 Thank you. Good morning, everyone. This is a public meeting of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. And as we're holding this virtually, I'll take a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Right. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Okay, and good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Okay, I know that he's just probably in the elevator bank coming up to the office. So, I'm here, Madam. Okay, we've got you. Thank you so much. Great. We'll get started. Today is public meeting number 424 of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. It is January 18. And we're going to get started with a review of our meeting minutes. Commissioner Hill. Here with me one moment, if you would. I'm Madam Chair. I moved that the commission approved the minutes from the October 6, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioners packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Do I have a second? That's a second from Commissioner Maynard. Any edits or omissions? It's a very long set of minutes. Appreciate it. So the great work of the legal team. Hearing none. Madam Chair, I do have an edit. Oh, so sorry, Commissioner Skinner. Yeah. That's okay. It's page 30 of the packet, I believe, about halfway down. Okay, just one minute. Just one minute. Okay. Third, third paragraph under B. Commissioner Skinner asked if marketing affiliates would also encompass some forms of promotional play. I actually asked if the discussion that we were having pertained to third party marketers of promotional play and similar incentives. And similar incentives. Is that fair? Yeah, yes. Okay. I can add that. Is that an edit and a friendly amendment? Yes, please. It's just the nature of the question, the nature of the question was, is, is different from what, than what's reflected here. I understand. Questions for Commissioner Skinner on that, everyone. Okay. Okay. With that amendment. Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. Okay. And I, I mean, yes, so that's five, five zero. Thank you so much. And now we'll turn to director, executive director Wells. Good morning, Karen. Good morning. How is everyone. So the one administrative update I have, I see Mark Vanderlinden is on the meeting today. He did want me to announce and I'll turn it over to him. He has a few words that the voluntary self-exclusion for sports weather wagering is scheduled to go live on the 23rd. So I just want to make that announcement mark if you have any commentary on that. Good morning, Adam chair and commissioners. We are set to launch a sports wagering voluntary self exclusion next Monday. So in advance of that going live, we felt it was important that individuals were concerned about the introduction of sports wagering would have a chance to enroll in advance of the live date. The final regulation will be before you final approval. The regulation will be before you leave today. We've worked both on in terms of the technical side of it to make sure that individuals are able to enroll the training side of it to assure that our game sense advisors specifically as well as myself and long band are able to do the work. And then in terms of communication, we have an FAQ that is that is set to launch and we'll work with the communication team to to announce this. Thanks Mark. That's all I have for today for administrative update now chair. Very good. Thank you Mark. Any questions for director Vanderlinden on that. Commissioners all set. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks Mark. Great work. I'm going to turn it now over to our legal team. Good morning. Todd and Kerry and Judy and Ying. And I see Paul. Good morning, Paul. All right. Good morning. Good morning, Madam chair and commissioners. We have a number of regulations for you today that are here for final approval at the conclusion of the regulation promulgation process. So to get us started, I'm going to turn it over to associate general counsel young to handle this first set of regulations. Thanks Kerry. Good morning, Madam chair and commissioners. I'm going to turn it over to associate general counsel young to handle this first set of regulations for you today that are here for final approval at the conclusion of the regulation promulgation process. 219 temporary licensing procedures, excuse me 220 sports wagering license conditions and 221 sports wagering license fees collectively what we refer to as the operator licensing framework. These regulations supplement to 18, which you'll also hear about today, as it's up for a final review as well, which govern the form submission review and procedures overly associated with sports wagering applications, as well as temporary licensing procedures which are authorized within 23 and so aside from 219, these regulations largely mirror their gaming components within the 100 level regulations. This operator license framework first came before you on November 10, 2022. When the commissioners voted to promulgate these regulations by emergency and allow staff to bring in the formal regulation process. These regulations have been working their way through the system and have undergone some minor edits here and there for formatting or numbering but are largely similar. These regulations have been content to the draft presented to you on November 10. The most, the biggest and largest change that you'll notice today, that attorney commenters from a and K will note for you is the administrative changes made within 220 that will guide the display, or posting of licenses by ultimately licensed sports