 Good to go. Right. Thank you, Dave. Good morning. This is a convening of the Massachusetts gaming commission. We hold these meetings publicly and virtually. So we do need to do a roll call. Right off the bat. Good morning, commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I am here. Good morning, commissioner Hill. Good morning, president. Good morning. Commissioner Skinner is out today. Enjoying some good vacation time and commissioner Maynard. Good morning, madam chair. I'm here. Okay. So we'll get started. Calling the public meeting number. 447 to order and commissioner. Hill, you have some minutes for us. I do, madam chair. Okay. Good morning. Good morning, commissioner. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have a couple of public meeting that are included in the commissioners packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Okay. Any discussion. I'll just point out that I was out. A good portion of that meeting. And then I was able to join. At a certain point. So. I was able to join. I'm turning to all of you for guidance. To the extent I was there. Or do I abstain altogether? No, I think I had this happen and I just say, yes, as just so much as I was there. And we have a core without you. So that's right. I just didn't want to just abstain because I know that I was there for a good portion. All right. So with that said. I'll turn to the commission. I. I. I should be. I. To the extent that I was there. I think I'm addressing a medical appointment. I joined late. I am a firm as well. So. Three free plus. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Anything else commissioner Hill. Not at this time, except to say we are feverishly working on the other minutes and. Looking forward to bringing some more before you. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. Excellent job. Very thorough, of course. All right, then we're turning to. Chief O'Brien. We have a licensing matter. Morning, Madam chair and commissioners. We have a request from encore Boston harbor to amend their. Beverage license and Dave McKay, our licensing supervisor has prepared the materials for you. Morning, Madam chair and commissioners. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can I confirm everyone can hear me okay. We can. Excellent. As Kerry noted on core Boston harbor has applied for amendment of its gaming beverage license to add a new license area. The license area's name or venue. I should say will be medium rare. The commission's been provided documents in your packet starting at page three regarding this application amendment. And it was reviewed by the division of licensing. The scope of the review also included verification pertaining to the place area manager. And an onsite inspection was performed by Lewis. IED casino regulatory manager. The licensing division worked with Juliana. Catans. The ready. Executive director of legal on core Boston harbor to obtain the necessary information related to this request. I'm happy to try and answer any questions that you may have or go through the memo that is in the packet. In any greater detail based on your preferences, but this is the request before you. Juliana and Lewis are also present on this meeting in case you have specific questions for them. And we are asking for a vote from you on this matter. And our recommendation is to approve the request. Good morning, Juliana. Nice to see you. Good morning, Madam chair. And I see you as well. Great questions from Lewis. Missing health. Madam chair. Hi, Juliana. Can you just give us a brief overview of what it's going to be. And what type of restaurants going to be and all that good stuff. Good morning. Sure. I can. So this is adjacent to rare. Media rare. It being so it's meant to compliment that outlet. It's sort of a cat. It's a. A bar with small bikes. It's a small bar. A small bar menu. And then it's mostly the cocktail lounge. So it's adjacent to rare. I don't know if anyone recalls. It's where I originally when we had opened, we had a coffee outlet there. It was called brew. And then I think for a short period of time in between COVID. And now there was a, we use it for accessory tail space. So it's now been transformed into this, this outlet. Okay. Thank you, Madam chair. And thank you, Juliana. Mr. Hill, you like the name, don't you? Yes, I do. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Further questions for either Louis or Juliana. Dave or Kara. So it just Louis and whoever did the walkthrough, just want to confirm that in terms of securing any of the liquor, et cetera, there's no concerns at all about bringing in from back of house and securing it. Nothing like that. Right. Yes, correct. We, I personally conducted the inspection for the security and the surrounds for this area and personally, no concerns. Great. Thanks. Any other questions? I have an administrative question. Because I'm thinking this might be the first. Alcohol beverage certificate that we've seen for a while. So we have a new executive assistant in. In my, in the grace who's new to us as well. Kara. Will this be a new individual certificate? And then do we also have to amend the one that has all the licenses on it? So we will, medium rare will be having their own. License within on core Boston, Harvard's license. So this is just an amendment to the existing overall license held by on core Boston, Harvard. Okay. So no separate one. But just the overall. I can actually, sorry. Thank you, David. Thank you. I'll quickly jump jump in there. So to answer your question, chair, the answer is yes. Okay. Medium rare will have its own license area certificate with to be posted in their respective locations similar to all license areas. And then we'll also have to update the, the master beverage license for the property to now include this. Change. Okay. All right. So could you just make sure that you coordinate them through grace and date, right? We do. It's a soft opening is next Tuesday, the 11. So, so that's strictly administrative, but I am thinking about the fact that there's a holiday and everything. You want to make sure to have that work done. Okay. And no issues from ABCC, right? No concerns. Am I adding a C separate on the alcohol beverage control. No concerns, Lewis. No, no, no concerns related to the ABC. All right. So you need a vote. Do I have a motion commissioners? Yes, madam chair. Ms. Goldstock send questions and amendment request to add medium rare as a new licensed area in accordance with. GLC 23 K section 26 and 205 cm. Oh, 136. Oh, three and one 36. Oh, one second. Thank you. Any edits? Questions. Comments. Fischer Brian. Hi, What's your. Hi, Mr. Maynard. Okay, 4-0. Thank you so much and thank you for the good work. And to Anka, Boston, Harvard, we know that you were working on this with the licensing department and happy that we could make it all work out into the licensing department. Thank you for your ongoing, very nimble, very responsive and very good work. So thank you so much. Thank you and thank you, Juliana and thank you, Louis. Thank you very much. We still appreciate you taking the time to do this for us this morning. Excellent. Thank you. Have a great day. Thank you. Okay. So now we're moving on to item number four. I'm going to turn to Director Ban. You've got some house rules for us. Yes. Good morning, Chair, members of the commission. I have with me today, Sturrell Carpenter, the operations manager of the Sports Waging Division. And we have various house rules to present to you today. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Bruce. Good morning, Chair and commissioners. Today we have house rules for four operators. In your memo packet, it starts on page 33. WinVet has proposed a change to their house rules. It's not a real big one. As a matter of fact, it's very small and WinVet is requesting to change their minimum wager from a dollar to a penny. Would we like to vote on these individually or yes? Okay. Yes, so let's have a chance to discuss this. You see the WinVet's proposal. Any questions for Sturrell? Sturrell, do you want to give us any insights as to what's motivating the change? I just think, especially since this is for most operators, especially in the online platform, it's just enjoyment for all their customers. If somebody would just like to place a wager for 10 cents, they can do so rather than having to risk a dollar. That's all. Commissioner Maynard, I saw you nodding your head. I didn't mean to ask the question. You may have had on your mind. Do you want to do it? No, you asked the perfect question. Thank you. Why from the dollar to a penny? Any other questions? Any follow-up? All right. Commissioner, so I spoke, but I do think it makes sense given they're all very different proposals that we do them on a time. Do we have a motion on this? Or any further discussion before there's a motion? Okay. Madam Chair, I would move that the commission approve the amendments to the House rule submitted by Wynn-Bett as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Thank you, commissioners. Any further questions, edits? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. What's your name? Hi. What's your name? You're on mute. Hi. Thank you. And I vote for us. So four is zero. Thank you, Sterl. Thank you. Moving on. Yep, moving on to Caesar's sports book. They are proposing the following changes. They updated language for their bonus bet. They've updated their language on rounding. They updated their language for team racing to record language for baseball. They have added cycling, volleyball, and softball. So the first change is from a bet credit. They changed just the wording from bet credit to bet bonus and then their bonus cash is removed. Now I know everyone will be reminded of their, then item number two is their updated language for rounding. So I remember when we first reviewed their House rules, they wanted to round up and round down and we said it was okay to round up. They are now changing from what they've originally proposed that they will now pay off all calculations for retail bets will not be rounded and they would be paid to the penny to the exact amount. The third bullet is their language to team race for record language. And they changed from and then it's just being removed. This is a clarification on their part. And then their items four was in addition, they're allowing the wagering on cycling. As we go further down on volleyball, they're adding volleyball with all of their rules and then they're adding softball in item six. I'll stop here and ask if there are any questions. I just asked a clarifying question, the cycling volleyball and softball, what they're adding that's already been approved by the commission as part of the events catalog. Yes, all those events are approved. They will of course have to follow that offering that they can't offer an unapproved event, but those three are approved events. Yes. Questions, commissioners? First girl, commissioner Byn's just shifting I think to a computer. So. Madam chair. Yes, commissioner Maynard. First to comment, I think that it's good for the patrons that they're going to get their money to the penny. So I appreciate that change. And then a question, Sturrell, did you see anything in those approved categories rules that I gave you pause or anything you wanted to point out to us on any of the changes? No, I did not. I did the one that caught my eye was the rounding and because we had that the removal was and the changing of wording is, you know, they update constantly, especially in marketing, it changes very frequently. So they'll call it reward points or tier points or, you know, each person and each operator will constantly change what they're referring to their promotions as. So that will probably come again and again to the commission once they make those changes. And as for those three events, we just made sure that they were all covered in our events catalog and that as stated, they are in turn, Caesars will have to make sure they don't offer an unapproved event and have to follow our catalog of those events to make sure that the governing body is the correct one. Follow-up question, Commissioner Maynard. Thank you. Just thank you. We have time. While Commissioner Maynard is contemplating, I just want, when you were doing your verbal update, Sturrell, I think you might have said that bonus, but it's bonus that they're getting rid of both that credit that was out there and bonus cash. If I misspoke, I apologize. That credit is what used to be stated and they're changing it to bonus bet and then bonus cash was removed. Yeah, so I'm glad that they changed the back credit. I'm glad that they changed the back credit. So I'm glad that they were proactive rather than us bringing it to their attention. So that's excellent. Yep, I agree. Anything else? Commissioner Maynard, are you able to hear us? Are you in transit? Nope, they're just still putting it up. I've been following everything. I'd like to change the language. I would say I, for future discussion, I think for us as a commission, when I was driving yesterday to Everett to go over the public safety report, there was an ad by one of the licensees and they talked about their bonuses and then talked about winner-lose, sort of being the guarantee, so to speak on it, which is not the words, risk-free, but I think it's something that we might want to think about as they're moving away from some of this language, the winner-lose language, not relevant to Caesars and what's before us, but I just didn't want to forget to bring that up. What were the words exactly, Commissioner? Win or lose, sort of like, you're getting this winner-lose. You're getting the credit, the promotional credit. Yeah, so that's not using the words risk-free, free cash, it's not using any of that, but just did strike me as I was listening to it that the implication is risk-free with that phrase, but it was not a Caesars ad. Okay, so we'll put that in the parking lot for now and Bruce and team can look into that along with Legal. But I don't have any questions about beyond what's been asked and answered right now on Caesars. Okay, excellent, thank you. Anything else, Commissioner Hill, you all set? All set. Okay, do you want to move? Are you prepared to move, Commissioner? I am, I don't want to be hogging up all these, but I'd be more than happy to move that the commission approved the amendments to the House Rules submitted by Caesars Sportsbook, as included in the commissioner's packet, and discussed here today. I'll hog the second, second. I'm delighted with all this hogging, okay. Any questions or edits? Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Excellent job. Let's go, Sturro. Okay, this brings us to Bet MGM's proposed changes. So Bet MGM has proposed the following changes, teasers, which is only offered as an online provider. They remove the language, become a single bet on the remaining team. For teaser payouts, odds are based on the odds of each line at the time of that placement. Instead, they changed it to be canceled in the event one selections results is in a push, a cancellation, or a void. So what this language is doing is it's clarifying exactly what will happen in regards to the teaser where the other line prior used to be a little ambiguous, I guess they felt. So they wanted to try and make it clearer for the patron. Number two, a baseball mercy rule. On page 12 of theirs is they did not have this prior and then now to a baseball mercy rule if a game ends by the relevant league's mercy rule then all wagers will be settled according to the results at a time the mercy rule is applied. This will include softball. So I am unaware of a mercy rule in MLB, but I'm sure we have more than the MLB. This would only apply to some league that is already approved in the event catalog. It is not my knowledge of a league that does offer this, but obviously the MGM felt the need to add this. Number three, it was found through review that they failed to remove esports as asked in the beginning and they've procedurally updated and removed all references to any event that is not in the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Sterlo, can I ask, am I missing that in the memo? What page are you on? I'm on page 41. It was, the memo was updated. Maybe... Okay, my apologies. No, it's just me. Okay. Thank you. No problem. So of course that now is removed all of that language. It also had E NASCAR as well. So section four is under football player futures. So again, just clarification language is be active in week one was removed to play at least one snap in the regular season. So just to be active for a game does not mean that the person has actually played, right? So this is actually making it, I guess, fair more, more for the consumer, right? So you could have somebody that's active and then not take the field. Not really fair for someone wagering if they didn't participate, right? So playing at least one snap in the football game would require that they participated in the game, right? So number five, a player's season specials be active week one of the regular season and players are not required to be active for week one of these wagers to stand is now clarified again to play at least one snap in the regular season for bets on their individual wagers to stand. Else bets are canceled. Wagers are also available to who will achieve the most for each statistic. And that was on their update