be for consideration for horse racing and sports wagering should not be considered for the application. I did go back and look at the quote. I did not say that sports wagering should not be considered for the application. What I said was an application for horse racing should be for horse racing and application for sports wagering should be for sports wagering. Of course, there could be some entertainment of sports wagering, but my point was that there are separate applications for each, and I believe that each commissioner also acknowledged that statement on the meeting. We'll make those changes. I'll connect with Judy. Make sure we're all set. Thank you. That is all. Thank you. I'm getting a notice of a little bit of instability in my system, so let me know if I go in and out. Okay. But thank you, Commissioner Maynard. Any other edits? Commissioner Skinner? No. All right. Then again, thank you to legal and on these minutes. They're extensive and very good. Thank you. So Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Five, zero. Thank you. Now we're going to move on to item number three on the agenda, Director Vandalinden. I understand we have guests today. Well, good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, commissioners. Yes, we do. So what I'm bringing to you today is a discussion about the commissioner's knowledge needs and to the degree of possible research priorities. So I'm joined today by Lindsay Cobb. I think it's Lindsay. I apologize. Cobb Fleich. Is that how you pronounce it? Okay. Great. Lindsay is the stakeholder engagement lead with Grillo. We also have Corine Leon. She is a knowledge broker with Grillo. Grillo is an organization that the Gaming Commission engaged with around spring of last year. So the background on this is really quite simple. I won't read the memo that I prepared for you, but the Gaming Commission has a foundation built in statute, Section 71 of Chapter 23K, which requires us to engage an annual research agenda. An annual research agenda made that every year we are to set for a line of research to investigate the social and economic effects of expanded gaming in the state. And we've taken that mandate quite seriously. And it's resulted in what I think is an incredible library of research. In fact, there's been over 50 reports and studies that have been published and are now available on our website. That leads to a challenge, though, right? How do we make sure that this research is used? How do we make sure that it's getting to the right people? How do we make sure that it's digestible in a way that makes sense and that it's actionable? And so in 2019, the Commission engaged in a research strategic plan. And this was really fleshed out during that process and highlighting the importance of making sure that we're doing what we call knowledge mobilization or knowledge engagement in exchange. So and so we went through a procurement process, identified Rio, who is, might I say, an outstanding organization in this space, internationally recognized, to help us build this strategy, to help us figure out how to do a better job of making sure that knowledge gets to the right people. And so today, we wanted to bring this discussion to the commission, to specifically the commissioners, to as key stakeholders and knowledge users of the research. How do we do a better job? How do we serve you better to make sure that you have the information that you need so you can make these important policies decisions? And so Lindsey and Corine will facilitate this discussion. So Lindsey, I will turn this over to you. Cool. Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for having us. Everyone's able to hear me? Okay. Yeah. I had the opportunity to meet a couple of you at the Niagara conference in the spring. So nice to see you again. And then for the rest of you, as Mark mentioned, I'm Lindsey. I work for an organization called Rio. Thank you, Mark, for the kind words about Rio. We've been working in this safer gambling, gambling, harm reduction space for about 20 years. We are based in Canada and for about 15 years, we were quite focused on the province of Ontario and some of the national work going on. And we've been doing work that supports evidence-based policies, programs and practices in a safer gambling context, internationally, now for about five years. So we've had connections with Mark for a number of years, but this is our first sort of formal project that has been really interesting because we work in so many jurisdictions and yours is so unique in that you invest so intentionally in research to support your policy work and to support some of the programs and practices happening more broadly. So it's really nice for us to be able to work with you from that foundation to think about how we can meaningfully share all of the important work that's come through your research agenda with folks who are well positioned to use it. So, Mark gave a great overview of sort of what we're doing to achieve that. We are meeting with yourselves because you are such a key stakeholder in this work and in this body of research. Obviously, a really primary goal of the research program and agenda is to support evidence-based policymaking by you folks. So we really want to hear your thoughts around what are some priorities on your horizon, what kinds of information do you need to make evidence-based decisions in those priority areas, and also some details around information sharing, how we can make sure that MGC is creating sort of pathways and tools and resources that will help you to wrap your heads around that research in a way that meets your sort of dynamic role needs. It needs to be digestible and quick, and we can talk about what kinds of tools might enable that best. We're not going to be able to talk about all that in the half hour or so that we have with you this morning, but I will do a follow-up with you via a survey. So we'll have some chats in real time, and then we'll do some follow-up. And then importantly, we're also reaching out to other stakeholders, another piece of this process is thinking about all this work is so intentional about meeting your needs as policymakers in this space, but who else might benefit from this body of research and how can we make sure that we're carving out processes and programs and pathways to meet those folks needs as well. So this is sort of one piece of a bigger stakeholder engagement journey we're on to inform this strategy. Any questions about that before I ask you questions? Okay, great. I think just to anchor our discussion, so it's not just words coming out of my mouth, I will share my screen. I think I'm able to do that. I mean, while you're doing that, I just want to emphasize that last point that you make. The commission are our key knowledge stakeholders for the research agenda, but the intention of the research agenda, and I think that this is outlined in statute to her for intended is that this is really intended to help key stakeholders across the Commonwealth and a variety of different settings. And so we are going through this process with us commissioners, but we're also really trying to engage a number of other stakeholders across the Commonwealth to to have a better understanding and make sure that the reaches as wide as it can be. So from you folks we have a number of things I'll kind of give you an overview of like broadly what we're hoping to capture from you. We will cover some of it like I said today and then the rest will have a follow up process to get those insights from you. But we want to know what your top priorities and focus areas are for your policy making over the next couple of years that two years is the anchor we're thinking about for the first iteration of this knowledge translation exchange strategy. So that's, I know that there's some key sort of new areas that require a lot of policy work for you right now, we're cutting in that. And then also what are some areas that just need refreshing or revisiting that are sort of high priority for you right now. What information do you need to support your work in those areas so we can, we're interested in figuring out how we can best align your information needs with the resources already available. But also how can we use your information needs to continue to inform the research that is invested in going forward I know you have processes for that but how can we align that with this knowledge translation strategy so what kinds of research evidence what kinds of data, what kinds of products that sort of thing. I want to talk a little bit about my understanding of your typical strategy for keeping up to speed on the research responsible gaming teams. Research or newly published research through the agenda is they share the report with you ahead of time and then join you to deliver a presentation about a study and about the findings. I know what pieces of that puzzle work really well for you right now and where you think there might be room to shift things do things differently are their complimentary tools and materials that could be supportive of your understanding of that work so that something will explore as well. And then there's a key piece of the puzzle in this knowledge translation space is that there's a really big difference between raising awareness of research and then helping folks to really implement that into their programs policies and practices, where is what are the gaps between understanding the outcomes of research and what is sort of the evidence based path forward and actually being able to sort of interpret that in the context of your own implement that. And I know that in particular in a policy space there are so many contextual barriers and facilitators to that so help if you can help us understand what those barriers and facilitators are. And then to design knowledge translation tools and strategies to sort of work with and around that. And then, is there anything else that the team can do to support not only your understanding of the outcomes of research but also the implement the implications for policy in Massachusetts and opportunities to embed that research in your practice. So that's where we're going to go overall any insights you have on any of those things over the next few weeks, months or so months or so as we connect with you about that is going to be so helpful. But today, what we're all in the same space. I think it could be most useful to focus on a first question and then depending on how much time we have left will chat about either question two or three so while we have you around sort of the same virtual table. What do you feel are your top priorities for your policy work over the next couple of years. Mark, do you think that we keep the screen up or should we take it down. Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. In theory, I'm happy to take it down. I think we have it in our packet. Lindsay. Just to be able to see each other. Yes, there we go. A little bit more realistic. Yes, thank you. Commissioners. Yeah, so for me, obviously my background, anything public safety related is still a priority in terms of the impact. I know it's a statutory director for us as well but in terms of really looking at the next two years, the most important I think is responsible gaming in the context of online and sports wagering, and particularly the online venue, because I think some of the responsible gaming that we've studied and the impact, etc. When it goes live at a retail setting is one thing. Online is a completely different beast in the nascent industry and so if I'm going to flag one thing in particular I think in the next two years that that would be. You can't really get a baseline necessarily, but sort of really keeping tabs on responsible gaming in that context I think would be a top priority for us. Madam chair may I follow up on that comment. Yes. Specifically for me, the minors in regards to online betting, as well as in the in the casinos but, well, not so much because you, you get carded when you go onto the floor of a casino but online. That being showed some evidence, you know from 18 to 21, for example, these are kids that are somehow somewhere are online gaming which and betting and that that's something that we're all very, very concerned of. So if I had to just follow up with what Commissioner O'Brien said, specifically to minors for me, as we look at online betting. Of course responsible gaming for for everyone is something we care about. And we've been we've been told through some of the conferences that we've attended. How important this issue is, as we start putting together our regulations. Further follow up on building on on their points. Mr Skinner. Madam chair, just in keeping with the public safety theme, along with what Commissioner O'Brien has identified. I would also say that we should expand on that to other of the more nefarious interactions and enterprises throughout the illegal gaming market. For instance, money laundering, human trafficking, and whatever else there there is to know about, you know, sort of that the other side of things I could use a lot better of an understanding of those issues. And may I just ask a follow up. Are you interested in those issues specifically and like this emerging online context or broadly more broadly. And and, you know, to be honest, I think we could be educated in any areas specifically online as we launch sports wagering that we need to be paying attention to. I think that's important. There's a distinction. I think that's really important. Yeah. I, I joined all of my fellow commissioners on what they've brought up so far and I will say that the great work that's been done around advertising has interested me a lot. And I would say I would go further as we move forward, not just with sports wagering but also brick and mortar advertising. I'm very interested to see what what the effects are and where we are going forward, especially when it comes to targeted advertising and targeting certain communities over others. That's something that I'm very interested in to see, you know, what can be done to ensure that no one is being unfairly targeted to to gain. Who may have be predisposed to certain addictions. That's something that I would appreciate seeing more information on and I know that we already have great information on it, but I'm interested to see how it goes moving forward. Thank you also on Commissioner O'Brien's initial point to thank you, Commissioner Maynard, because I think all of us were probably going to mention advertising and you nailed it. But in terms of the baseline, you referred to baseline, Commissioner O'Brien, and I know they are thinking of the initial baseline study that happened with casino gaming to the extent we could accomplish this research. I think it would be really helpful to know how many sports wagering betters shifted from an illegal market to our legal market. How many, how many would say they have shifted from legal betting outside of the Commonwealth to the Commonwealth, those economic impacts that I know the legislation legislature was interested in. I know that's a difficult research. It's not baseline per se, but perhaps it's a retrospect, Mark. Yeah, that's a good question, Chair. I don't think that I've seen seen that research, but it's a good question. Okay, other areas, Commissioner Hill, are you leaning in? I am leaning in, and I don't know if this is a research subject or not, but I would like to know what's available for help once we've identified these folks that might need the help. We do a great job of IDing them, and with the brick and mortar, we've done a phenomenal job of getting them the help they need, but now that we're getting into online betting, how do we capture those folks? And more importantly, once we capture them, how can we get them the help they need? And maybe, Mark, to the extent that some of