wagering operators. The hearing was held yesterday morning for these regulations with Commissioner Hill present. The, there were three or three or four participants commissioner if you recall. However, none ultimately offered comment. We did receive quite a few comments from operators and one constituent on to 12 to 15 to 19 and to 20. Attorney commenters from Anderson and Krieger is here. We'll walk you through the regulations and discuss some of the comments that commission received, but ultimately, the legal team, both external and internal are seeking a final vote to file these regulations on January 20, 20 addition with a small business statements secretary of state. So, with that, I will turn it over to attorney commenters. I will take these in the order that they're in the packet and I will try to be relatively brief with my summary of the regulations which as doing laid out by and large have not changed since they were presented to you in November. That said, of course, if there are any questions. We have we have the time to go through them. 205 cm or to 12 begins on page 40 of your packet. This regulation additional information cooperation requires applicants and licensees and as well as vendors registered registrants and qualifiers. To cooperate promptly and fully with additional requests for information from the IEB or from the commission and creates a continuing duty to notify the IEB and commission of potentially material events such as denials or suspensions of licenses elsewhere, arrestments indictments of criminal charges or complaints or other legal proceedings. The comments that we received from the operators. Largely concern the standard for what is required for what they're required to notify the IEB of and the extent of their duty to cooperate. We do not recommend adopting any of those amendments. These standards were chosen. These standards were chosen intentionally. They are generally consistent with the obligations to cooperate on gaming regulations. And we do not want to introduce then some of the amendments would open up the possibility of fights over the extent of the IEB's authority that we do not want to create. That said, one comment that begins on the bottom of page 45. That points out that this regulation potentially creates a duty to notify the IEB of exclusions of operators and other of operators and their qualifiers that are strictly due to the leadership positions those individuals hold in companies. Many jurisdictions, including ours, bar leadership figures from placing bets with qualifiers. The Fandals asked that we add language clarifying that there is no duty to notify the IEB of an exclusion that is based only on the position that the qualifier holds. We think that is likely reasonable. Can we just start? It starts at the bottom of page 44. Is that correct? That is correct. No problem just so that everybody can get oriented. So they make a suggestion and probably saying that you are recommending it be adopted. Yeah, I'm going to ask. Is the same language in 112? I don't believe so but let me confirm that. Okay. The comparable section concerning a continuing duty to update the IEB appears in 115 in the game and regulations. The language requested by a Fandal does not appear in 115. It is inserted in the draft before us right now. If we were to go up to page 41, it would read in its totality with that amendment. Any exclusion? Any exclusion or barring of a qualifier from any casino, gaming establishment or gambling or gaming related entity or sports wagering or sports wagering facility in any jurisdiction. However, this shall not include exclusions or barring of a qualifier which stems solely from the interest in or position they hold with the sports wagering operator. I see that director Lillios has joined us. Lorella, do you have any objections to that or any concerns about that addition? No, as I understand the comment, I understand the comment to me, the operator does not want to have to report when other jurisdictions have a blanket prohibition on qualifiers placing bets in their jurisdictions. So I don't object to that, but I believe that the comment still contemplates that if an individual qualifier becomes barred because of a certain conduct in a jurisdiction that does not have a blanket bar on qualifiers, the operator would still have to report that to the IEB. So that's the way I understand the comment and I think that's fine. I think that captures what we are concerned about. And can I just ask a follow up question to Commissioner O'Brien's initial question. It's not included in the 100s, but doesn't really have that concern with respect to the casinos, correct? The language includes casinos, so it looks like this event 215 says casino gaming establishment. Oh, let me see. So I'm assuming that would take all the language. Well, as we're looking at age of the town 41, sub age. Yeah, from any casino right now incorporated in there as well. There's no exception out across the board if we add that language, right? Only to the extent that the individuals a qualifier for both purposes. For both purposes. Pardon me, I think it's the other way only to the extent to which the person is a qualifier. They would still they would have a continuing. Probably don't want to lose more than you're saying so please go right ahead. Thanks. The 205 CMR 115 creates a continuing duty to notify us if somebody if a qualifier for a gambling license is excluded. The fact that those people are carved out of the maybe carved out of the duty from under. CMR 212 does not erase the duty to notify us under 