to page 47. So 46 softball rules. And that's a once again, I'm sorry, sure, I'm sorry. Be mine, could we just pause for a minute just because it's a little bit of a lengthier one. Questions so far for Sterl or clarifications before he gets too deep into them. I don't have a question, Madam Chair. I do have a comment regarding the, let me make sure I get the right language there with me. The mercy rule. I have seen that happen in amateur sports and if you go 10 runs in five innings, it's a mercy rule. I can't even imagine what this is going after. And I didn't know if there was an example but you said no, you can't find one either. Just interesting. I learned something new every day, that's my comment. Yes, to your point, Commissioner Hill, I looked and I did not see a mercy rule in the areas that I did that I was able to find like a college world series, college softball, college baseball, I know professional. I've seen unfortunately the Red Sox be losing 15 runs in the first inning. Before it, but they have no mercy for those leagues but that MGM is well aware. They cannot offer anything that is not approved by our game. So just for educational purposes, could you reach out to that MGM? And not for today's purposes, but just for curiosity for the future. I would love to know if there's such a league that actually does this. Just curious, that's all. Yes, yes I will. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissures, I do have a question, sort of overarching question that maybe legal can help on too. Right now these are proposals from individual operators. To the extent that they, the proposal is like the one that we would think about as a best practice, should we be recommending that the other operators adopt those into their house rules? I'm trying to think of our process here. And the one I was thinking about, and I have no idea how the other commissioners feel, but I wonder about the betting on the single athlete who doesn't actually end up on the field short of one snap. What is the appropriate process? As these changes come through, do we make a note and then revisit them? Do we wait for other operators to be hearing what other operators are doing? I don't love that. I know that they are not uniform, but we have required some rules at the beginning that they had to all adopt. For instance, the rounding is one example. Thoughts, this is because we do our work together in public, sometimes this is how it has to go, we can't necessarily settle these matters in advance. I'm sure. Madam Chair, I think my thing is to your point, I think my biggest question here and what keeps popping into my head looking at these over the last few days and then again this morning is why? The question of why? Why are these changes being proposed and kind of educating on who have benefits? I mean, we wanna make sure that in every place we can, we're making sure that we're thinking about the consumer and so understanding how these changes affect the consumer. So that's something I would like to know every time these are updated. So I would agree with that. I mean, if there's a reason that MGM or anybody else is coming in and clarifying to the extent that it can eliminate confusion and make sure that everyone's protected, it is something that you probably see looking at across the board. So maybe to Executive Director Wells, this might be an opportunity to develop a sort of a standardized approach on these kinds of changes. So that, for instance, now we're hearing commissioners want to understand the why. Then I guess my question would be, oh, great idea, really important practice. Do we standardize it, you know, moving forward and move forward where we require it. Todd, is there any reason that's not the right approach for the ones I'm thinking of, Sterl, that we did most recently was surrounding you notice that there was some degree of maybe common interest. Todd, would that be something that we could require of all of the operators if you like it? Absolutely, I think, you know, you'll recall that we have a regulation that sets out the general topics that have to be addressed in the House rules. They're more of a performance-based nature, but we could make them a little bit more prescriptive in certain areas, if that would be helpful. So that's right in 24702. And all the issues that have come up today are generally addressed, but not specifically. So we could make the regulations more specific in these areas. And if we learn that, for instance, the why, that becomes clear, then we'll know that, well, it should be applied more personally. Okay. And any other, as we think about these as we're going through, that's why I sort of interrupted it. I like Commissioner Hill's question that I interrupted because I'm thinking about the process that's going to serve us and the patrons the best. Commissioner Hill, what are you thinking? Oh, Commissioner Maynard, maybe it was you first. And then Commissioner Hill can go first. No, go ahead, Commissioner Maynard. I was just going to say, even to this exact example today, I noticed that the mercy rule showed up in certain places and in certain places it's not. And then on the folks who aren't changing their rules, I don't know what their mercy rule says and it's not lost upon me that the season just started. So I'm thinking what happened that we're talking about the mercy rule, right? So that's a good example of, if I could see the differences into your point, Madam Chair, is it a question of, do we apply the mercy rule across the board? Do we not? How's it being treated? I mean, that would be helpful. Commissioner Hill. Nothing to add to that, Madam Chair. The big question is why? And I think in the future when these come before us, if we can get that answer, that would be good for all of us. Why? And I suppose it becomes through Sturl's explanation, the impact. So Commissioner Byrne, any thoughts that you would like to see besides why? And then maybe next steps, if any, for standardization, maybe why and what's the impact, anything? I think additional. I mean, I think the understanding of why so we can determine what the baseline is that we want to have consistent across all the licensees makes the most sense to me to avoid computing. Excellent. All right, so sorry, Sturl, you were on a roll, but I think we're going into another big section here so I'll let you continue up there. No particular questions on what he's covered, further particular questions on what he's covered so far. Okay, excellent. Thank you, Sturl. No problem. So, again, softball rules were from nothing they're adding softball rules. Now, also in the softball rule is the mercy rule once again. Like I said, I investigated both the website for the softball that we, the softball links that we use and I did not see them in their initial scans, but like I said, they might be preparing for something then which they will propose at a future date. I will reach out as Commissioner Hill said to the MGM for a clarification on where this mercy rule came from. And then finally, section seven, all future rules. They added a line five and that bets on future markets which have been unconditionally determined will be settled as such unless otherwise specified in the specific sports betting rules. I believe that is addressing when future markets are becoming official and then settling. They're getting greater clarity. And I will stop there because that's the end of the online proposal. And again, I will stop for any questions. Questions for Sturl so far on this. Okay, Sturl, I'm just looking at my agenda. Do we have a motion for Sturl? With respect to the bet MGM, those changes. You can move. Thank you. I move that the commission approve the amendments to the house rules submitted by bet MGM as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Thank you. Any further questions or edits regarding that? Michelle. Hi. Michelle Hill. Hi. Michelle Maynard. Hi. I go, yes. So what is there? Thank you. Thanks, Sturl. And now- Madam Chair, before we go on to the next one, I have been doing some Googling as we've been discussing these things, which I probably shouldn't do, but- Multitasking. It looks as though the Mercy Rule is used in the NCAA for softball. It's called an eight-run rule, but of course we don't allow college betting here. But with that said, there is a Mercy Rule in apparently some NCAA softball leagues. I have not been able to find any professional baseball or college baseball yet, but apparently it does exist, Sturl. So it appears that they're addressing- I was searching as Mercy, and it sounds as though in college softball, it's called an eight-run rule, so that I was- Exactly. Look, searching for it correctly. So thank you so much. And