the tools you do plan on implementing through our regulatory framework, maybe a follow-up to Commissioner Hill would be, are those the tools effective at all? And then also, what are we doing the follow-up? I think that's a really critical question, Commissioner Hill. Other areas? Okay, I have a follow-up to Commissioner Hill's point. Just this morning, Lindsay mentioned the NAGRA conference. Just this morning, I was reading a bulletin that they were mentioning relative to the AGA's new study that indicated that there's over half a billion dollars poured into the illegal game market online. And so, you know, my first thought was, wow, who are these people? And, you know, not giving any validity or credit to that study because I haven't read it, but I would be interested to see in what is the Massachusetts, excuse me, Massachusetts share of that. And to Commissioner Hill's point, you know, are we able to identify those individuals and ensure that there are resources available to them should they be in need of them? Thank you. Other ideas? So the only thing I would say to follow up on Commissioner Skinner's point for the edification of our guest today is also there's a group in the AGA's office that is designated with dealing with the illicit gaming market. And part of that study that struck me was the vast majority of that money is still being spent on illicit table games and slots, not so much online. That's sort of a traditionally falls under the rubric of the AGA's office. So I love the idea, but it's also something that we probably want to make sure, you know, we understand that there's another agency that's got the primary responsibility for that. Commissioner O'Brien, that's a great point. And when we were identifying key knowledge users, I failed to include them, but we can certainly follow up with them as well. Yeah. If I may. So broadly, part of the research agenda is to help the commission understand the economic impacts of casino gambling. And in our mission, really is to, you know, maximize, you know, maximize revenue, maximize the benefits. And the economic, which would include tax revenue, include jobs of casino gambling and now, now sports wagering. And honestly, sometimes it's, it's trying to wrap my head around how do we best do that. What are the key questions that we need to answer in that, in that space is sometimes challenging. I think we can move forward with an economic research agenda. We have a very good monitoring system that are there, is there anything on in the economic research side that we could do a better job or key questions that you may have in that space. Follow up on that. Agreement mark. Right. I don't know this building on that. And I, and I think probably, maybe the two mandate, or maybe one of the mandated studies covers this but I think many of us are interested to understand the economic impact of the local establishments across the Commonwealth of online sports wagering. You know, we think of the retail and our, and the, you know, as we regulate the casinos, but we wonder, I'm curious to see if those who find maybe online betting it to be something that even though you can do it on your own couch, they would prefer to be out and about socially and it does it, does it create a new dynamic for local establishments and are they able to take advantage of that leverage it. Is that covered is that going to be covered pretty much in the mandated report you think Mark. We'll take a look at that. Let's take a look at that I was just thinking about that chair and let me go back and take a look at to make sure that that question is addressed. I don't know if anyone wants to build on it there's other thoughts on it. I, of course, I'm thinking particularly to have, of Nardi owned establishments and, and I'm an own establishments veteran owned establishments but particularly the communities of color that might be able to draw on this new, no recreational activity. Other thoughts for Lindsay and Karen. I have a thought but it's not a subject. It's one of your other questions I think you would ask and I'm sorry I don't have it in front of me but I think they're going to move us on to that. I didn't mean to interrupt you but no. Are we shifting now can or maybe shift. Yeah, we don't I think I only have a few more minutes of your time and I think having you around the same space to hear each other's feedback it might be interesting to chat a little bit about how you want to receive information. I have some emails from you around like what do you need to answer some of those questions you have is it data is it literature is it jurisdictional scans that sort of thing but how do you want to receive it. Are you liking this, we share the report we do a presentation. Are you finding some of the other tools that mgc research responsible gaming team has created like the white papers to be particularly useful what kinds of tools resources conversations touch points are most useful for you to wrap your head around literature quickly in the context of your busy and multi dimensional roles and in a way that really helps you to understand the implications. And Lindsay if I can just say something so yeah we've we've followed a general template for a long time now, and want to make sure that that's the right right direction that we're going and how can we do it better so we, you know, you approve a research agenda. The research is done when it's when it's gone through the final review of rigorous review process and it's complete. We bring it to the Commission we invite the researchers to come to the Commission to present those findings and share that final report. In the last years and a half two years, we started developing research snapshots easily digestible infer information. We've also on occasion written white papers that try to summarize the research and kind of dive deep into one one specific area. Then we we posted obviously we post it all on our website. Is, is that, is that okay. Is there a better way that we can be doing that. Okay, could I just ask for permission I do want to get to my fellow commissioners point even if it is out of order but I just wanted. So, you have a thought you share it and then we can pivot back to that. So let me, let me answer this particular question first. I actually had written down a note, as you were presenting at the beginning of the of the meeting. I think what we're doing is great. I love the information that we get. I love how we get it. I'm always so proud and I know I said this in other meetings but I'm always so proud when I hear that other jurisdictions are looking at what Massachusetts is actually doing. And I'm even more proud when I hear we're doing something nationally but also internationally that people are looking at what Massachusetts is doing. The information at least from this commissioner that we get and how we receive it, I think is excellent. And you use the word template which I think is, which is a great way to put it. The template you're using, at least in my view, has been very informative over the year that I've been here, more information than I could ever want. To be funny, the information that we receive is invaluable as we're putting together regulations or if we're putting something together moving forward. So, in regards to how we receive it, Mark, and the information that we receive, I couldn't ask for anything better than what we have now. I think it's great and the process in which you get us that information is invaluable to us. We don't only do this during a meeting like this. We have two or three meetings leading up to a public meeting, getting us that information and we're allowed, you know, to share our opinions with those reports before it gets to the big meeting if you will. So, as one commissioner, I think you do great. And when I see it replicated across the country and across the world, I know we're doing it right. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. So, hold your thought on the other item. Okay. Commissioner's following up on Lindsay and Mark's inquiry. We're following up on Commissioner Hill. Commissioner Skinner. I'll just say what he said. I think, you know, he said, what he said was well, very well put, and I agree. Any changes, Commissioner Maynard? No changes. I will say that Lindsay said that we have multi-dimensional responsibilities, and I will say that that could be same for you. Same could be said for you and Mark and his team. So we appreciate the way that you deliver this information to us. Brian, you want to build on this? No, I remember, whoever used to go last all the time used to say the great thing about going last is everybody said everything. So, I do agree with everything that's been said already. I'm not going to, I don't think there's anything for me to add other than to say that I agree. I concur as well. I like that you include now to the snapshot. I like that very much. It does help, I think, in that knowledge transfer mark that you envisioned. And I like the words now that we're hearing with knowledge mobilization. So thank you. I also really appreciate that you said that this is going to be shared, that these questions will be shared with a broader group of stakeholders. You know, I think for us, how it's presented and how we get to digest it really works. You know, maybe I'll be the case with other stakeholders, but I'm glad that you're asking that question of other stakeholders to mark. I think that's excellent. The idea that I had, and especially now that we have Dr. Andrews joining our team. If there's information that you need research that you want us to try to track down, whether it's in our own research agenda or outside. We are certainly here and available to do a literature review to follow up and gather information that you need in a specific way. I think the legal team does a fantastic job of this on the legal side, but there is research that is there that we can certainly be a resource to. That's really helpful. Really helpful. Mr Hill, do you want to entertain your thought now. Well now I feel like I'm hogging the whole conversation so I promise the next one I'll be very quiet. We have a lot of type of information we like, and I love the community based reports that have done, where you get out into the community you're able to ask directly to the people who are affected by the casinos are in this case, moving forward online bedding responsible gaming in our brick and mortars. I love those the data you give us is great. Very helpful, but that community based stuff is awesome. So if we can somehow implement more community based reporting. That's something that I would love to see that comes from the heart. Thank you. Yeah. Any thoughts on that. And I follow up on it just briefly. And, and I would say that when we get those and I, I think I've said it publicly, like Commissioner Hill, I really, really appreciate hearing those voices straight from the communities. I'm really interested mark on when research comes out with recommendations. Or even well, your findings. I, I always, I always want to make sure that we do the follow up to to commendations to the extent it's our, it's within our control, do you know what I mean. So maybe as we get our research, when there's opportunities to say this is what we're going to do to follow up or how we can measure the finding, you know, the recommendations. If we could be attentive to that and I'm sure you are. I'm just, we were here, you know, it's a short snapshot, you know, three or four years and research takes a long time. You see, but, you know, commissioners do have lengthy 10 years and so I know that it'll be important for them to see that follow up. Never mind our other stakeholders. So is that I didn't articulate that that well but it's just really, I never feel like we're leaving the research is Commissioner Hill points out it does get referenced. You know, across the nation and internationally and used, but to the extent it can be. We can have follow up short reports or something how it's actually followed up here. Yeah, I concur with that church at Stein I think we never want to do research just to do research we want it to be meaningful and and to be actionable. And the extent that we can follow up and be accountable to, you know, to the findings, if they're, and I think this has been since my entire time at the commission that we do research not to highlight the good things that the expanded gaming laws brought to Massachusetts but if there there is a negative consequence that there isn't an unintended consequence that we want to we want to turn towards that and identify it so that we can address it. Thank you. Other thoughts commissioners. Lindsay. So what are how are we doing for time are you comfortable with continuing to chat do you need to move on in your agenda and we can follow up asynchronously what's your preference. Another, another five minutes. Sure. Okay. Julie, let's think about the question about barriers and facilitators that and so it sounds like the processes in place right now for you to be kept appraised of what the findings of this program of research are is working really well for you. But we know that in the context of your roles are million factors that impact your ability to implement some of the best practices emerging from research into the regulations in your jurisdiction so can you help us understand what some of those are like what are what are factors that kind of get in the way of evidence based change, if at all, and what are what are factors that play in your role that would help or facilitate the implementation of best practices in in your regulatory work. Well, I don't think it's the absence of of articulate that doesn't necessarily mean that I suspect it's because we're pleased. We, we, I think have confidence that those any barriers would be being addressed mark, but maybe we can show on that one a little bit. It's, it's a tricky question and there's there, whatever there are a million variables to think through so perhaps that's one that will be easier for you all to respond to and for us to capture and more of an asynchronous survey format. I will articulate one Lindsay and I did publicly before and Marcus well aware is that I know that we want to be very intentional in our research and responsible gaming division about making sure that our researchers are teams that are under research or whatever reflect the communities that we are looking at and so I think that sometimes can be a challenge to make sure we have on the research teams that diversity. That's reflective of the issues. So that's just one I thought of last night, but I have articulated that so it's all known as right mark. It's good to, it's good to, you know, keep it at the forefront. Okay, and then just in terms of then moving from this like you're being presented with the best practices or the evidence emerging from this program of research. Are you feeling supported in terms of understanding the implications of that evidence for your policy work and understanding opportunities to implement that do you feel like you have the information and support you need to work all the way through sort of those steps you're aware you understand you understand the implications and your well positions to implement or are there different kinds of supports conversations that would sort of help support all the way through that process. Commissioner Brian, then commission me the only point on this and it's somewhat out of our control but maybe we need to talk about it more. As you said, Madam chair intentionally is sometimes the recommended or best practice implementation is not within our statutory control, and it requires going back to the legislature, either on a different statute on ours so that's a level of it might be too strong of a word but it is sort of a block sometimes in our ability to fully implement what we see is the results of our research. I was going to say that I concur with Commissioner Hills previous point which I think applies here which is, you know I'm always interested in what can we learn more about how to implement what we learn about. I think Commissioner Brian made a good point to and, you know, for a great example is on the white paper on advertising. Right I know the problem I've identified the problem and I think Madam chair. You and I have discussed it also with Mark. So, okay, how far can our reach be on how the targeted advertising is happening. Right, and I think Commissioner Brian just really nailed it on the head and so, you know, how can we implement these initiatives and implement the research that we are reading is something I'm more interested in I think Commissioner Hill kind of nailed the point earlier. Other comments here. So we've been sort of diligently capturing your insight that you've been chatting but we will do a follow up through Mark to sort of give space for you to provide any other insights you have and we will look forward to reading some of those. Thank you so much for your time. I would say thank you as well. There's so much that's on the Commission plate to take a step back and reflect on the research I know is. I really appreciate that you're willing to do that at this at this point in the Commission's life. And it's really useful, really helpful to me. I can say for everyone markets. It's our pleasure, and we're grateful for the work and we need this work. And we also know what I think I'll have a lot of confidence in your ability to help us in the assessment of what we need. And what the team needs for research to support the Game Commission's work. No under 23 K and now under 23 hours so your whole team is guiding our guiding us in so many ways and we really appreciate real being here to help on the missioners and final thoughts. The thumbs up. Great work. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mark. Well done. At least with the step forward for you guys. That's a stepping stone. Yeah, definitely, definitely. We can build from this. Yeah. Excellent. Thank you. I see on our agenda that the next item. For a, it's about the marketing affiliates, but in our packet. It's the reverse. Director Lillio, so you prepared to go forward with them, the market affiliates question first, or I am and I think there's actually a natural order to the discussion that you just had. So, Okay. Ready and I can jump right in if you'd like. Yeah, so we're just like turning to the memorandum on page 29 of the packet. And Mark is staying right on. Okay. Okay, so I asked for this item on marketing affiliates to go on the agenda. One reason that around vendor licensing, but it also raises a number of issues around the promulgation of regulations around responsible gaming. So currently in terms of the vendor licensing aspect. The commission has already considered marketing affiliates in the context of the vendor licensing regulations, which are already promulgated. And in those regulations, the commission has determined to place marketing affiliates in the sports wagering arena to treat them as what are defined as the sports wagering vendors. And the issue levels of vendors and the sports wagering vendors are the higher higher level of vendor licensing. And they would mirror what the IB does for the gaming vendors on the 23 K side the gaming vendors being, you know, slot machine manufacturers and companies that provide products or services directly related to gaming and those are fairly deep dive standards. And the marketing affiliates are not directly related to the operations of sports wagering. The other vendors in this category under the 23 n regulations are things like a platform providers, lines and odd setting providers geolocation customer verification. And the commission asks those type of things, but the commission determined to elevate the marketing affiliates because of the particular concerns. As I understood it, the particular risk concerns around protection of minors in this arena, the VSEs and concerns around the VSEs in this arena so they were elevated to the to the higher level. And I learned recently because we've asked the potential operators to be submitting their intended vendor lists that there are many of these marketing affiliates. And when I say many, it looks like they are in the many hundreds of them. The IB is simply not set up to perform the type of investigations that we would do under the existing regulations for that category of licensure that involves, you know, scoping entity individual qualifiers deep dives sometimes site visits those kinds of things. So clearly I wanted to ask you to, you know, revisit this. You know, if you did still want that type of investigation, we could explore outsourcing the investigations. But, you know, I'm not an expert on these marketing affiliates. I'm learning. I've had some recent conversations with Mark about them. But I also wanted to invite you to see how we continue to learn about this area to, you know, let's really tailor the level of regulatory review and regulatory burden, precisely to the specific concerns in this arena as we continue to learn. So, I can put a couple things out there that I've learned in the past few days and you know I think Mark may have something to offer and Commissioner O'Brien I know that you have expressed, you know, some expertise and a lot of, you know, some interest and protections in this area, but I'll just put out a couple things that you're for conversation for conversation now, and I understand that the regs on responsible gaming are, I'm sorry, the regs on like advertising and they're scheduled for later this later this month. So, you know, one item that has come up publicly is how much of this burden to a responsibility to put on the operators as opposed to the marketing affiliates. I'm aware of a number of other jurisdictions, Indiana, New Jersey, Ontario that have issued fines against operators for, it looks largely like for marketing to excluded individuals to BSE individuals. I haven't seen any fines directed at the marketing folks, although I haven't done any exhaustive research on that, you know, these are fines that have come to my attention through the, through some of the research I've done and they've been targeted at operators. And I think I said New Jersey, Indiana and Ontario. So that is one component that I thought was worth thinking about and considering, you know, another thing. And again, this is operator focused, not affiliate focus, but operator focused, whether there is any value on requiring the operator to have someone on the compliance side or the legal side, certifying on a regular basis, you know, whether it's a monthly basis that they have reviewed all of the plans, the marketing plans with their various affiliates, and can certify that they comport with, you know, all of the Massachusetts rules and law and regulations, you know, wanted to put that out there is something to consider whether you think there's value in that. So I guess those are my points to kind of get this conversation going. I'll try to share with you more if you have specific questions of me. I asked, you know, I think Mark may have something to add to this conversation as well. Let's see the also Christian already has. Do you want to hear from Mark? Yeah, yeah, I'll defer to Mark right now and then I can circle back. Thank you. One of the central questions I had tonight is what is what is a marketing affiliate? What are we talking about? What is the scope of what a marketing affiliate on behalf of licensee? I reached out to a vendor that we have KHJ who does marketing and communication on for the game sense program. And so what they said is that affiliate marketing is a strategy which brands will pay independent publishers for instance social media or content creators to drive sales of their product or services. It's largely digital or online and that affiliates are paid based on commission. So their goal is to drive sales, not to necessarily increase brand awareness but again to drive drive sales. And so I think that this is a little different than I think what I was moving forward with an assumption of what a marketing affiliate was before this. Understanding what what their role is and how they're paid is important when we consider how the commission treats these these individuals and especially in their relationship to an operator or a licensee. I guess my question before I even get to what I was gonna say before Mark is in that regard. What do you see is the distinction based on what your assumption was how does that change how you think an effective regulatory response to that is Well, I have a lot of concern if we're talking hundreds. It becomes really difficult to for us to exert the regulatory control that we, we would want to. And so if I think that really understanding, are we talking hundreds what is that what is, are we talking 50 are we talking 100 are we talking 200 makes a big difference in my mind. We want to be able to to monitor this there needs to be some degree of accountability. Especially if their goal and they're based on commission to to drive sales, it becomes really challenging their role is really important and I can see where it can be conflicted with making sure that we're protecting individuals that we want to make sure are that their goal is to to drive sales. That could be not this not necessarily but could be at conflict with one another. We need to be careful with this. I think holding our operators holding the gaming operators accountable. Ultimately accountable is really important. In lieu of registrants or you mean both because I the conversation that I have with the red about how the registrant status works. And already you can probably discuss this in more detail but that sometimes there are monetary thresholds in terms of spend right you fall less than a certain amount 10k, you're kind of considered de minimis. You don't even have to register and then there are in the in the gaming context you cross over that threshold you register and then it's sort of up to the idea to tag. Maybe certain frequent flyers or heavy users such that they need to elevate their status and something that's a greater review. So I came away from those conversations thinking. This is just the nature of us doing regs and needing to really do the marketing advertising regs to finish answering this question. And so to some extent, the situation that red is in is the results of the placeholder to make sure we protected this area and kept our enforcement ability intact. What we finished marketing and advertising and so I'm hopeful. Some of this can also get flushed out the question is what do we do right now is the red is getting inundated with submissions from vendors and third party marketing. So part of this I do think once we start getting into that conversation we can control and set out the parameters for what our expectations would be on these third party marketers. Because to your point, there's there's an inherent tension and what they're supposed to do, and what we're telling them not to do. So hopefully that provides some clarity but Loretta maybe you can also talk a little bit more about. Can we overlay on that the idea of registering the vendor themselves in addition to the operator being ultimately responsible for the vendor conduct which I think is inherent in our scheme. Is there another layer that we can put on that puts a heightened review on certain third party vendors based on spend based on percentage of marketing budget that sort of thing. Regulations on registrants right now have that built in. Okay, so, and right now we've asked the potential operators, please identify your third party marketing affiliates and that's where this huge list came up. But we didn't define what a third party marketing affiliate was and when I looked at the list. I did wonder are some of those like content creators versus actually generating on the digital, some kind of digital social media world. So I do agree with Mark he started off by talking about a definition of what this really is so that would be helpful. But, you know, the operators are going to identify all of their vendors, and they're going to identify whatever we want to we want to say you know please asterisk who all under this definition of the marketing affiliates they will do that. And we can register all of them. It is a, it's not a very burdensome process for them and once they're registered with a complete registration, the company can commence doing business. We do the background on the back end of, you know, after the registration is complete. But the registration does not do a deep dive into any individuals, it's, you know, largely based on public source information, but there is a provision in there that says hey if we come back and want something more from you, you, you have a duty to cooperate. Then we do have the ability to the regulatory scheme allows us the ability to elevate based on dollar spend relative spend compared to the operators overall vendor spend the duration of the contract. We have learned that there's a lot of turnover in this arena, they're not all long term relationships. So even on the gaming side, one of the things that we look at now, even if it's a big dollar spend contract. If we're going to be in and out in six months, we're not going to do the deep dive because we won't even like have a complete application by then, you know, so we, we look at the, we look that that will be something to to consider. Also, with registrants, we do have, you know, there is the ability to revoke suspend fine, even at the registrant level. So, you know, one thing I was wondering about was the type of integrity review that we do for like the gaming vendors and we're considered and that will do for the higher level sports monitoring vendors. You know, they are the folks that are deeply entrenched in the operation of this industry. The operation of it. Like, I'm not, I'm not really, or I guess I like to ask you to consider whether that type of investigation even addresses the types of concerns that you have. Like, are these affiliates just really taking all of the restrictions from the operators, or are they deeply entrenched in the regulatory and compliance aspects of the various jurisdictions that they may be doing work in. I, you know, these are things I'm not an expert on now. But I think it's a good conversation. We are not toothless. If we don't license them all at the higher level. You know, we certainly have depending on what types of regulations you promulgate and where you place the responsibility and how clear you are about what is permitted and not permitted. We would not be toothless with the operators and, you know, there is always the oversight of the registrances as well. They are subject to enforcement actions as well. Does that is that helpful Eileen. So I know one of the things that you and I talked about is. When you say we have that in their structure now you're talking about the game inside obviously because we haven't addressed this specifically on the sports waiting side is whether there is a zone in the middle where you've got de minimis they're not even registered. And if they go over an upper threshold that we the commission determined either spend a percentage something like that or duration, then they have to they launch up to a higher status. That's something I want to talk about and then I am curious to have them further define for you, especially with Mark coming in saying look third party market fill is this sort of a subdivision of sort of a broader definition of the marketing vendors. Those are the people that I think are most troublesome maybe too strong of a word but I think most at risk with the inherent tension of their directive, and what we need to protect. So if we can define