205 CMR 115 but individuals who are qualifiers only under 205 CMR only under the sports wagering program 205 CMR 215 will have a duty to note it will not have a duty to notify us under 205 CMR 212. If they are excluded from a casino or from sports wagering. Based only on the position that they hold. But a casino qualifier would have to tell you know qualifier would and if they are a qualifier for both casino and a sports wagering operation they will still have. Okay, so I guess a follow up question I would have is if we're going to be consistent. Are we going to get a woman 115 or Loretta do you have concerns about that. We haven't been interpreting 115 to essentially require the operators to survey the other jurisdictions and tell us what the other jurisdictions are doing we've been interpreting 115 to say, if one of your qualifiers gets barred from a specific casino, or from a specific operator you got to tell us. So we've been interpreting it consistent with the comment. Right. Okay. So I guess there would still be the question of do we clarify both so that the language is consistent but it sounds like interpretation has been all along. What, what the amendment was looking for. Correct, so I believe it really to, you know, to, to the commission and to legal analysis to say do we have to change it if we know how we, we would interpret it, or do you want to change both, either one. Thanks. Yeah. So to the legal team, do we need to make that uniformed question. We can take a look at that. Madam chair, I don't think it's something we need to do immediately. It sounds like based on what Loretta just said. Can we just add that to the, of course, take a look list. Okay. Thank you so much. How is that take a look list growing. Oh, sure. Very, very short. Okay. All right. So now, Paul, you were at, I think at the conclusion of the public comments, but it turned back to you. If there are no other questions about the comments or about the reg. That's everything that I wanted to present on two of them are two 12. So, again, Paul, what you'd be recommending for the commissioners to act on today would be just this document with that amendment to age, which right now is in our packet, but it's been read. You've read into the record. Correct. Okay. I have a question. Yes, go ahead and commission. I'm wondering about the comment relative to two 12. 015 G. The commenter takes issue with the language for that should reasonably be known. But there's other language that appears in subsections in F. And that is, or should reasonably reasonably be aware. I'm wondering how we're interpreting the two of those phrases. And just wondering if we want to be consistent if nothing else, perhaps use that, or should reasonably be aware language into 12 or one 5G as well. Madam chair, I could weigh it on this I think. Good morning. Good morning. The two places I am seeing reasonably aware versus reasonably, or be or be known. The reasonably aware language shows up in places where we're describing reports, complaints, allegations or legal proceedings. As opposed to information is the word that is tied to known. So I think it's just a matter of syntax that one is known versus aware, as opposed to any intention to have a different legal standard. And so you wouldn't recommend adjusting that language to be consistent across the board BF and G with reasonably reasonably be aware, you're suggesting we leave it as is. I think if you were to, if, if I don't think it's a concern, but I guess to be on the safe side you could change known to aware. No, I wouldn't change it because of again sorry because of the syntax it's information known or that should reasonably be known so wouldn't it just would it would require changing the sentence structure in other ways. So I think it's just a matter of using the verb that worked with the rest of the sentence but they do mean the same thing in this context so I believe the usages here are also consistent with the usages in the continuing duty to update in 205 CMR 115. And this is an area where I would be particularly concerned about introducing differences in syntax, because it might introduce opportunities for operators to nitpick what kinds of updates they needed to provide the IV. Okay, that's fair. Thank you. Any other questions on this regulation commissioners. I think that makes sense for us or perhaps we all for us to perhaps act on well on on each as they arise, given particularly in this one that there's an amendment. Yes, my turn. Yes. Okay, great. Thank you attorney commenters. All right. I had a chance to reflect on that with the understanding that our legal team is recommending that that change. I have a motion of the changes in 01 subsection 5 age. That is correct. Anyone prepared to move on that, or should we move on to the next judge we need a small business impact statement we do yes. Yes, both. The amended small business impact statement. The page 47. Madam chair I move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement and the draft of 205 CMR 212 as included in the commissioners packet and is discussed here today and specifically incorporating the recommended in 212.0 one. Subsection H. And further the staff be authorized to take steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth and to finalize the regulation promulgation process. Would it be helpful to say 5H 5H. Is it 212.0 1. Yes. 212.0 1. With that. Thank you commissioner. Any other questions or edits. All right, commissioner Brian. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I go yes. 5-0. Great work. Thank you. We turn back to chancellor young. Or somebody else picking it up now, or does Paul continue. Good morning. Hi. I think you're leaving it. I'm going to go with you. Thank you. It's actually, we're going to have Paul finish through the operator framework regs and then turn to you for 218. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Attorney Macarius is going to take to a 5CMR 214, which he had the lead role in drafting. Sorry for that last minute surprise after all that. 214. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks, everybody. Thank you for the recommendations. We received no comments. During the public comment period on these regs. We're not suggesting any changes. So this is simply up for read. Or for final adoption. And as a reminder of the topic of this, since it's been so long, the two things that this does is essentially require the payment of the initial application fees, which is a parallel structure to what you have in the gaming context for additional fees required to complete investigations. And it falls exactly the same methodology. As in that context. Questions commissioners on this. Regulation. Okay. No questions. Good sign. Okay. Do I have a motion on this one? Okay. I think again, we'll do it. Yeah. You're 14. Okay. Madam chair, I move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement and the draft of 205. CMR 214. As included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. And further that the staff be authorized to take the steps of the commission with a secretary of the commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any questions or edit? Hearing none. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Five zero. Thank you. Thanks, Mina. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to. 255 CMR 215. Who's up for the lead. Back to Paul for this. Thank you. 255 CMR 215. As a brief reminder is based on the suitability procedure set out in 205 CMR. 115. With an additional process for the commission to make a preliminary finding of suitability for temporary licensing and the substantive and the substantive standards set out in 115. It also incorporates. Regular. It also incorporates standards on who is required to be qualified and the process for qualification decisions to be made, which are based on those found in 205 CMR 116. There is one comment. That we think. Calls for some discussion and the rest we think. The rest we do not recommend accepting. So if there are no comments on the body of the regal turned page 59. The first, the first comment from. Walter Sullivan, who is not an operator. Suggest that. The commission. Rather than requiring the commission to disqualify. Applicants who meet the grounds for potential disqualification set out in. Section nine of chapter 23 and the commission. Be given discretion to disqualify those individuals. I understood our instruction. In drafting this right from the commission and drafting this regulation to be the commission. The commission does not have discretion under the statute. And that discretion could be reflected in the regulation. So this would appear. At. This would appear. On the bottom of page 55. In the paragraph. In paragraph 25. In the paragraph. In paragraph four. We would be replacing a shell with a may, if you decided to adopt this comment. Practically, I think this is an end. Director Lilios may have thought may have a view on this as well. Practically, I think this is most likely to matter for. Entities or individuals who have had. A license revoked. So long ago or with such a substantial change in leadership in the intervening period that it is no longer reflective of how the. There's no one reflective of how the entity operates. But. And beyond, and beyond that, I'll leave the question to the commission. Can you just remind me where it is on page. I'll leave it on page 55. Madam chair. Sorry. That's what I'm not finding. And. Which section again. For the commission shall determine would become the commission may determine. I don't remember us deciding that we would be stronger than the statute. I don't remember that conversation. I do. It was when we decided that we were going to put suitability in the park. And we were told that it was. The issue that was. It was that the tax return to the statute. The statute has. The shall. And so that's why the shall is in there. So it would be giving more leniency. Wadering licensees that's not available to casino licensees. But the statute. 23. That allows more danious. I missed that. I'm good. But my memory of why it was shall was because we wanted to treat them the same in terms of suitability. I'm not in favor of changing it. I'm in chamber. She did them all the same 23 K 23 N. So that's, that's my view on it. I worry that so under 23 K it was a man and the commission decided to make it a shell. I believe it's a shell under 23 K and a statute on the wrecks. So the stack, the best consistent with the statute. I'm good with having our reg be consistent with the statute. So I would, I would. I'm glad that Mr. Sullivan pointed this out. I might have just missed this. I would recommend that you say may. Commissioner O'Brien and I just happened to see this in a different life. And I wonder about the regulation being not consistent with the statute. If somebody were to be denied. Or being unsuitable. Would, would a regulation be subject to challenge. I share that. Sure. If I could jump in a moment. And Mina, you may be able to. To jump in as well because we did have discussion. I think certainly. I be had discussion with they and K and I believe in a public meeting