especially since it was reiterated in softball wagering, it must be in the NCAA softball rules. Thank you. And if you can hold on one more moment, there is a couple in baseball, but again, I can't tell if it's- It says there's no Mercy Rule in AAA or MLB baseball due to the professional competition, but there are things and it looks like there may be some in college as well for baseball. Just curious. So I'm done, Madam Chair. So I guess the question I have is, are there playoffs, or are you going to have four more competing that this is relevant to Mass or is this not relevant to us? I believe they do have big East tournaments in softball. Actually, I watch it on ESPN all the time. It's quite entertaining if you're into baseball and softball. And remember, so softball can be wagered upon if LSU is playing against some other team just as long as they're not in it from the college. So I think that answers our question for at least halfway. Sorry to interrupt again, Madam Chair. That's okay. You're reminding me of a great flip I saw maybe two weeks ago. Did you see where the softball player hit a home run she was making her way around the bases and had an injury and her teammates couldn't help her. That's the rule. And the other team helped her around the bases so that she scored. It was a testament to great sportsmanship. That caught my eye. Maybe that's why they have the mercy rule. Okay. The softball is excellent, excellent feeling, Commissioner Hill. We'll move on then. Just want to make sure I haven't lost track. We did get through that MTM return now to MTM Springfield commissioners, which is, I've been scrolling, so now it's on page 43. 43, yeah. All right. And so just as a knowledge, you're going to hear the exact same things for Springfield. But MTM does most of the rules for them as well. It handles a lot of, there's a lot of interaction between the two organizations. What you will not see is the rules what you will not see is the removal of eSports since it was not included as an error. So again, one, the baseball mercy rule on page 12 was added. And section two, the football player's future. Again, removal of being active for week one to playing at least one snap. Section three, the player's season specials on page 45. Again, from being active week one and players are not required to be active for week one for these wagers to stand to a player must play at least one snap in the regular season for bets on their individual performances to stand. Else bets are canceled and wagers are also available on who will achieve for the most for each statistic. Again, softball rules were added. So from they were there to all of their softball rules. And that final stipulation on all future rules was added. Number five, bets on future markets will have been unconditionally determined will be settled as such unless otherwise specified in the specific sports betting rule. Questions for Sturrell. I think commissioners get choose not in our all set. Mr. Maynard, are you also all set? Or do you have any questions? Okay. So thank you. Do we have a thank you. Commissioner Hill and like the thumbs up. Do we have a motion commissioners? I'm sure I move that the commission approved the amendments to the house rules submitted by MGM Springfield as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. Any questions or edits? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. So four zero. So that gets us through the approval of the house rules. And now we're going to turn to item four E on the agenda, which is the approval of new events for the sports wagering catalog. This has been an evolving item on the agenda. Before we get started commissioners. I would, I would like to make a recommendation. I would like you to think about it. We do have in front of us. One concerning a request regarding our relevant to. Our very own Boston marathon. That will be coming up. Because of that timeliness. I would recommend that we move forward with that matter. But. Well, I appreciate that. A lot of information before us with respect to the other. Potential catalog additions. I am wondering if we should think about an expanded process that would allow for opportunity for public comment. I'm interested in members of our communities, including of course the athletic community. As well as other stakeholders. And if interested governing bodies. And if so, if you're in agreement, I would like to make the recommendation that. We. We address just the first one before us. And then. Turn to those others at a future public meeting. And I'd ask. Director Wells to perhaps work with the sports division on. On developing that process. And then. Outlining it to us. So that we. Can kind of standardized the approach on this commissioners. Commissioner Brian. No, I agree with that. And in part. The introduction of. The matters that were requested for today. Particularly the Boston marathon and my, my first reaction was what's the position. Of the BAA. And that's not something that's in our reg right now. And I think that's something in addition to the process. I do think we need to go back and look at the reg. And look at what exactly the criteria and are that we're asking for when we're going to be making changes to the events catalog. So we did. Get. Input. Last night from the BAA on that particular. I would like to know more about each event as it comes forward in terms of what it is. What the. Athletes are that participate in it. What's the position of the governing body. That sort of thing. And I do think. When you get into some of these newer and more obscure. Requests. I do. For me, that is relevant. In terms of it's not a, is there a reason to keep it out for me? I look at it. Is there a reason to put it in? So that to me is probably going to require more information. The first wave. That was sort of a long standing request that people had put in front of us. Mr. Hill. I couldn't be. I agree 100%. The first. After getting. Some correspondence from constituents and. The BAA and things of that sort. We. If anything, I, we can be the most proud of is the fact that we do everything in public. And we ask a lot of. Questions. Pardoning to what the subject matter is. It's in front of us. We don't have a lot of information on this one. And. Transparency is something that I'm so proud of on this board. And I think in this case, we need to be very, very, very, transparent and get as much information as we can. So full agreement. At this point, I'm not comfortable already to take a position. On allowing this into the sports catalog. I'd like to get a lot more information and be able to talk to both sides. Of the requests. On this. And if I, if I can just go back to my recommendation. If we could just isolate the discussion around the request concerning Boston marathon. You're okay. Having that discussion today, but isolate the rest. Okay. Excellent. Thank you so much. Thank you. Madam chair. I'm happy to isolate the Boston marathon. Discussion. The only thing I would add to what's already been said, which I agree with completely on, on the others is that I would like additional information on what their events look like. Right. I don't know what the equivalent masters is on the mini golf tournament. Right. And what the dates are for that. And so that would be, you know, I appreciate that information too. But I definitely want to see, you know, what do, what did the leaks think? What did the players think? You know, and how's it going to affect the consumer? I will say. To commissioner O'Brien that. The word obscure. I did have an opportunity to play a professional mini golf course. Once in Florida, it was harder than the golf courses I play here. So, so it's not a question of that. It's a question of. What. You know, what are, you know, what are the parameters around it? And, and what's the opinion of those who participate? So I think I heard some different ideas. Second director of wells as to. Items or interest or approaches. So maybe we develop. A process come back. And then that will actually, I think really help the sports division too. We need to get additional guidance here. So. Yeah. For the comments. So we can do that. Excellent. Thank you. All right. So. With that. And your carpenter, do you want to get started in terms of the. Request. That came in with respect to. The Boston marathon. You know, before we discuss that, I think it's okay for us to. Pause. Remember that. This is a very special year. For this particular event. And we all. What do you have the. Memories of those. Who were lost 10 years ago. So. Just wanted to point out. I should pose. I should also pull up his closure that I do have. An adult daughter who will be running the Boston marathon this year. I don't think she's relevant to this particular request. But she would love to surprise you. Alrighty. She will be coming in. Not. Not. Not in the ranking sense before us. Thank you. Okay. So. Drafting. Reached out to us. And requested. The. Boston marathon. The adopted into the catalog. For consideration. They filled out. A league, a new league request in which they provided all the information. Regarding 247. 