that and get a truer number from the potential licensees to see, maybe this isn't as big of a number as we're thinking it is right and so you can draw a line where these people become registrants, but the third party market vendors actually stay up at a higher level. Mark, I don't know if you had thoughts on that too. So to Commissioner O'Brien's point. I happen to be part of that the conversation because we're having our weekly and recognize that Commissioner O'Brien's been deeply interested in this and so we, I was the beneficiary of at least some of the conversation with the three of us and if I understand Commissioner O'Brien your last point. It's a distinction that I believe Director Lilio's made is that if we right now agree to at least have all of these entities as we've identified them now we know we need to really look deeply at what that definition is as an enforcement measure spend, there, there's some teeth to that including enforcement measures, but to the extent that they that Director Lilio's and her team identify expansions that she just outlined. Right now, it lies with the discretion of IB whether or not they elevate Commissioner O'Brien did I understand correctly that you might want to shift that and have it maybe come to the commission. That's a fair statement, particularly in the early days of launching this while we're trying to get to the impact and particularly the feedback it's, you know, like the trainings I've been at where they talked about the inundation of some of the advertising and marketing. When they're, everyone's launching and trying to get their market share that there I think there are some jurisdictions to that they sort of have sunset provisions on some of these things where the commission's more involved up front. And we don't have those decisions until we get a sense of the rhythm and the size. Richard Skinner you were involved in this area in your prior experience somewhat. Any thoughts on on this as we think about again, learning today that what we've been thinking about is one group. I think we need to get more information as to what each of these entities do and whether we need to actually add some, some new definitions in. What do you think, Commissioner Skinner. I've been following along I think I lean hit the nail right on the head. I mean, we dealt with a lot of the stuff in the gaming world but not necessarily in the sports majoring world so what has been proposed makes a minute sense to me. I think we need to use what we have the tool that we have available now in terms of the registration process to address some of these concerns in the short term, but as we understand, you know this particular area of vendors, we can we can formulate some more direct and intentional regulation to address any of Eileen's concerns. And quite frankly, I think they're all the commissioners commissioners are concerned with this particular issue. Commissioner Hill. I guess I'd like to explore some more of the steps on that are some some other enforcement measures or ways that we can really keep our eyes on these particular vendors of registrants. I came to this issue thinking mainly about the exploitation of a BSE list mark. I think there's probably other, you know, other areas where we're going to have concern targeting minors, etc. And that's what I was thinking. Initially, you know, the BSE list was really primary concern somehow these ability is getting there. It's on the BSE list and they are sending out marketing. I think what I'm hearing Loretta is that all. We certainly have the ability to assess a fine against the operator. And from my perspective, I hold the operators accountable to all of their agents their vendors, so that if they have a bad actor. And then assess a fine against the operators or, you know, go through a process of discipline. And then what I'm hearing is that we could do it all the way through. Is that correct even to the registration standard when you say we have teeth. Does that include. The regulations embedded in the regulations is the authority for enforcement at all levels of vendor registration and licensure. Whenever we talk about an enforcement measure, you know, those are very time consuming things there are rights involved in that so you know what I'm hearing from a resources point of view. To the extent we can put it on the operator that we have an ongoing relationship with we know we, you know, they have that high level interest to in the value of their license, you know, from a resource point of view. It is helpful to focus on on the operator. You know, like I say it's it doesn't begin and end with the imposition of an enforcement action there are rights involved there are review rights and so forth. But, but the teeth so to speak, it does exist. And that's helpful that I wanted to maybe jog your memory, which I actually love that because I'm, you're always, it's my memory that I need your help on always but I wanted to make sure that I think it's relevant. I have a discussion you have the idea of maybe having the commission we see from the licensees at maybe initially monthly at the first year, you know, with a little bit more intensified view versus into the quarterly reports, ultimately. And I tell you, it's not about that they're reporting on their demographic reach with their advertising you refer to it as, you know, some ratings I don't know if you want to operate on that now to. I was thinking of that more in terms of the advertising marketing reg itself which would play into this conversation and mark probably remembers more about this than I do but that they get a sense of the projected demographic when they do the ad by and they do the campaign. They also get the, I'll call it a post mortem, right they also get the after the fact of, okay and this is what actually happened right helps them gauge whether or not they're going to do the campaign again, etc. But it can also give you, we're looking at you're not supposed to be marketing to, you know, not only VSEs but also the miners and so the idea that particularly in the beginning that we asked to get those sent in on a monthly basis to make sure, and it's more intentional and also on ours to make sure that they're complying with what we've set out is the marketing bounds that allow them to, you know, market their business but not in a way that we think violates any protected part of the community that we want to make sure we have the the blocks to protect. I don't know mark if you wanted to talk at all about that I was pleased to hear that they can get that information and that's surprising that's why they make their ad by choices, but also that they get the after the fact for the confirmation, so that we can see who actually was the recipient on this and did you cross the line in terms of what the protections are I absolutely think that's something that, you know, again maybe monthly in the beginning we hit some I hate to use the phrase steady state because we fall determined that almost never happens for this commission but that even if we did it would be a quarterly report as opposed to a monthly. I like the idea of putting that in the marketing and the advertising ranks. So well it's in a different reg it really does kind of add accountability to the operator with respect to this group of marketing fill it or other kind of marketers but we're going to call them. So, it would be complimentary commissioner held you have thoughts on that given your, your experience. The ability to provide that kind of a demographic information, so realistic to ask for the operators to do that. Oh, I think so, for sure. Yeah. No, it's additional information, go ahead. Yeah, I think it's a, it's a great idea. I mean it's, it's information that is readily at hand. And it's, there is, there's follow up so that there is a degree of accountability to it. Recognizing it's not, it's not going to be perfect, but it's, you can at least get a general sense or a solid sense of how where the marketing is landing and what the strategy was. Thank you guys. So it's both accountability and it's an educational tool for us to understand the landscape really great pressure me or Chair, you know, I am interested, I think it's relatively easy to get rich. How many impressions how many unique impressions are being hit. I would be interested in any comments that could come our way on what kind of burden. This is, and you know is it monthly is it quarterly is it weekly, you know if it's pretty easy to pull this. Maybe we get it more often if it's harder, maybe we don't so you know I am looking for her balance but I do think it's important to get that information and demographic information and and of course you know we're going to be able to see kind of where it's going right like if it's going if, if it's going to it's a very different thing than if it's going to, you know, QVC, right, and depending on where they're they're pushing this will inform a lot about who is being targeted, and and is it a younger demographic is too young of a So, I am invested. Great comparisons. Mark, do you have additional thoughts. So, the framework. But I think that you're just looking for some input and I know it's going to inform our review of the right to right. The sort of the main points I heard was, you know, the assessment finding and we heard director Leo say it does involve rights and so there's more resources needed to go lower. But that, we want to stress that the licensee is most is responsible all the way through the reporting but that would be through the ad read so notes for us to put that aside. Loretta did mention the certification process we haven't kind of chewed on that. And I wanted to just revisit that Loretta, in terms of how that would be another mechanism for holding our operators for licensee account. Looking for comment from me on that chair. Yeah, so if you could just elaborate a little bit, but I think now we have more context to think about it. I would envision that as part of a regulation part of the advertising regulation and I guess the purpose is to really ensure that the operator is actively thinking about reviewing, you know, consulting those regulations and putting themselves on the line on a monthly basis to say, you know, they've been through through this exercise. We have relied on those kinds of self certifications in other areas, and they do provide, you know, some additional measure of comfort. They're, you know, obviously not foolproof and, you know, to some measure some of these, you know, reaching of BSEs, for example, may are likely inadvertent and based on, you know, software glitches and so forth. But, you know, it may add another layer of comfort. Questions for Director Lillios on that. Not on that, but I have another question if. Okay, so that's another tool that could be embedded into the regulation. So just circling back Loretta to the idea also of being able to have consequences to a registrant. And you said you don't do deep dives into registrants by the nature of sort of where they're a judge to fit in the scheme of risk. My question is in this setting and you talk about people coming in and out very quickly in this setting. Is this also a venue where you're going to have principles potentially their DBA is going to change. So when they're registered, is it the principal holder, who's then the registrant, or is it the DBA, where they'll be able to sort of quickly and run anything when we try to say, you know what, no you violated too many times so you're out. And it's interesting, you know, we've been through a whole evolution on that. Because initially, we were asking for certifications from some person, but it ended up not being the person who was really responsible for the company. Initially, we really are looking at the company that the DBA, we do have the ability to go back and ask for more information, including, you know, fingerprints from somebody, but you know the question is, we have hundreds of these. You know, how do we, how do we do that? How do we monitor that effectively when we, you know, suddenly are going to have all these additional operators, additional vendors, and then, you know, 700 more registrants in this area alone, never mind the other vendor who's registered. So that would be a big challenge for us to be able to stay on top of when to proactively ask for information, you know, it could be reactively after a problem is identified. Right. Is there a mechanism to elevate it up to the commission at that point so I guess what I'm wondering is the other thing on the list, Kathy that has not, when you were summarizing is also just maybe getting a more precise list of who these market affiliates really are. I mean, because I'm hoping that number is smaller than what you've been given as the marketing vendor. But keeping in mind, if you have that scenario where you have a principal who just simply, you know, continues to dissolve and reincorporate or change the DBA, at what point can you elevate that to a higher review. And maybe that's something we put very specifically in this sports wagering third party marketing affiliate process. So that it's not everybody right it's just do we see a need for it or not some food for thought as we're finishing that right. Thank you. Can I add to the list issue because I'm wondering, and maybe this is your point mark. There's those who are doing something that we think is a marketing affiliate, but there might be some other entities that are doing something similar they just won't fall into the marketing but they may still create the issues that we're concerned with so I'm assuming that while we might get a smaller list of marketing affiliates we might get a new definition. And we would just have to be nimble and address that correctly on the rag if it's a different type of marketing or promotional group and it just doesn't fall into what we've been thinking about as a marketing affiliate is that mark is that what you're kind of getting at that. Right. Yes. Yeah. And how are we going to end up to figuring out that landscape are we relying on you mark is that going to be Karen. I got a preliminary definition of what we're talking about here and I wouldn't say that we should just rest solely on that I think it should require a little bit more research to make sure that we have a clear definition and incorporates who we wanted to incorporate and if there are entities that fall outside of that we need to wrap our arms around who they are and how we would want to proceed with those those individuals or companies. So maybe it's a combination Karen of Mark and direct the lilios and in Bruce's team or as much yeah or illegal to just sort of say okay. Who falls into what category because it really depends on what their activities are right. Commissioner branch I want to make sure I understood your last point. Is that really still dragging home the idea of everyone goes in as a registrant. It's not going to be a deep dive. We flag something and it could get elevated. Do you want to make the suggestion for the right that maybe in the first year gets elevated up to the commission. Is that what you're, you know, looking forward to in addition to that point. Well I think there's a couple things that we can do on this which is once we define it again hopefully the number is not as big so this isn't as big an issue but also, I think we overlay those marketing whatever our vendors are going to be in marketing and advertising obviously there's going to be a separate reg I think that says these registrants must comply with those parameters. So that that's very clear that yes the operator is responsible for their vendors but also the registrants themselves are going to be directly. There are consequences if they violate whatever we set out as the parameters on that. I'm still trying to figure out if there is to mark's point about we define them is there still some