we discussed. About whether the May language in 23. And. You know, whether this is authorized. To do the shell in the regulations. So you may want to legally address that piece. I know from. From the IBS perspective. May there. You know, the exercise of, of that discretion. Is a very challenging thing. You know, if, if you may. Deny. Or find, you know, unsuitable for certain aspects, you know, where is that line. That can be very challenging and the certainty of the. Shall, in addition to the consistency across. Licenses. Can be helpful. So, you know, wanted to point out operational. Concerns. And challenges to potential. Exercises of discretion, but also legally. Mina, you may want to address. The authority. Of the shell here. Madam chair, I can't, if it's helpful. I recall the conversation. Going as, as commissioner Brian suggested it did. We did have this. I remember this particular conversation. And what attorney Sullivan is pointing out. Is correct that 23 K says shall in the statute and regs. That was not an oversight. That was discussed with the commission. The thought was as both commissioner Brian and director. Lilios have said. To actually avoid a challenge that there is. That some applicants may be suitable if they've made a false statement. Some may not. I, in terms of the, the commission's legal authority. You have the authority, I think, to insert a may or to insert a shell. The, if you're inserting a shell, what you are doing is, is. Making the decision that. You will treat these categories. Categorically, as, and if you're putting it as a may, you're reserving your right, which you have under 23 N. To take it on a case by case basis. So I think that's a policy decision, but either one, I think is legally appropriate. I don't understand that. If it's a shell, there isn't any case by case. Correct. Correct. That's, if it's a may, it would be a case by case. The shell. Do you think the legislature may have wanted that? I think the legislator left it to you to either decide whether you want it to keep it case by case, or you could by regulations say that any of these that come before you. Would, would be treated categorically this way. In other words, a legislator is not requiring you to use this discretion and never requires use of discretion to sort of end up with. Sometimes doing something and sometimes doing something else. So if you decide as a matter of policy. We're always going to treat these as unsuitable. You could do that. And you could do that with the shell, but you don't have to. I probably didn't fully appreciate the discussion before. I must admit. Of course, on subsection a, for instance, they would still have to be a finding. That the statement was knowing. That it was false and that it was material. So, you know, there are still are significant. Findings that have to be made before it would even qualify as a, as a subsection a. Issue. And similarly under section D has, which addresses whether the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the commission financial responsibility to sufficient adequately meet the requirements of the enterprise. Presumably you would not want to license an operator that could not demonstrate to your satisfaction, financial responsibility to meet the, to meet. Yeah, I'm not questioning that. I'm just questioning the decision that we would deviate from that. What I'm hearing is that with the office that we couldn't certainly put may work shell. In the statute. Does that right, Nina? If I heard you correctly, madam chair. Yes. If it said shall, you could not put may be giving yourself to scratch and the legislator did it. Here you're essentially, you know, tying yourself to a particular standard in the regs. And that's, that's the decision that you are taking. That the legislator gave you. When, when you. You're authorized to use that. I'm good. Thank you, Paul. Does anybody, I didn't mean to call off. So Paul, go ahead and continue your explanation, but I understand. Go ahead. I was simply going to say that the grant of discretion by the legislature includes the discretion to act in a, on a case by case basis or, which would be a may or through regulation on a categorical basis as a shell. And this shows up in other places. And with other administrative agencies as well. Okay. Do you have any other questions? No questions after the legal clarification. I'm good with adjusting the language or keeping the language as is particularly where it would be consistent with 23 K. Okay. I'm good. Yeah. Yeah. I'm, I'm not going to turn my may into a shell. It's a legislature gave me a may. I'm going to keep the may. I'm not going to turn into a shell. I respectfully disagree. And I think as far as where we draw lines, I think the commission can draw the lines. Okay. So please remain or play this out for me because, you know, you saw me struggling with this. If. If we keep the shell, there's some inconsistency with, of course I'm, I'm not seeing that as big a problem because there's, you know, there's some inconsistency with course I'm, I'm not seeing that as big a problem because the applicant in this case, what's way during the applicant. Right. Which is under 23. That's right. Under 23. Yeah. Right. So I don't, I don't, I see them as, I know that there's this notion we have to. Keep everyone consistent, but. There are two different laws, right? So if we just means that we, it would have to come before the commission in any case. The director Lilios's point where we would do the, you know, Yeah. Right. So it's not like it's, it's an efficiency thing. It's going to