0.3. In which we. Look for the definitions and leagues. And governing bodies all to be accepted prior to voting on whether to allow. A new. League or event to be wagered on in this. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In your packet on page 45. It starts with the. Listed. In relevant sections of 147. I'm sorry. 247. And I will. Stop here. If there is anything else. If there is anything else. If there is anything else. I will. Stop here if there is anything in particular you wish to go through or. A guide of how you would like to. Continue speaking on this event. I think we want to point out too that we did receive that comment from the governing body. Perhaps some, it might be worth us sharing that as part of today's important discussion. So. In terms of. The request at the end of the packet. Yes. Do you want me to share that chair or no. I'm, I think in a second, I just wondered commissioners. Do you want still to walk it through? I mean, had the chance to walk through the commission. Brian. Right ahead. No, I. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I, I believe we have another. We had another public comment that came in, I think right before the meeting. In a similar vein. Yes. To the one we got last night. That was a member of the public, right? Remember the problem. Not the VA. It was in addition. But in terms of the VA's position would be helpful since it was added to the packet late. Right. So I guess I'm just wondering before we just share that. You are seeking some clarification from stellar groups. It's pretty straightforward, right? Okay. I think it makes sense to share that. And director Wells, that came into us. Late last evening. If you just want to walk us through it. A little bit. That'd be great. Do you want me to share the comment? Yeah. Whoever can. Easiest. Okay. So it starts here. Is this. Big enough or. I can just about. A tad bigger. That would be great, please. So. Just to point out. If you want to just say who it's coming in from. And. You just want to highlight that. That'd be great. So yeah. It came in from. Scott Stover. I hope I pronounced his name correctly. And. He's the chief marketing officer from the Boston athletic association. So that highlights director Wells. First paragraph would be. Yes. So the. Basically they, they have received media inquiries. They were not consulted in the matter of concerns related to the proposal as the Boston marathons. Only 12 days away. They've been preparing for this. For more than 10 years. So. They've worked with countless constituents. And I can say from my past experience at EOPS, the organization is phenomenal at working with many different groups to have this event go forward. They've indicated there is really not enough time for them to coordinate and fully ensure proper protocols are in place to support such a proposal for wagering on their event. They're concerned about how an expedited approval would potentially impact the event. And their concerns. That are that until they can complete two diligence. They're, but they're not limited to ensuring events, security, potential influence on the outcome of the race. In addition, they indicated that the Boston marathon is a trade margin protection. And so. So. The Boston versus. The Boston versus. In addition, they indicated that the Boston marathon is a trademark and protective name for us. The athletic association is not granted permission to use this trademark and relations to the proposal. So they indicated thanks for the consideration. But the bottom line is they are asking that this not be part of the events catalog. Okay. I know you have a chance to read it in the public packet and that is the governing body. And just for the purpose of public interest, one of the very critical components of our approving events is to make sure that the governing body can ensure the integrity of the event per the outcome embedding. So in this case, we've heard directly from the governing body. Michelle Bryan. So, I believe that this should not be added to the catalog at this point. I mean, the BAA has made itself very clear that if I've been directing to reach out to them at all, the concerns they raise about the integrity of the parameters, the trademark issues to me make it clear that this shouldn't be added to the catalog above and beyond that. The concern that I have is drafting seems to represent in the request that they are asking that this be bet on in any other jurisdiction that they're live. We don't have jurisdiction over them necessarily in those other states. But I would point out the same challenges would be present in drafting through the licensee here, taking those. I'm not a patent lawyer, I'm not a trade marketer. I'm not a trade marketer. I'm not a trade marketer. I'm not a trade marketer. And so some questions there. And to the extent that we oversee them in our licensee, I questioned the judgment of going forward where the governing body has clearly expressed a lack of communication and that concern with going forward. And I know the matter before us is just our catalog. But I did want to comment in the broader sense. If I may point out that we do have there's a statute and regulation that discusses this scenario. And to Commissioner O'Brien's point. It is important that certain comment be received so this is addressed specifically in chapter 23 and section 11 paragraph be which talks about comments from the sports governing body. It does say that the Commission shall request comment from operators on all such requests. And then we have regulations that directly addresses it's in 247.04, and it sets out the reasons under which you would deny such a request. One of them is that it may undermine the perceived integrity of the governing body or the event. And there's a series of other considerations as well. And really it says, the Commission shall grant the request meaning in this case from the BAA upon good cause shown, or deny the request, otherwise, and then there's a whole process outlined in the regulations that govern request like this. And only because this came in last night we didn't have a chance to brief this in the packet, but it is actually addressed in our. Is there any way we could pause if you could pull the statutory language and the red in front of us. One question, if I remember, be reminded, in terms of making a request for an event to be approved by us. It's very open ended. It can be any person correct my help that that is correct we do have a whole procedure for approving events and the, the, the draft Kings one. I didn't have a chance to really review it carefully but certainly the next one actually follows and it looks like maybe stroke put it together exactly follows the reg. But yes, we do have a whole procedure as to how to get events into the cattle. I think that that was my point again about standardizing having come up with a template so that we make sure that we do. You know, if the requesting party the opportunity to meet all of our regulatory standards or else not make that request right, but in this case what I'm hearing you say is, it's not going to be a denial. I think the commission would vote of the draft Kings request but rather an acceptance of the AA's request. Since there was. Well, one moment please commission, I just will let our lawyer tell us and then I'll go to you that first. Thanks Todd. So, if there hadn't been any message from the be a there is a procedure in place in which we most likely would have reached out to them to get any input. They had to offer. Since there was a comment submitted by the be a there's a specific regulation that addresses what we do in that scenario. And it would require at least some public comment or not public comment but comment from the operators before you were to move forward on that particular request. So I think, as of today, you based on the I'll call it an objection if you will. I think it's prudent to put it in the catalog based on that alone. And I think there's a process to be followed. If we hadn't received it it might be slightly different but I don't think we'd necessarily need to address it on the marathon issue. And it's, it's all spelled out and I realize it's hard to do this. It's a little time, but it's all in section 247.04. And we can look through that as well. Commissioners