subcategory of frequent fliers and heavy hitters that need to be elevated to higher scrutiny. Right, that was better said, I said that's my, there may be another category out there right right right commissioners what are we thinking in terms of commissioners going to do we have kind of a consensus going on if you have some concerns. I just wanted to say that I like that approach very much it's almost reminiscent of the gaming vendor versus non gaming vendor scheme that we have and the gaming on the gaming side of things where you know we're identifying. As Eileen said this group of heavy hitters, whether we're holding, you know, them to an elevated regulatory requirements or an elevated license. I think it's definitely the way it's definitely the way to go and it's a good way to look at it to kind of get our minds wrapped around exactly what concept we're trying to employ. Okay, then if I can share if I can jump in on something I don't want to complicate things now but just I know we've had some discussion of, you know, bringing either heavy hitters or when there are problems with individual company a to the commission to do a designation to elevate to the higher level of licensure. Just a reminder that we always have to protect the commission's ability to be the arbiter the neutral arbiter in the event that there is you know enforcement action taken so whatever procedure we end up implementing from making that decision like whether that rests with the IEB or commission involvement we just have to be mindful of those protections. If, if by regulation we shifted it to the commission with the one that they would just be able to go straight to a 30 a challenge our decision with that be there. I really mean now chair for if you make the, if the regulation says, hey, if there's a registrant, who's, you know, doing something problematic. The commission decides whether to elevate them to the higher level of licensure, rather than the IEB and the licensing division do it, then you're going to see a company and see their potentially problematic activity, not in an adjudicatory stage you're going to see it like should we make you do more on the licensing and then if we end up having an enforcement action, whether it goes right to the commission or the IEB, you've already seen something. I just want to say we have to consider that. So maybe we go back to your factors that we started with. Right. So what I was like, yeah, rather than what I was conceptualizing is what I'm hoping as we bring this in for a landing try to launch the rags on this is we have clarity and we as a commission can come to some understanding and comfort level with what are the objective criteria that we're going to be to elevate them up. So it's not that we decide to call say, you know, I don't like, you know, Joe Schmoe advertising and I want you to elevate them. They are their market spend is so much the repetitiveness is so much in that sort of criterion where when I say heavy hitter or big spender, they become, you know, to Nikisha's point sort of so involved in in in in that area that it elevates the level of review they should get from us. I understand. Yeah, I think. Yeah, I think that works. That's why we're ready to start with the factors which are embedded in. Really good point. Good point. Okay, so I need some direction because the retail launch is coming up. And we have a reg that says these, there are some marketing affiliates that have been identified for the retail launch. So our current reg says they are at the higher level of licensure. I'd like to propose that that provision and I've been texting with Caitlin I see you put your video on Caitlin thank you. You know, if it's if it's possible to suspend that for the retail launch and register these companies as an initial. You know, that would be my, my suggestion and give us the opportunity to visit this in more detail in connection with the advertising regulation. I don't mean to sidetrack that. I was just looking at 134, 06 dealing with junkets and specifically looking at marketing prohibitions on junket enterprises and representatives and. And there was a degree of accountability that's captured in that I wonder would be relevant to do how we deal with marketing affiliates. And Caitlin has referenced that in the past so maybe with. We'll see that. Michelle Brian, do you have a leaning in. So I remember thinking about that when this first came up, because we revised the junket shortly after I got here was when I was educated on what that is. And this is the same kind of idea right you're contracting out to this third party to try to get people into your gaming venue. And this is the most part as opposed to physically getting people to come into your retail location. Right, it's like the online equivalent and, and there is specifically information or you know the voluntary self exclusion list is referenced and. It's under the age of 21 or referenced and in 134, 06. So, I want to just make sure because we want to keep on our times a little bit, but Caitlin, when I was thinking about this and prepper preparing for today's meeting. Are we taking today's input and actually going to be able to. Right, so we can't amend or can you just go over that. Sure, and we're going to address these regs obviously more detail in a few minutes but the definitions right these, there are two regs relevant here today. 202 is the definitions reg in which we define sports wagering vendor and that includes marketing affiliates as a part of that definition, and then 234, which is the vendor reg. It's a very fulsome conversation and there's I think some good thought that needs to be put into, you know, modifying the vendor rag but also doing that in conjunction with the advertising rag. And so, I am very low to sort of try to work Smith those during this meeting and today I think we do want to get that right. But if we, but we would really like to move forward on 202 and 234 today because if we don't they will lapse because they are currently in effect by emergency. So, you know, I think Loretta asked, you know, if it's okay to sort of get the commission's approval to, you know, do what we were just talking about, you know, consider the marketing advertisers registrants for the current moment, until we revisit as one way of sort of dealing with this timing issue. On a process question, if we have a consensus here to give her that can we and we let's just say we go through today and we approve the one that you the lunch just mentioned that are right. Can we start with an amendment process. We can start with an amendment. Before retail launches, we can. So what we need to do is if the commission votes to approve those regs today, it will take a couple more weeks for them to be fully in effect. I think it's early January care can correct me if I'm wrong. As soon as that happens, we can come back with an amendment, but we just can't amend between today and when they go fully into effect so we can be ready to go with an amendment. Early January. So that would put the issue around treating how we treat these in a regulation before March. Yes. If we move that way. Okay. Thank you for that. Other questions. Commissioner Skinner. And then, Caitlin, where is the where would the inconsistency be in the actual regulation 234. So right now, the way it's set up the definition of sports wagering vendor, which is in 202 specifically includes marketing affiliates. And so they are captured as vendors that have to apply for a license, not a registration and in Loretta jump in if you think I'm getting any of this incorrect. So, we would basically need either the, I mean, I guess there's two ways of doing it one we could take marketing affiliates out of the definition. Again, I hate words missing this on the fly, but we could potentially do that, or we could get the commission's approval to sort of register these folks in the time being while we're working through the process of amending the wreck. There would not be an inconsistency in 234. I think that Caitlin in 234 about the marketing affiliate so we'd have to go back on 234 as well as 202. So there would be commissioner Skinner I think I don't want to get this wrong, but if we were to approve today and we are sort of jumping ahead because I know Caitlin needs to run us through the rags. So this would allow us in two weeks, once it's final to work on the amendment to to reflect our, our direction today about treating them as registrants first vendor. So when I reviewed that I thought maybe vendor included registrants because it's a subset. It's different from sports or during vendors but they can be pulled up to become vendors. Yeah, so I was in kind of a hopeful, hopeful thought. But I know that's the license, they have to apply for the license. So, in terms of this discussion right now you're not looking for any formal vote from us. Can we say that we have a general consensus around what we've talked about and have a team work to implement our discussion with the options that were presented. So I support that but I'm looking for someone and we can do this. When we get to the red discussion to point me to the exact inconsistent language in 234. I agree with that. Commissioner Skinner that's fair. So if we can just put a kind of we're giving a directive to direct a lily else but we need to understand the implications of the regulatory frame in a little bit further detail. Is everybody comfortable about this particularly directly also you comfortable. I am I feel like I have the consensus that I need to go forward and register these companies for purposes of retail launch, and we will work quickly on the amendments to 204 234 in conjunction with the discussion on the organizing reg that's coming before you on the, I believe, Caitlin it's scheduled for the 15th. I, yeah unfortunately I think I was actually wrong on that date. I think it may it's going to be a little bit later than that, but there's going to be conversations in December but. But yeah, soon, hopefully. Direct direction for director lilios I know that we also are looking about the fluidity of the landscape of this group, if you know depending on what we find they are directed lilios but I'm hearing that we're comfortable right now with the registrant level for this this group as as identified right now. And really, we wouldn't be giving anything up in reality right now because at even at the higher level of licensure you have authorized a very limited licensing for the initial launch that's based on certifications only so it's not like we're giving up some kind of deep dive that would be happening before launch anyway. Great. And then in terms of the other options like the south certification process, do we want to kind of give a directive now on that do we like that idea. Is it helpful, Caitlin for writing the reg amendments to have that. It's always helpful to have the direction when we're writing the right. Did everybody understand that proposal. We feel comfortable with that. I'm sorry, could you reset the, the self certification process that director lilios described including that in the reg amendment that might come back if we approve today's I know there's a few conditions here. And then I think to the extent that can be any strengthening of, you know what operators, this is on you. I think we've got that in our regulatory framework but I think we could be even strengthened pressures you feel comfortable with that too. And that process goes all the way through as well with the, you know, the caveat that director lilios has given us we understand that. And then in terms of the elevation process with the factors that director lilios described earlier, you know duration of the contract, all those factors. And I think we should be able to give the direction to Caitlin that for the first year is commissioner Brian outline maybe that comes to us. I'm, you know, are we, are we comfortable with that or do we want to keep it with the Bureau, which is good. So you just outlined will be a part of advertising reg versus in this amended 234 I think that's what I'm struggling with a little bit. I think we should probably look at the amendments to 234 in conjunction with the advertising reg. That's what makes most sense to me just given sort of the intertwining of the topics. The issues. What would be part of the advertising or chat. I think I had envisioned that they would be subject to what we set forth in the advertising regs. And so, you know, to Commissioner Skinner's point they are kind of linked to each other in that regard and then what I was looking to get clarity on is also what are the criterion used to elevate a register by a B and do we want to be able to do that in the sports wagering context and be any more specific or, or stricter on this particular type of vendor. Like do we want to be more particular as guidance to ID about when they should elevate someone in this in this area. Director lilios is cautionary advice. If we were to, if it's a reg, then we're giving more input about our expectations and how they would do it but the discretion to elevate would still lie with Ivy Bureau. Okay. That's a good point. Right. Yeah, should we break this go right ahead. No, to Commissioner O'Brien's point, I think that I would like to be involved that as a commission on where we're drawing the bright lines, right in this process. You know, Joe social media influencer is very different than giant Acme corp going to all the social media and you know I, I trust for something to be written for us and but I would like to look at it and review it and say yeah, you know I do agree with this line being here or I don't. We currently have nine factors in the reg. We will look at those factors again in the context of this type of vendor as we do the research and we're on our learning curve and see if we can come up with any relevant, you know, precision factors for this group that might be helpful. Back to Commissioner Skinner. I think the one that I noted that would be in the advertising that was Commissioner O'Brien's thought about using the demographic ratings, including those in either monthly or quarterly reports. Can we put a pin in that too? Commissioner Skinner's point on the advertising. But to the last one, I think that would still be helpful for Caitlin, at least with respect to this discussion. All right, certification. You said the last one. Are you talking about the certification that Loretta mentioned? I think I was just talking about the elevation process that factors. The factors, the nine factors are maybe shifting to the commission, maybe some states with the bureau depending on what they are. Is that helpful, Commissioner Skinner, or am I? Yeah, it is. Thank you. And once we go through the get to the regs, I think we'll be more helpful. Okay. I think you've got a general consensus on all those different points that were raised. I just wanted to make sure we didn't have any further clarifications needed. Thank you. So can we now go through the other item under investigations? All right, could I just say in a five minute break before we move on? Absolutely. I should have looked at my clock. It's 10 of 12, and then we'd return to 4A and have a brief break, and then we're going to turn to the regulations that are on. Let's see how that how that takes us for the next portion of our meeting. So, come back for returns, but 1145. I've got a file. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Okay, Dave. Right. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So we're reconvening. That's just getting commissioned public meeting number 405. And because we are doing so on a virtual platform, I'll take a roll call. I am here. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. I'm here, madam chair. Okay. Thank you so much. And we are revisiting director Lillio's active morning for you. Okay. Yep. So hopefully you're not too sick of hearing from me, but I will jump right in on this other on this other topic. So the memo is on page just as a reminder 28. Okay. Thank you. So the IEB is asking that the commission consider designating the state police under section 11 C of chapter 23 and as the having the primary law enforcement responsibility for conducting and assisting the commission in conducting investigations into corruption in sports wagering. And section 11 C is reproduced in full on page 28 of your packet. And does state that the commission shall designate a state law enforcement agency to have primary responsibility for conducting or assisting the commission and conducting investigations into abnormal betting activity, match fixing and other conduct that are embedded in a sporting event for purposes of financial gain. Really the state police in the IEB's view is the only logical state law enforcement agency for this purpose. They are very well positioned to satisfy what the section calls for they already have the specialized gaming department embedded in the commission and the gaming enforcement division embedded in the Attorney General's office. I have spoken with Major Brian Connors who is now on the command staff at the Division of Inspectional Services with gaming under his umbrella of responsibilities as you know he was the founding director of the GEU here and chair I know that you have spoken to the colonel and it's my understanding that the state police are prepared to accept the designation. So that is my request I'm happy to try to answer any questions if you if you have any questions on this designation by statute we have this obligation. Any questions for Director Lillios. She does the logic on it. Michelle Brian. No, I was just going to make a motion. Excellent. I hear no questions. Commissioner Brian so In that case, I move that the commission designate the Massachusetts State Police is the primary law enforcement agency under general law chapter 23 and subsection 11c. Commissioner Maynard. Okay, no further questions or edits. Yeah, I did second. I apologize if you guys didn't hear me. I'm sorry, Commissioner Skinner I didn't. I didn't hear you. My second. Skitter made the record note that Commissioner Skinner chimed in and it's probably just a background noise my apologies so there we go. Commissioner Brian. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. Yes, five zero. I'll set director Lillios. Thank you. That's great. Thanks and I would suggest that I work with Todd to memorialize your vote in writing so we have something documented for our files and that we can we can send to state police if that makes sense. And you'll send something over to major counters. Okay, great. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right, so now we're turning to legal and the regulations that we have before us today. Good afternoon. Council Grossman. Good afternoon as you can see we have a series of regulations that are before you we have the whole team here today to prevent present different segments of that. So let me just jump right in turn it right over to who's who's starting here. Associate General Council Wang is going to kick off the first right for us here. Excellent. Excellent. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. You have in your packet a draft of 205 CMR 202. This regulation sets out definitions that will be used throughout the sports way during related regulations. When this regulation came before you on October 7, 2022, you voted to promulgate by emergency and also to begin the formal regulation process. You also approved the regions to the regulation on November 17 2022. The regulation has been working its way through the process and a public hearing was held on November 22 2022 presided over by Commissioner Brad Hill. No comments have been received for this regulation. At this time, you're looking for a vote to finalize promulgation process and file the regulation with the Secretary of State. I'll now turn it over to Deputy General Counsel Caitlin Monaghan. Good afternoon now. So, as Associate General Counsel Wang noted, this was last reviewed on November 17, and no comments have been received on it. There are three proposed changes since the last time you saw it. So the first is in red line in the packet. You can see that we have revised the definition of sports wagering equipment to line up with the definition that exists in 205 CMR 244.01, which are the technology regs that were voted on a couple of weeks ago now, I guess, or maybe last week. It's all running together. Can you give me the packet number? Yes, absolutely. For the red line spots. Yep. Give me one second commissioner. 36 for the red line. Oh, the red line. Thank you. Yeah. And I also see there's a typo in that it says 204 CMR instead of 205. So we'll fix that. Two other things that we would like to do at this point, we would actually like to remove the definitions of sports wagering platform and mobile application for further review and consultation with GLI. We've had some further conversations with them about those definitions and those definitions are going to become very important in a few weeks when we get to the internal control regs. And we want to make sure they're really fully aligned and accurate. And so what we don't need them right now. So what we'd like to do is just take them out. For the time being, and then we'll bring them back when this reg comes back. Because of course this reg will come back with more definitions as we continue through the regulation process. So with that, happy to answer any questions. So is the term of art will stay in there, but just be blank after that. We'll just take it out and then put it back in completely when, when we get to it. Sports wagering platform, Caitlin and what other one. Correct. Sports wagering platform and mobile application. Everybody find them okay. Those two will be deleted but the red line for sports wagering equipment will stand. Correct. Any questions. I see that we have counselor commoners here too. Good afternoon, Paul. So I don't know if he's helping on this one, but we have legal eyes. Any questions. Are we going to vote on these separately. I think. Would that be helpful. Right now. We have four regs coming forward right on to two happy to have you vote on them. Yeah, now we're at the end. I'm sorry. I'm sorry if you could say that motion on two or two now, if we wanted to just vote after the discussion on each one. I don't know if anyone has a part. The only thing I would say is if you want to have the discussion of sports wagering vendors before we vote on two or two, because they are lined up and I know we'd wanted to walk a little bit. That might be a reason to hold off. Okay. Excellent. Then if there are no further questions, we'll move on to. To 11. Yes. You also have in your packet a draft of two or five CMR to 11. This regulation outlines the requirements that must be met by an applicant to submit an application for sports wagering operator license, including the type of information that will be required on the application form. And required fees. In addition, the regulation authorizes the commission to extend the filing deadline for applications under certain circumstances. This regulation came before you on October 6, 2022. And at that time you voted to promulgate by emergency. And also to begin the formal regulation process. The regulation has been working its way through the process. And a public hearing was held on November 22nd. And the resolution was made on October 6, 2022 presided over by commissioner grad Hill. We received two comments, but neither were substantive in nature. And both, both for those comments are also included in your packet. And at this time we're also looking for a vote to finalize promulgation process. And file the regulation with the secretary of state. I want to make sure that commissioners had a chance to reflect upon the comments that are included. Any questions about either the reg or the comments? Okay. Everyone's had a chance to read and. Make sure there's no questions or actions required requested of the public comments. Yes. Thank you. I'm also. I move that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement and draft a 205 CMR 211 as included in the commissioners past packet and is discussed here today. And further the staff be authorized to take the necessary steps to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth and finalize the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any questions or. Okay. I have a question. So just in light of the discussion we had earlier around the vendor marketing. Analysts. Is this, excuse me, marketing affiliates. Is this where we review that language to make the. No, this is. That's coming up. We held to. I'm sorry. Yeah. Thank you. I apologize. No, no problem. I just. For reference, and I should do this. So this, this read is on page 40. You may have scrolled fast down to get to the comments. Commissioner Skinner. So if you want to just take a look, you'll, it will refresh your memory. No, I did. I did review them and I didn't have any comment, which is why I scrolled forward. Yeah. And I, I reviewed the public comments last, you know, last night, but they just seemed fresh to me. So I needed to read, to remind myself of those two comments. And, and just always, even though we may not have commented on the comments, we really appreciate the public weighing in. So thank you. All right. With that question. Any further. Discussion. All right. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. I vote yes. Thank you. So now we're turning to 25234. Is that right? And I just want to get on the right page. That's right. That starts on page 46. And I believe associate general counsel young is going to take the lead on this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. She may have had to step away for a second so I can start going through this. So two of ICMR 234 is the sports way during vendors. Reg. This last came before the commission on October 7th. And it was voted on. We've since had. A public hearing on also on the 22nd, which commissioner Hill presided over. We did not receive any comments at that hearing. We did not receive any comments since it was last approved. We have received two written comments, which have been reviewed by legal and the IEB. At this point, we do not believe any changes are needed to the regulation based on those comments, but happy to discuss if anyone has any questions. And also happy to walk through. The marketing advertising pieces that we talked about before. Would you like me to do that now or propose? Would you like that? Sure. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Great. So I'll start by saying, if you actually go back to 205, CMR 202, which starts on page 30. And I'm going to pull that up myself. So the definition of. Sports way during vendor. Is on page 32. The bottom of page 32. Yeah. And as you'll see, it defines a sports way during vendor to include little I third party advertising or marketing entities. So, you know, they are at this point sort of very clearly defined as sports way during vendors. If you then move forward into. To the reg 234, which is on page 40 starts on page 46. And you look at that first section to 34.01 vendors requirement for licensure or registration. And then you look at that first section to 34.01. One A states that unless otherwise licensed as a gaming vendor pursuant to 205 CMR 134, no person shall conduct business with a sports way during operator as a sports way during vendor, unless a person has been licensed as a sports way during vendor. And it's that section that very explicitly requires a sports way during vendors to be licensed as opposed to registered. So that is something that we will amend going forward based on the commission's discussion today and direction. Take any questions. And I think I cut off someone. I'm sorry. I was looking at my other screen. Who wanted to speak. I thought I heard a voice. So any questions for Caitlin on that, that would be what we come back sometime after the two week period of most likely in January, Caitlin, that's what you're imagining. Yes. I'm imagining this coming back in January. Okay. And so the, the. Changes required to 202. Is it just that that little I, um, In the definition of sports way during vendor needs to be removed. So I think that's no, I don't think we need to remove it today. I think that's the open question of how we want to deal with this. And so we just need to be really careful about how we do it. So we'll be looking at it and coming back with recommendations. Okay. So we are moving to promulgate these regulations as final, both 202 and 234 as they appear in the packet today. Exactly. And as, and as earlier discussed with the changes to those, we will have those additional two definitions. Thank you. And we already voted on those. So that's all set. No. Thanks. But, but. Caitlin, we did have other. Um, thoughts. About the registrants. That you came to a consensus on, and you're going to prepare. options for amendments to this reg as well on that except to the extent it applies to the advertising. Absolutely my understanding is that we'll propose the edits that were discussed today and also think about those in conjunction with an advertising reg because they are clearly going to go hand-in-hand. Yeah. Everybody come for that. Okay. I know I'm late. We'll go to 2.40. Do we need to do them or can we do 2.34 now? We'd like to vote on 2.02 and 2.34 now. That's fine before we go to 2.40. Yeah. Do I do them separately? Just at Commissioner Skiddish's point of view, I'm just flagging the removal of the two definitions in 2.02. Okay. I move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement and the draft of 2.05 CM Mark 2.02 as included in the commissioners packet and further discussed here today specifically the conversation regarding third party marketers and the definition of sports wagering vendor and the two definitions to be temporarily removed from 2.02 namely sports wagering platform and the other one is mobile application and mobile application subject to further review and further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commission to finalize the regulation application process. Second. Thanks, Commissioner Skinner. Heard that. Any further discussion? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I felt yes. Great. Now moved to 3.34. I move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement and the draft of 2.05 CM Mark 2.34 as included in the commissioners packet and further discussed here today and further the staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth and finalize the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any questions or edits? Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I felt yes. So next. Next up is 240 and I believe Associate General Counsel Young is going to take the lead on that. And there she is. I apologize. My computer decided to shut down right at the beginning of the last presentation, but I am confident you were in people hands. Yeah, so good afternoon, Madam chair and commissioners for your review. We have starting in the packet on page. Get that for you. 67. We have a final draft of 205 CMR. 240 sports wagering and fantasy gross wagering receipts and tax remittance. This regulation governs the process of filing and collecting taxes pertaining to sports waiting wagering activities and fantasy sports contests. This regulation first came before you as a draft on October 6, 2022. The commission voted to promulgate the regulation by emergency and also allow staff to begin the formal promulgation process is necessary. Notice was given within the Boston Herald on our own website and with a public hearing was held on November 22 with commissioner Hill taking point. We received four comments all from prospective operators that have been included in their meeting packet for review and discussion. And with that, I'll turn it back over to Deputy General Counsel Monahan and CFIO Lennon for more substantive questions and discussion. Thank you, Judy. So, as Judy mentioned, this last came before the commission on October 6 and we have not made any changes to the regulation since it was last approved. As she noted, we also have received a number of written comments, which have been included in the packet and have been reviewed by legal and finance. Many of the comments relate to promotional play, which was discussed yesterday and will be coming back for a larger discussion with the commission at a meeting on December 12. So at this point in time, we're putting those comments to the side for potential future revisions or not as the case may be. There are also a couple of comments related to the amount of adjusted gross fantasy wagering receipts that are subject to taxation. And this is just an issue that has to deal with the fact that some of the fantasy contests are nationwide. So how our taxes allocated for Massachusetts when there are national contests. This is also worthy of further review and discussion. I think that's a good point to address that on the 12th as well. And what this all means is that we would propose moving the regulation forward as is. And again, in the future coming back with any further amendments, if necessary. Questions for Caitlin. Judy and everyone on this. Process is laid out. We did discuss yesterday. That promotional play. The. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. How we wanted to approach it and make sure that we were going to be probably briefed by the right members of the team has been discussion that's been underway. And we had designated some good time on the 12th. With the anticipation of some great help from. Key team members. And we appreciate the public comments very much. Our members. You all are. Commissioner Skinner before you move forward, one of the things we did talk about is we would put out an advisory. That we would be using the location percentage for the fantasy sports as outlined. In draft Kings. how it goes. In Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, all the states that basically tax fantasy sports are using the location-based percentage. We just wanna give the commission a chance to understand what it is before we put it into regulation. But that's how we will expect taxes to come in from these fantasy operators using that percentage. And that is what would be a predisposition to know. Correct. Correct. But if an operator calls up, that would be our guidance to them. That's how you should be submitting it. Because this is the taxation regulation. So absent the actual standards that we would set forth, that is what our guidance would be to the operators that are submitting taxes, which we only have one registered right now. So we have to do our outreach to get people registered, that would be what we're doing. Derek, that would be subject to approval by the commission at the December 12th meeting, I believe. I guess I'd like to, just to go back, Derek, you came in and I think we heard from Caitlin that this topic will be discussed at the 12th. I heard you come in saying that there would be an advisory, some sort. And are you saying that it's going to be your division's recommendation to adopt the language of the location? Not the language that's in the packet. We'd have to review that with Anderson Krieger, with our own, as well as with our own legal staff. But if people are asking, how do you get to the revenue for Massachusetts? How do you get to the taxable base on a national contest? We would be saying follow the location based percentage, which you're using in every other state that you're being taxed in. I'm hearing you, and I think Krishna's going to, this is your point, right? That we understand that's being used across the country, but it's going to be some kind of a discussion on the 12th that gives us correct. Correct. And on the 12th, we'll have to come. So if an operator chooses not to do that, we don't, this is a whole issue of having it in rags versus not having it in rags. If an operator chooses not to do that, we don't really have grounds to come back and say you're doing it wrong. But if they asked us, how do you want us to do it, which we've had two operators reach out to us, this would be our recommendation. So we're consistent with it. And then if the commission decides differently, we'll adjust that. But if the commission decides to go based on this, then we'll moralize that in rags. I'm hearing this now because you're starting to collect taxes now. Yes, we have one registered. So taxes are going to be coming in on the 15th. So we have to give some. So I wanted to let the commission know that this is what finances guidance would be because it's consistent with every other state as we've researched it so far. Right. So that's the 15th, which is three days after our discussion. Correct. So commissioners help me out here. Do we, are we, what we're hearing from Chief Financial Officer, and it's that he's giving the guidance that based on what other jurisdictions do to the current operative dependency, FDS, it doesn't, it doesn't reflect the law right now as we see it, correct? That's why the statute doesn't reflect this location. Right. Michelle, Brian. No, I'm fine with it because Derek correct me if I'm wrong, but we're implementing this retroactive to what the implementation date of the statute. So if there's offsets that need to be made because we make a decision on the 12th that they can't implement right away, there's a way to simply rectify whatever the accounting changes would be, right? Correct. Okay. And with that caveat and Derek's further explanation of what it is his team needs in order to be responsive of inquiries, I think it made sense. So I'm comfortable with what's being discussed. Excellent. Thank you, Derek for chiming in on that curtain. It's hard to believe that 15th was already coming upon us. So thank you so much. All right. Caitlyn, are you comfortable with that? Absolutely. Okay. So we have a plan. Commissures, do we have a motion? I'm gonna let the question prove the amended small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 240 as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. And further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any questions? Okay. Michelle Bryan. Hi. Richard Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Five, zero. Legal. Does that conclude your regs for the day? Then we're gonna go to label Jane. Yes. There we go. Thank you. Thank you, Caitlyn and Tom and team Yang. It's there, I see. And then of course, Judy. And we know Carrie, your magic behind all of it. So thank you. And thank you to ANF. All right. Now we're looking at five B. And who's starting this, Judy? I'm Madam Chair. Hi, commissioners. I guess I should say hi again. All right. So I think this is the last item on our agenda today is a request from Licensee Blue Tarp Redevelopment doing business as MGM Springfield for approval of a new table game, Contune 21. That is in pursuant to 205-CMR 147.04. I will also say that I'm joined by members of the IEB today who are here to assist in your understanding of the game by answering any more substantive questions you have. And then I'll also be providing you with an overview of the process within 205-CMR 147 and the subsequent subsections, ultimately ending to or leading to the commission's approval or denial of the game. I do have a short presentation to guide our discussion today, but given what happened to me a few minutes ago, if it's all right, I'd like to just guide you to where you can find the presentation and our meeting materials just to avoid my computer shutting down on me again. So that is starting on page 85 with the presentation beginning shortly thereafter, on page, I apologize for not having this. The PowerPoint. Yes, that's correct. Let's see, I think it's 102. Fabulous, thank you. Okay, so kind of starting where we are and grounding us in the statute, we have a roadmap of the process of 147.04. So a licensee will submit a petition for a new game with relevant information. That petition comes over to the IEB. And in this case, on January 12th, 2022, Daniel Miller, director, excuse me, of compliance at MGM Springfield sent a petition on behalf of MGM to the IEB formally requesting adoption for the new game pontoon 21, excuse me. So within section 147, excuse me, within 147.04 subsection three is a pretty substantive review of the petition before any sort of field testing can happen. So the IEB reviewed the portions of the petition to make sure that they were inclusive of the necessary information and materials. So that includes the features of the game, the materials that the dealer will utilize. So a specific lammer, a progressive spin wager, the true payout odds, let's see, house advantages, photos of the table, and of course, pursuant to 147.04 subsection four, proof and indication of GLI certification and testing within the game. I will also add that GLI performed two, if I'm not correct me if I'm wrong, IEB, two specific certifications and testing, a preliminary and then an ancillary after another piece of equipment was delivered to the property, is that correct? They have both two certifications, one on the progressive and one on the table game history. Thank you, sir. So with that, the petition was deemed complete and a field trial was scheduled pursuant to 205 CMR 147 subsection five. I will also say that the rules for the game are included in your meeting packet, but if you'll allow me to go through the process of the field trial, what I'd like to do is walk you through that and then I will pause and introduce the IEB who can walk you through the more technical processes of the games and also the rules as well. Is that all right, commissioners? Yes. Okay, thank you for allowing me to go a little bit out of order in the meeting packet. Okay, so first we are going through our field trial, which was initially scheduled for July 8th, 2022 and to conclude on October 6th, 2022, but as indicated in the memo and in the commission packet, additional dates were actually added to this field trial to accommodate the addition of the bonus sprint progressive feature. It wasn't necessarily a new feature or a new addition to this game. It was always planned to be a part of the game. However, it was deployed or, excuse me, delayed by supply chain management issues and kind of a longer estimate in delivery. So the field trial for pontoon 21 is now set to conclude on Monday, December 5th, 2022. Is that correct, do I have that date? Yes, okay, I'm getting the thumbs up from Sterl. Thank you. In total, six tables were utilized for this test. Those tables are listed within your meeting packet, but I'm happy to rattle them off if you like. Gaming agents and MGM staff were quite favorable of the game, inciting its interactive nature and the fact that patrons really, really enjoyed the gameplay. It's quite similar to an existing table game that is already at the property known as Spanish 21. It's a blackjack style gameplay, but in this game, I think the biggest difference between Spanish 21 and pontoon 21, which you'll hear about shortly from the IEB, is the progressive style wagering that kind of adds more of an interesting dynamic to the game. Director Miller also noted that almost 200,000 wagers were made on the game equipment that equated to nearly almost $1 million wagered at the property. Of that sum, nearly $850,000 were given back to patrons, so it's a little bit evident as to why it's a favored game at the property. Comments are still being received by the property, but to date, and as a submission to, sorry, I just got an email, as a submission to the data into these meeting materials in the packet, we've received roughly six comments. I would say most are favorable. I think you can probably see that there is one that's not necessarily positive, and there's a desire to bring back Spanish 21 to the table, but overall, the IEB has taken all those comments to heart and is still accepting comments from patrons. So with that, I'm gonna pause in my overview of the game, and I'll introduce gaming compliance manager, Sterle Carpenter, the IEB compliance manager for the property, Angela Smith, and I think a few other folks as well. So, by all means, have a good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair and commissioners. Also with us is Dustin Nigro, who was supervising the review of this game since its inception on July 5th, I believe, and Burke Kane, field manager. If you have any questions, by all means, ask them. I'm gonna be turning it over to Angela and Dustin. They've performed all of the inspections and audits of the game from the beginning until just recently gathering all the information financially for us. Dustin? Morning, Chair and commissioners. No, Pantune 21 is a blackjack style game. It's similar to Spanish 21, like Judy had said. The odds are a little different. It's played with a 48 deck of cards. MGM uses six decks in their games. They currently have six games on the casino floor. The 10s are removed from every deck and the game is played with an automatic continuous shuffler. That's basically the rundown of the game. There is a progressive side bet match to dealer wager where players can get paid based on their two cards, matching the dealer's cards. Those are all paid at odds. Then there's the progressive board, which is a five dollar wager. There's an inner wheel, a middle wheel and an outer wheel. The inner wheel will select a prize amount for all people who are playing that five dollar wager. The middle wheel will then spin and select one person, numbers one through five, to collect the community prize. And then the outer wheel will spin, select in one patron to win the progressive community prize. That's the rundown of the game. So just for further understanding, it is a Blackjack style game. So we're all familiar with Blackjack. Spanish 21 is its precursor and the Pantune 21 is exactly the same. The only differences is that the AGS has put a progressive wheel on this game offering that seems extremely successful and exciting for both the players in management. And the only other difference is the pay table is changed to a three to one, 12 to one odds for the match the dealer bet. Otherwise it's all pretty much exactly the same as the Spanish 21. As you see in the comments in your packet, everyone is, there is no negative except for the one who said he liked the payouts of the different pay table. But that wouldn't be able to be changed by MGM since they have to file the GLI standards for the game. Angela, did you have something? Yeah, I'd like to further elaborate on that comment and the difference between Spanish 21 and Pantune 21 with the payout change that the patron was referencing. What the change is, it doesn't lessen the patron payouts. What it does is just changes the dynamics in the payouts so you get less payouts, you get less of a amount of a payout, less of a payout more often. So it just balances this out. It balances itself out to more pay, more higher payments rather than less, more lower payments, if that makes sense. Anybody have any questions on that? Or any part of the game? I have a question, but it's not necessarily not the game, but it is about comments. One person says, bring back Spanish 21, did I miss? Is this being a state replacement? It is, it is, they've removed the Spanish 21 tables and replaced them with Pantune. And the reason behind the comment is that paytable on Spanish 21, I believe for the match bet, was the four 10 payout rather than the three 12. Would you say that again, stone please? So the pay tables are for the match, the dealer bet is three and 12. So three to one for an unsuited match and