come before us. So you would like to be able to say, you know what? I want to reserve my right as to whether or not it absolutely requires unsuitability. I would just stay consistent with the statute. We're pretty smart operationally. I think we could create, you know, two lines for each, but. And that I fully appreciate. Yeah. Commissioner Hill, any thoughts? I'm fine with leaving the language as, as madam chair. We had a big discussion about this during, during the previous time that it was before us. And I'm okay with leaving the language shall. Okay. All right. Then let's put this in the parking lot and then go through the rest of the regulation. Can we make a motion madam chair? No, I think we weren't finished. We weren't finished with the whole regulation. I thought that was it. Just wondering, I didn't want to cut off. That was one comment that. Is there anything else with respect to this regulation that. Would require our consideration, consideration, because I do have a request on this. There are three more comments. We don't recommend accepting any of them. I'm happy to go through them. I'm happy to go through them now. I'm happy to go through them. I'm happy to go through them. I'm happy to go through them. Yeah. Okay. But Paul, in terms of. Mr. Sullivan's, you did point that one out. But you're not recommending. I think that's a policy decision for the commission. Okay. You want to go through the others then, and then I'll just make my other requests, please. And then we'll get to a motion. So we're on page 60. So that's what we're going to be discussing. And we're not going to be talking about. That MGM and they're subsequently the same. That MGM is asking us to cut back on the commission's discretion to determine that anyone with a business association of any kind with the applicant may need to be qualified. We do not recommend accepting this comment. Contrary to how we operate. is too much opportunity for operators and applicants to fight over particular qualification decisions and there is already a rate of appeal from a qualification decision in the regulation that they can that qualifiers may avail themselves of if someone with a truly immaterial business relationship is nonetheless asked to be qualified. And finally on page 61, Fanduel asks us to increase the maximum ownership share that an institutional investor can hold without having to go through the qualification process from 15% to 25% so that that threshold conforms with other jurisdictions. We picked 15% to conform with the 100 series and we recommend keeping it in place for that reason. Any questions on that one? On those two commissioners? That makes sense to me. Okay, anybody else? Todd, this is my request and you can say no. But in thinking about our work ahead, this regulation, as I understand it, applicant and qualifier suitability determination standards and procedures, here going to have an element of assessment of suitability over the next couple of days. And that is complex because of the preliminary finding of suitability, the standard for that and the standard for durable suitability. And I just wanted it would be a good exercise for us to just go through the portion of the reg that will remind us what we agreed to through our regulation so that when we do do that assessment over the next few days with untethered versus tethered and versus category one, it might be helpful. Am I putting you on the spot? We can circle back to this too if you would like. I just wanted to ask you. Yeah, I appreciate that. I want to kind of brush up on the language before I kind of walk through what it says. But yes, I do agree that it might make sense to kind of walk through at some point, although right at this moment is probably not ideal. And that's very fair. Commissioners, do you appreciate my question? You know, this is something that's coming right before us with respect to the untethered. It's a reminder of our regulation, our process. So Director Wells, Executive Director Wells, do you understand that maybe it might be good for us to get it into a framework in our heads today so that it's kind of in place as we consider the untethered in the scheme of that collective lens that we have to evaluate them on? Okay, and would that cause any delay in the schedule or anything? No, no, no. I think we just might circle back after maybe we go to the next one and Todd can say he's prepared just like to go through our red with us to remind us what we should be thinking. With respect to, particularly with respect to the suitability as a factor that we have to assess. Okay. Excuse me, Madam Chair, can I just jump? Sorry, Eileen. Sorry, I know I was going to bring it up, but I think what you're going to say, which is because we did emergency, these are set to lapse. So we are kind of going to No, no, today, today, I'm not going to roll it over. I'm just saying today, could we just, I would just love to have us walk through this. It should be very brief and very quick. If it's not to roll it over, this will be done. We will be voting on this one today. Okay, looking concerned. I was going to go right on to the next reg. We can even vote on this one now. I'm just asking, could we take this opportunity today in this public meeting to just as a reminder what this reg says with respect to I think that's okay. I was just thinking we go through all of them to make sure nothing lapses before we circle back to that. We'll make sure I will make a move. And then as to 15, Madam Chair, I move that the committee approve the amended small business impact statement and the