pressure, Brian, did you want to add now they just wanted to have him complete his thought. Thanks. Right. I mean I think as presented on the agenda it was a request from draft Kings under the red to add an event catalog. So to me there's a, there's a question of adjudication on that there's a separate standing as a right so to speak that can be executed by the governing bodies and in this case the be a did that by giving us the public comment objecting to the inclusion into the catalog and so I guess my view on it is you've got two processes going on one of which is following up in the adjudication of the exercise of that objection by the be a there's also the question of the request itself which given the timing of it, etc. I feel like we're in a position to adjudicate this. Either to abstain or in the negative the request from draft Kings directly, wholly independent of moving under 24 point 247.04 which to me that we're going to be doing motions under that we would want more briefing and I'd want to be able to look at the right. So my question and my position would be that it seems we can can't really adjudicate this in the in the positive for the affirmative because of the right that has been asserted by the be a under 247.04. But we could dispose of the request via motion in the negative denying the addition into the cattle based on what was on the agenda what was submitted by the operator. So what I would like to do with that, Commissioner O'Brien and commissioners is to pause our meeting it's 1209 give legal the opportunity to get the statute relevant statutory language together relevant regulatory standards together so that we can walk through these issues and understand the extent of our decision, you know what we can do. And then we maybe before I pause, make sure as if I could take the temperature. I'm just standing that there's a framework that we would have to operate in. But generally speaking if we view draft Kings is having making an affirmative request to allow for sports betting on this year's Boston marathon. And this is of course we can still change our minds just a strong low taking the temperature in time to give a thumbs up green light, or to say, not at this time, Richard Hill. I'm not inclined to support it at this point. I'll use my favorite phrase not ready for prime time. Thank you. And I think you've stated that that your position isn't Commissioner Maynard saying I think that this isn't right. And, and I am. I feel exactly the same way and it was already noted that, you know, there was no outreach to this governing body which is actually, you know, quite local so there was an opportunity perhaps to get a little clarity. So just pause for, does that make sense to just make sure that we're following the framework that we've adopted this is happening rather real time and come back. I wouldn't work if we came back in 15 minutes is that work for you. What want to bargain. 20. That's fine. I'm just joking. Okay, well we come back and just grab something for lunch quickly and keep moving. Yeah, we do. Yeah, you have one other manner of this. All right, so why don't we grab a bite to eat and make it a short fight because it will be a relatively short meeting. So we'll come back around a top 30. Okay, Commissioner Brian. Yep. Okay, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, Bruce, you want to turn off your video please in your audio. I'm doing it right now. Okay, Dave. Everybody able to get a quick bite of some sort. Also, Okay, so this is reconvening a public meeting number 447 Massachusetts gaming commission. And because we're holding this meeting virtually. Michelle Brian. I am here. That's like, Mr. Hill. I'm here. Mr. Maynard. I'm here. Or is for zero. Yes, I'm here. We're going to return to our agenda. And we were just turning to four E, and we put a straw boat on our position with respect to the request from draft Kings to allow for betting on the Boston marathon and we do have a framework that I know that this plans now that we can institutionalize this part of us going forward and Todd, if you were able to use those few minutes to maybe give us a little bit of a reminder of our. Be happy to do that. I actually just kind of called out some of the governing provisions from the statute and the regulations that I thought I might show you really quickly if that's okay. Help guide the decision making here. So, okay. It's possible to make that a little bigger. Todd, I would appreciate that. Sure. So better. Okay. So the first thing to just take a look at is the definition of sports governing body this is actually set out in the statute and our regs by way of the statute. So it's an organization that is headquartered in the United States and prescribes final rules and enforces codes of conduct with respect to respect to a sporting event and participants there in. It appears as though the BAA would certainly meet this definition just for starters. And that's important because that term sports governing body is used in a number of places in the regs that we'll take a quick look at here. So the first series of regulations in 247.03 governs just the process for the approval of a particular sporting event or wager category. And I again I only pulled out the provisions that I thought were most relevant to this particular discussion there are a few other things and they're actually contained in the memo that's included in the packet but just for purposes of this review. So the first thing just to note as the chair pointed out already is that any person may petition the commission for approval of a new sporting event or wager category. And so the petition that came in itself was from an appropriate place in determining whether to grant such petition there are a series of considerations that the regulations direct the commission to look at. These are just minimum criteria there are other things that can be taken into account as well. But as you can see here, the four that are articulated in the regulations or whether the outcome of the event can be verified. The event generating the outcome is conducted in a manner that ensures sufficient integrity controls exist so the outcome can be trusted. The outcome is not likely to be affected by any sports wager placed and D the sporting event is conducted in conformity with all applicable laws. So those are the four that we've set out but of course there are other considerations that may factor in depending upon the particular request paragraph five says that the commission will consider the request and provided materials and any relevant input from the sporting body or the conductor of the sporting event prior to authorizing a sporting event or wager category. And so, since we do have an actual comment it must be reviewed and we'll talk more about that in a moment. This is I think gets to what the commission discussed earlier if we're going to set up an actual protocol. Instead of just noting that we the commission will consider it perhaps we add language that says that we shall elicit it in order to be aware of what the governing body may say about a particular event. The 12 says that the commission may use any information it considers appropriate including but not limited to information received from a sports governing body and determining whether to authorize or prohibit wagering on a particular sporting event or wagering category. So, these are the relevant provisions that guide and govern the commission's decision making as to whether to authorize a particular event or category of wagers in general. As it pertains to the matter before you, the Boston Marathon specifically, it's also important to look at the next section of the regulations which is in 247.04. And this is the area that talks about prohibiting wagers for good cause. The next section I will represent to you as modeled after a provision of the general laws, which is referenced right in the regulation at section 11 B. And that's where this regulation specifically came from it's directed by statute. And then it says that the sports governing body. It may request in writing that the commission restrict limit or exclude a certain type form or category of sports wagering with respect to sports sporting events of the sports governing body. If the sports governing body or players association believes that such type form or category of sports wagering with respect to sporting events. And then there's a series of considerations. Either a is contrary to public policy. B is unfair to patrons. C may undermine the perceived integrity of the sports governing body sporting events of the sports governing body or athletes participating there in or D affects the integrity of the sports governing body sports