a 12 to one for a suited match. And then in the, in the Spanish 21 section, they used to have the pay table where they would pay four to one for the unsuited match, but then 10 to one for the, four to one for the unsuited and 10 to one for the suited match. So lower as Angela was saying for the suited but higher on Pantune 21. I'm sorry, I hope I answered your question. That's a good distinction for me anyways. Yeah, and IEB at this time is recommending acceptance to this game. This game is also currently approved in at National Harbor MGM in Maryland. Questions for the team here. I just have one question, Madam Chair. In regards to the betting spots per table, I'm right in saying there's only five allowed, right? Five, yep, yep. It's up to six in the rules, but MGM has chosen to use only five spots on each and each spot corresponds to a section of their bonus wheel. So everyone is taken into account. Thank you. So one commenter did say there should be six. Why would that be of interest to anyone? It could be that at that time the patron visited, there was no seats available at the game if they were very busy. So they wanted another seat on every game. I'm unsure why five seats are used. I believe it's because the progressive wager actually takes a little extra room on the game. And so rather than jamming all the customers together in a post-COVID world, MGM is looking to space everybody out purposefully, right? Commissioner Maynard, do you have a question? I may have missed this in the packet and if so, I apologize, but how many tables are they planning on having with this particular game? Commissioner Maynard, they have six and that is replacing the six Spanish 21 games that they used to have. It's a swap for a swap. Okay. So it's not an expansion of Cuba games, it's a... So if I may, commissioners, I'd like to point you back towards the rules included in your packet starting on page 87. As the IAB indicated, this game is almost identical to Spanish 21, the game is replacing at the property. And given that it's very similar, however, there are some distinctions in the physical characteristics of the table, as well as the number of seats at Spanish 21, you have six and in pontoon, as we previously discussed, there are five. We have taken the physical characteristics for pontoon 21 and inserted them into section 17 of the proposed rules right now. Doing that allows for a little bit more clarity instead of citing to the physical characteristics of Spanish 21 and then pointing out the differences of the reg. We thought that that would just be a little bit more confusing and we would like to provide the patrons and the licensee with as much clarity as possible in what the physical characteristics for the game will be. I'm getting ahead of myself as well, but we'll be following up this presentation with a quick one about adding this section 17 into our regulations in 146, but given the timing of regs takes between 60 to 90 days, we are going to ask that you approve the current version of these rules with section 17 added. And then once the regulation, if the game is approved, of course, goes forward and is finalized, we would at the same meeting bring a new version of these rules towards you or to you to approve without section 17. So that would be the only thing I'd like to flag for you today. Questions for Judy on that. Any concerns? I have no concerns. I've been in communication with MGM for several months regarding this game. And it's my thought that it's a good bit with MGM, the MGM clientele. Thank you. Welcome. So Madam Chair, going back to the process within 205 CMR 147.04, subsection seven, the review period is ultimately first the review by IEB and the recommendation to approve the game by the commission. It has indicated by Ms. Smith and Mr. Carpenter, the IEB does support the adoption of the game at MGM Springfield. And so now we are asking for the commission to ultimately approve and adopt the game with their discretion authority and 23K. Mr. Chair, do you have any further questions before we consider voting? I just have to thank the team. Thank you for having a question. Yes, Commissioner Skinner. If this game, quantum 21 is, I guess, adopted by Encore. Well, Encore, I know it's MGM is rolling it out today, but if it is at a later point adopted by Encore, will Encore have to undergo a field test for it? And will the public have the opportunity to comment on the game in that environment? It's my understanding. If you approve this game, it is now open to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as an approved game and they can elect to just offer it from them. Director Lillio. Director Lillio, sorry, Sterl, Director Lillio. Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, and she chimed in. I wasn't sure if she was going to add to your comment. So that's exactly right. New games are not that frequent or have not been that frequent in Massachusetts. So, you know, we had the chance to go through the team, had the chance to go through this process, but Sterl's exactly right. The approval would be approval for the Commonwealth. Thank you. And I don't have any concerns about that, just an educational opportunity for me in my question. Thank you. That was a really, really good question, Commissioner Skinner, but I do want it. You made me think of a question I did have. Judy, did you say that there's still an outstanding field test on December 5th or what was happening on December 5th? Yes, Madam Chair. So the original field test began on July 8th, 2022 and was set to conclude back in October. However, due to some delivery delays for the progressive spin device, I think the picture is included on 105 of the meeting packet. VIEB has given the licensee a little bit more extra time to conclude that field trial. So the 90 days required by the regulation is extended to include that use of the progressive spin device. So, I think it's actually been longer than 90 days that the spin device has been utilized and tested. But we wanted to essentially get the approval because otherwise the use of the field trial would basically expire. And then if we came in a just subsequent meeting, there would be this pause in the operation of the game. Any questions about that, Commissioners? Okay. So without any further questions, do we want to take action on this and have this new game rolled out officially? Happy to make a motion. I move that the Commission approved the rules of the game on tune 21 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. Any further questions? That is. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Sherry. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks to the entire team. Yes. Huge, huge thank you to the IAB. They were instrumental in getting this ready and sending all the materials necessary for me to write my memo. So thank you all. Thank you, Judy, for your help with this too. My pleasure. Thank you. I look forward to seeing it. All right. Then we're moving on. Second, Director Wells. Yes. Actually, Madam Sherry. I need the one. You can make my further motion. Yes. I'm sorry. I do have one other further request that the physical table rules for PondTune 21 have a draft read for your review. It is session 205CMR 146.28 and it would take those physical characteristics listed in section 17 of the now authorized rules and place them in similar fashion with all the physical table characteristics for all games approved in Commonwealth. My apologies. Yes. With that, Madam Chair, I would move that the commission approve the small business impact statement and the draft 205CMR 146.28 as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today and further move that the staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth to begin the regulation obligation process. Second. So does that achieve everything you need, Judy? Yes, my business is complete, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Michelle, Ryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Dan, thanks to the entire team. Dustin, nice to see you. All right. Now, second director Wells. Yes. So for today, I'm just going to give you an update on some of the things that are going on and certainly welcome any questions or inquiries about the process. So as you're well aware, the evaluations for the category one applications are scheduled for next week. So the licensees have been notified to appear. Many thanks to Christo for coordinating that and working on the scheduling as you've all seen, especially at the agenda setting, meaning the scheduling is extremely challenging for all of the commissioners right now. So that's scheduled to proceed next week. That would be followed by the evaluation of the tethered license applications. And we are also finalizing a contract with a vendor to work with the commission on a tool for the evaluation of the untethered applicants, which is scheduled to begin at the beginning of January. The legal department, as you have seen, has continued to crank out the regulations required for sports wagering. Those are currently on schedule and many compliments to the legal team and outside council and GLI for keeping on target as we are all aware. It was extremely aggressive schedule for that. They've been doing a fantastic job. The gaming agents team and I are gonna meet with the properties, the casino properties on Monday. Should they be granted a license? We're getting ahead of things a little bit and just informing them of what the process will be for inspection of the floor, how GLI will go through the process of certifying that they are good to go for an operation certificate. So just coordinating with them on the process. Loretta and her team are on target for the investigations piece. As you know, there are some preliminary investigations that need to take place before issuance of licensure and they are working with their outside consultants and their inside team on those. Those are going well. The other piece that's coming down the road is going to be the internal control submissions and review and review of the house rule. That's a critical piece for the timeline. So the expectation is you will be having the regulations related to internal controls on the 15th of December. Should those be promulgated by you on that date? We are working to meet with the licensees and get their internal controls as soon as possible after that date. So that's a critical date for us. We will be speaking with them and getting those to GLI so those can be reviewed and any other materials we would need in order to undergo the operation certificate process. So overall, things are on schedule. We are very grateful for the help that we receive from outside parties and also I am particularly grateful for all the hardworking team that's put in here. The IT team in particular has been working with GLI independently on the IT operation certificate process. So that's moving along. So everyone's been really working hard and I just wanted to congratulate them on how they are doing and very grateful for all the efforts. That's my update for today. I'm happy to answer any questions or inquiries about things that are going on as we ramp up to start the work of regulating sports bravery. Questions for Karen? Okay. Well, Karen, thank you. That's a fact that there are no questions because we really have been keeping us well informed all along the way and we appreciate today's summary. We will be convening regularly over the next several days. Today, we're going to be finishing a training that GLI has been giving us and we'll have an all-day training tomorrow. That's going to be very, very helpful as we start to really think about the precise issues of our job and evaluate the applications that are now submitted. So thank you to GLI on that. Before we leave, and this may not be there, but I'm up to Trudy. If she's not listening, I'm not going to do the introduction because I am, but if she does, there she is. Thank you, Trudy. So Trudy, I want to introduce her today as part of our mission update, but I think Karen will probably be having some kind of a convening where all of our new members are properly introduced. I want to thank Trudy for joining our team. She is the executive assistant to the five commissioners and we welcome her. The commissioners come to have a nice greeting on Monday and have met with you individually. Trudy and I know they're all really excited about you joining our team. Trudy comes highly recommended from her last position as a professional executive assistant and more. She came from the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority. So we're lucky that she has a great deal of public agency experience, but she's also had worked on the, and that's on the state side, in the Cambridge Public School District. So she comes with local experience and around. And I note this, Derek is listening, she has purchasing background. So always a welcome experience and asset for us. But we're going to let her settle into her position right now as the executive assistant to the five of us, which we know is no easy task. We want to thank really Crystal Bozeman who will work closely with Trudy for picking up so much of the work of Trudy's predecessor during this time and Jack Neck who really carried through those responsibilities in addition to all the work that Jacqueline does in the finance division. Trudy, it does take a village to accomplish your job and we know it's going to be a busy onboarding for you, but Crystal and Jacqueline are going to be two great peers. And then you've got Marianne around the corner who also is going to be a great support in the five of us. So, and of course Karen and the entire team, all of us welcome you and thank you for deciding to make a choice to join us at the FTC. So thank you. I have for me, I appreciate it. Yes, and Trudy is the proud parent of a college sophomore at Harvard, a nice that it's a local school for us and then an older son. So we're just delighted to have you join us. Thank you, I appreciate it. And I look forward to working with all of you. The mission is to join in in the festivities here, if you'd like to join me. I don't want to be pretty uncomfortable by belaboring her having to take her video and let us see her face, but I had the pleasure of meeting her early on. So it was nice to actually meet you in person and it's nice to have somebody back in that area to help support us. And Jacqueline and Crystal have been very supportive, but it's going to be a huge help to us. Thank you. I look forward to it. Patricia Maynard. It was a pleasure to meet you. I have been asking when you are going to start for many months, so I'm happy that it's now. I enjoyed our conversation. We had the other day and I look forward to continue working with you. Same here, thank you. Patricia Skinner. Patricia Maynard and Trudy, I was a little jealous actually. I was sitting right next door to them and all I heard was laughter and I felt Trudy that I got a little shortchanged in that, but I'm sure we have plenty of laughs to come. Very nice to meet you and just another warm welcome to you. Thank you. Thank you. And Commissioner Hill. Madam Chair, I already welcomed her personally, looking forward to working with her moving forward. So welcome aboard. Thank you. And I knew you all had that chance, but I just thought it was be nice for Trudy to hear this and it's being recorded, Trudy. Thank you. The benefits of working with the FGC. So thank you, welcome aboard. Thank you. Thank you all. Missures, do we have anything else for today? All right, then it's 104. May I have a motion to adjourn? And I think we reconvene virtually as trainees with the GLI, so work that too. At 3, 2 p.m., is that right, Karen? 2 p.m. All right, move to adjourn. Thank you. Second. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. I vote yes, 5-0. Thanks, everybody. And thanks to the entire team.