draft of 205CMR 215 is included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. And further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation. The secretary of the Commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process. Second. And that would not include the amendment that Mr. Sullivan raised. Correct. Any questions or edits? Mr. O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote nay. Three, two. Okay. Going on then to the next. The next regulation is 205CMR 219, temporary licensing procedures beginning on page 64 of the packet. As a reminder, this regulation mainly sets out the process for an operator to request a temporary license, which is based on what is set out in the statute. And it sets out a process for temporary licenses to be extended if necessary because of the duration of the investigation. That extension process requires a request from the operator made between 21 months and two years into their three years of initial temporary licensure. And this language, which proved somewhat vexing in the meeting in which it was prepared, has also proved somewhat vexing in the public comment process. We received one public comment on this language which appeared, the language itself, the comment misunderstands what the language is trying to do, but it demonstrates that the language can still stand a little bit of clarification. So I'm just going to stay on the language, which appears on page 65, about halfway down, subparagraph one, no operator shall submit a renewal request in accordance with this 205CMR 21904 until 21 months or more than two years after the date the temporary license issued. The point of this timeline is that the operator should have been operating for long enough that we know that there is a reason that they will need their temporary license renewed and we know them well enough to reassess their suitability, but they can't have been operating so long that the reassessment of their suitability is a rushed process. So we give them a fixed window about two thirds of the way into the original three-year lifespan of their temporary license to request renewal. We would recommend changing the words two years to 24 months so that it's in the same unit of measurement as 21 months to hopefully limit confusion. As so as our proposed amendment would go, it would read no operator shall submit a renewal request in accordance with this 205CMR 21904 until 21 months or more than 24 months after the date the temporary license issued. So this one still confuses me and I remember being confused when we had the discussion the first time around. I'm still I'm going to need just a little bit more of an explanation because it seems to me this should be reading until between 21 months and 24 months after the date. So I just can you help me with that? And Commissioner Skinner, I recall this discussion and I appreciate you bringing it up because I think at a certain point in time I think we may have just agreed. So thank you for that question. Anybody answer it? Madam Chair, I do recall the conversation as well. This was where I think Commissioner Skinner you have the right understanding of it. In the interest of trying to move this fairly quickly, I think the issue is just simply setting a window for when these requests can come in and that's 21 months or 24 months. So perhaps rather than stating this in the negative, just recalling our conversation the other day on a similar topic, we might say an operator may submit a renewal request in accordance with this 205CMR 21904 between 21 months and 24 months after the date the temporary license issue. And if we rephrase it that way, will that clarify Commissioner Skinner and Madam Chair? I think you want to say shall though, he said may. Well, Madam Chair, in this case exactly, they could choose not to seek renewal. So you want the may here, right? Yeah, because we're giving them the option whether they want to seek that. It's a five year lease, a five year I mean license, correct? It is up to five years if the commission approves the renewal request, right? Okay, so I know that we had this, but what if you're in business for just under two years? You know, we know more because we've been we've been meeting with these applicants, right? We know more than we did when we first looked at this. Are we saying you got to make that decision on your five year license pretty early in the tenure? Somewhat early, but but not immediately. The conversation and again, I'm relying a little bit on memory. So if others remember it differently was we didn't want to suggest that the temporary license could extend for just as long as a full license would have. On the other hand, there is a lot of there's a lot of the significant resource lift as you're seeing in determining durable suitability. So while we want to give some time for the operators to be in the Commonwealth and figure out that they want to stay in the Commonwealth of and extend that period if their suitability investigation is taking a while, we also needed them to give the heads up to the commission and and its staff in the bureau. So early enough that they could start, you know, could keep going through their application before the three year period expires. That was the idea. So you have the outside period for suitability to get done. Sorry. Three year period is the outside period for suitability to be done. Correct. Okay. So and by statute, it's our ultimate determination, right, that the commission's determination that triggers the end of the temporary license period. It's the later of one year or the