events of the sports governing body or athletes are participating there in. So those are the reasons under which a sports governing body may submit such a request to the commission. Section two says that the request must be submitted in a particular form. I believe that I just included this so you can see that there is an actual form that the request has to come in. It appears as though the request received from the be generally meets this criteria. Section three gets into the decision making. And the regulation said the commission shall grant the request meaning the request coming from the BA in this case upon good cause shown or deny the request otherwise provided however that if the commission determines that the request there is more likely than not to make a showing good cause the commission may provisionally grant the request until the commission makes a final determination as to whether the requester has shown good cause. So even if you're not 100% today, you may provisionally grant the be a request not to offer wagering on the marathon at this juncture. And it's important just to look at some of these other paragraphs before you make that decision. And paragraph four says, if the request concerns a particular sporting event, as is the case here, it must be sent to the commission at least 10 days before the event which this one has. Unless the event involves allegations of match fixing and other things which don't apply here. Section five the commission shall grant or deny any request concerning a particular sporting event received at least 10 days before the event. So the the regs direct that the decision be made before the event takes place where this request has come in 10 days before the event. Otherwise the commission may grant or deny any request within 14 days. And the final provision that I wanted to bring to your attention is section six here which says that upon receiving a complete request under section 247 041. The commission shall request comment from sports wagering operators on all such requests in writing. The request shall include the date by which any written responses must be submitted to the commission. All sports wagering operators must be given an opportunity which is reasonable under all the circumstances to respond to the request. And I will say to you that this is based upon a provision of the statute. So those are all of the governing provisions of the regulations and the statute that pertains to this particular request by the BAA. So that you can kind of have a structured review of this request that and enter a decision here today if you're so inclined. So with that I think that that covers all the sections that I thought would be helpful to cover and I'll stop there Madam Chair and commissioners. If there are any questions happy to address those at this point. Questions for Todd in terms of the process. Director Wells. Just have one question. Todd, under this process. Could the commission deny the or I guess it's accept the BAA's request to not allow the betting on the Boston marathon today or do we need to give operators a chance to respond and then have that set up for further date because that seemed to be what the right says but I want to make sure I'm correct there. Yeah, I think that the commission could at least provisionally grant the request or deny it so that you can allow for others to comment on it and allow even the BAA to more fully respond to this particular request. And that way it's it's a live issue. We're not denying it outright. But that seems to be again this is of course the first time we've been navigating this but I think that that seems to be the process that was contemplated. Well, so. Okay, so what I'm seeing is that there's two competing things that the commission could act upon. There's the petition from draft case and what I understand is the commission today could deny that petition. But it hypothetically if the BAA had just submitted something saying hey, we don't want any wagering on the Boston marathon, then that would trigger the necessity for the opportunity for the operators to hear but since I'm not sure that seems to be my construct. Because I guess what I, my thought would be to build on that is, if I understand that at 247 oh three we could deny and take into consideration the input that we got from the governing body. Right, because we certainly wouldn't want it to be while you played in so therefore you only get a provisional decision. That would be an outcome. Yeah, I think that's fair. Absolutely. I think that's exactly right. I think you could deny the request outright, and then maybe tee it up for a future review and resubmission. Why, why would we help? That's part of my frustration with that bifurcated process. I, and maybe I wasn't clear when I said this before the break. I don't know that we need to go down the 247.04 route. Professor Grafton's in front of us and one of the things we consider as a public helmet by the governing body. And one of the things they said is the lack of timeliness on this really makes it impossible for them because they're planning the event at their last critical stages of planning. That in and of itself could lead to a denial by this commission, wholly apart from the fact that they've independently voiced an objection which may or may not arise. It would really depend on whether another licensee sought to offer the event that come along the Massachusetts. So it doesn't seem to me that we have to go down the 247.07 or route. We can give a denial on this based on the right that deals with anyone can come ask and ask for that. So 247.03 alone. Right. I think 247.03 alone allows us to do that without getting mired in. It seems me to almost rise to the level of needing to be handled. If the straw poll indicated we were going in another direction, which it does not seem to be that this body is doing. Yeah, I know I think I think that's exactly right. I don't think you're under any obligation to to conduct any further proceedings other than the review today. If someone were to come to you in the future, having vetted it more thoroughly, I think you could reconsider at some point. Well, the time is of the essence because we're narrowing into that window 10 days. Right. I'm sorry, probably not this year, but that's right this year. So, but to be clear, can I just because I was taking notes. It looks as though the commission will consider any relevance, relevant input from the governing body, but it doesn't have to have its decision based on an input from the governing body. If we were to go against the governing bodies recommendation it seems to me, we would be remiss to not go into 247.04. I think that's exactly right. If there is an objection from a governing body, I think you, you have to honor it. If there's good cause. Yeah, what do you think commissioner you're nodding your head. Yeah, I think that's how I would look at it. I mean, I think we would have to go down that second route if we have an issue here amongst us. It seems like there's not and I mean, I can go ahead and give my thoughts period. Let me know when you want what our thoughts period because I do have something for the record. Yeah. Just commissioner Hill in terms of the structure of the regulatory structure which we of course adopted but it's been a little bit since we adopted so it's really. And of course the statute has dictated this and you have to give the legislature credit for anticipating exactly the scenario so here we are, Mr Hill. I have nothing to add I think 247.03 what we should be doing today and let's get it done. I mean, if you want to make a statement. Is that what I hear. Well, I just want to on the record that, you know, there's few greater events than the Boston marathon, and it's nationally known, but in the Commonwealth it's very local. And it underpins a local holiday. And I'm going to respect this local organization's request to be included in the process that could potentially ever allow wagering on their event. And for that reason I also respect that they don't think they can work out any issues in 12 days and, and that seems reasonable. In short, you know, no matter, you know, what we look at here I'm not going to allow under the first construct, any catalog of any licensee, right or catalog period that any licensee is going to follow. This this event that's not going to happen. So that's where I am. Excellent. Commissioner Brian you want to add in. Now I agree with Commissioner Maynard that with any request, my expectation would be that an operator would reach out to the governing body. The Boston marathon in particular, what it means to the city and in particular on this year, 10 years out from the tragedy. I would be disappointed to say the least that a local operator did not in fact do that. And I am absolutely inclined to listen to the organizers of the event who have said even even needing to respond to this is a distraction for them in getting ready for something that's going to be happening in a matter of days. So for me this is not even a question that this shouldn't be put into a catalog at this point. Thank you and Commissioner Hill anything else you wish to add. No, not at this time. And I echo my fellow commissioners sentiments so the only thing I would like to clarify is that this did come to us rather abruptly to and so we're sorting out our process and that this is memorialized in our regulation but putting the regulation into effect. As you can see, we were working out a process that will be well memorialized what I want to say is I very much appreciate the submitting its comments to us. And I think as part of our process I don't think it's in our right but I might be wrong Todd that we probably institutionalize a comment period around these types of matters for maybe it's a two week, which reflects our general practice we are always open to public comment but with this, particularly, particularly if it's an event that hasn't been better before. So, I think we will hope that we can institute that practice. So, and to the interested parties. You know, we thank you and we thank you for your patience as we roll over the other ones for now. With that said I think we should probably take a vote on this do I have a motion. Madam chair and move that the commission deny the request to amend the official catalog of events and rangers to include the Boston Marathon, as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Okay, any edits or questions around that motion. They're all set. Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Hi, Commissioner Hill. Hi, Mr. Maynard. Hi. Yes, for zero. Okay. So, I'm going to turn to a discussion from IEB and consider going into executive session if I could have director and before if we decide to go into executive session, I will make sure that we check in on just any business. But why don't we have executive director Wells and director Lilios lead us on number five. Director Lilios. So, if you want to jump in or. So I think, you know, the commission is looking at matters regarding temporary suitability and there are certain standards for that and there's some information that the IEB would like to give the commission. It may be detrimental to the investigation for that to be public at this point so the request is that the commission hold executive session to have that discussion. Any additional. No, really that captures it. All right. Commissioners in order to go into executive session. For the reasons that director Wells stated and director Lilios has said he's an agreement we would have to move forward affirmatively and to do so. We would have to read this language into the record. So I'll do so. The commission is anticipated to meet an executive session in accordance with GL chapter 30a section 21 a seven and GL chapter. Section seven. Subsection 26 f to discuss investigatory materials related to the issuance of a sports wagering license necessarily piled out of the public view by the IEB the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudiced the possibility of the effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. Public session of a commission meeting will not convene at the conclusion of the executive session we sell books. Madam chair I move that we go into executive session for the reasons stated by the chair. Second. Thank you. Any questions. All right, commissioner Brian. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes so that's for zero. Before we move into our, our virtual space Dave and I think that the better you probably have organized that guest list with Dave so he knows, is there any other business or Mr. Madam chair actually have something. I'm going to go through the schedule before we started this meeting and I noticed that Thursday may be eighth. We have a hole on the calendar for a full meeting. I thought that you had an event to go to that weekend and I expected that hold to come off the calendar. You've always been really extremely accommodating to us and and all the commissioners when we've had scheduling issues pop up. You know, I think that I can find another date that works and I don't believe Thursdays are sacred cows. So, I, you know, I have some other availability. Just want to make sure that I have that correct that that we are going to remove that hold on on the 18. Well, I appreciate that I have been invited to a wedding and I'm very excited because Bruce band just came from Charleston and I'm looking forward to enjoying a little bit of what he enjoyed recently for a wedding and a very significant. That would help me out if it doesn't compromise our schedule. The only thing I appreciate your, your request commissioner may have very much because I'm, I am in the midst of maybe making plain changes because I would do the meeting there. And I would have to change my flight if I'm going to do the meeting there. So, can we maybe look at that schedule and then unless there's a disagreement and and see if there's any dates that might work and we can just circulate that. Commissioner Hill, commercial Brian. Can you repeat the date. Commissioner Maynard. It's Thursday, May the 18th. That's what I don't have a contract never. I don't have an issue trying to work to work around if we have a couple conflicts either so I don't know if it's something where Commissioner Hill myself and Commissioner Skinner form and there's sort of business at hand. I can make myself available, but I'm not, I don't have an issue rescheduling either. Same here. I'm all set. Thank you. Commissioner Brian, I did say at the agenda setting that I would go ahead and miss the meeting if there were a farm. I appreciate Commissioner Maynard saying that if we could do another date then I would be they are the it's a quarterly reports that I would want to hear. Anyway, no, I can go out of the way. I'm available either way to move it or to go. Thanks. All right. So maybe great. So you can work with the commissioners and see what we can find out. I'd appreciate that and then I'll. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. And then. Commissioner Brian, you have another, you have an item. I don't, I raised it earlier in terms of the language, maybe we put on to discuss the winter lose language. That was the only thing I wanted to bring up. Okay, and I'm just making sure that we've got that notation. And before we, we go to our executive session. I'll probably repeat this introduction, but returning to grace Robinson and I just want to formally introduce grace who is new to our team and is serving in an expanded role of being both the chief administrative officer to the, the chair, as well as the Help me out grace it's external projects and external relations. Yes, external relations, which will include our legislative function. So, grace comes from very, very fitting background. Grace joined the Baker administration on day one as a new college grad, and she was started off as a briefing coordinator for the governor and lieutenant governor, and then moved up as assistant director of operations. She was the deputy director for advanced special events, and then director of operations. And so she did serve the full time of the services to the Baker administration. And we are very pleased that she decided to apply for the position and has come in rather seamlessly I think I'll be those of you who have been already working with her and recognizing that. Grace, again, welcome to you and thank you for, for all that you're doing to help us run things smoothly. Grace is the successor of, as everyone knows Christa Bushman who did such a fine job that she got herself a very nice promotion. We're very pleased that she is now in under director ban in management position for sports business. We are pleased to have sent her off in that function to director Wells, there was a little interim period and we were both pretty busy. So we know exactly the value that crystal increase the thought to us so thank you. Okay, so with that Dave Suza, you have the magic of knowing how to transfer us into the virtual to the public we will not be be convening and so we thank you for your attention on this matter, and we'll go into our executive session now. All right. So I have a list of everybody to go into the breakout rooms right now so let me know if there are other people that need to go in let me just create a sign right now. Yes. Thank you so much Dave and thank you to all of you who contributed today.