ultimate determination, that's right. Right. So the theory is three years would be the latest. Exactly. And so this is towards the end of your second year, not really early, so that this isn't sort of automatic. You just tell us, yeah, I'm going to want a renewal. But towards the end of your second year, you've had time to operate, you've had time to think about it. You then say, yep, I would like to renew after this third next year is over. So you're essentially giving between 12 and 15 months notice of an intent to renew or a request to it. Peter, help me think about this, because I would like to think that perhaps some durability, sociability, it's done faster than three years. What have you done before 21 months? That's what happened then. Sorry to me to just step on Commissioner O'Brien or Paul on that one, but I think the short answer is then they would move to a regular license as opposed to a temporary license. Then this becomes. This is only for the people who are preliminary suitable, temp license. And we were trying to make sure that we had sort of a process that kept moving on both sides so that it didn't linger either. They weren't actively not not cooperating, but weren't maybe aggressively cooperating. Then IEB kept it on their radar screen. And so the conversation we had at the time was, we felt like this hit the sweet spot in terms of saying you can get off the ground, but you're also sort of recommitting as we go. If full durable suitability is done, this is irrelevant. Then they're on to their regular license and this whole thing becomes an applicable. But they have to go through the renewal process. They have to engage in that. If it takes us three years to do so, they have to know, even though we haven't, we haven't made a determination. They have to let us know that they would like to request a renewal. That's correct. So submit a renewal request, just a request so they don't have to engage. All right. Got it. Thank you. Thank you for the clarifying language to Commissioner Skinner. I remember struggling with this. So are we going to adopt the between language and a name? Is that the recommendation at this point? I think it makes sense. Mina, do you want to just read it one more time? All right, I was just going to ask if you'd like me to. An operator may submit a renewal request in accordance with this 205CMR219.04 between 21 months and 24 months after the date, the temporary license issue. Other suggestions for this one? I forget who's taking the lead on this. Is it Paul or Mina? It was Paul on this one. I think we're done though, Paul. Anything else on 219? Nothing else on 219. Okay, commissioners. Any questions? Commissioner Hill. Looks like you're ready to move. No, okay. I can do a motion, Madam Chair. I move the amendment small business impact statement in the draft of 205CMR219 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today specifically as the amendment is discussed is to 219.041. 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. Talking. Any questions or edits? Okay. Commissioner Ryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. And I vote yes. Five zero. Next is 205CMR220 beginning on page 70 of your packet. Here we recommend adding two paragraphs requiring that licenses be issued subject to the condition in effect that the license be displayed to the public in a manner that is obvious. They're broken into two sections because the requirements for category one and two licenses and the requirements for category three licenses are necessarily somewhat different. The language is based on the language is based on that which the commission adopted for the display of operation certificates in 205CMR251. It also it also states the licenses shall be in the form prescribed by the commission and that may and that gives the commission the flexibility to vary somewhat the requirements for posting in different kinds of venues and posting and to vary the form of physical licenses and licenses posted online. So those are the two edits that you legal have come up with. Sent me, asked, looked at this and moved this along. Correct? The two. Three and- That is correct. That is correct. There is one comment which we'll move on to if there are no questions on these two. So the report comes from a recommendation of legal. One is in the physical space. The other one would be on the mobile app. Can I ask is that consistent with other jurisdictions? Do other mobile apps have their license in the form prescribed by the commission comment with displayed in the operator's website on a mobile application? Do we know the answer for that? I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. This is consistent with the requirement for operation certificates and the commission could prescribe a form that essentially that effectively merges the operation certificate on the license for mobile applications. Oh, I'm sorry. It's consistent with with what? With the posting requirement for operation certificates in 205CMR 251. And so we haven't seen that yet though. Or did we? We saw that and we just I didn't raise this question before. I believe so, Madam Chair. I think that one was at least approved in the initial round as an emergency. Well, again, like I said, we've learned a lot. Now I've been looking at a lot of technology. And so I'm wondering about does anybody right now doing a Google to see the reason why I ask is that if it's weird, it might be technologically challenging. I just don't know. Posting in the physical space is less of a challenge. And Madam Chair, I have the same. Commissioner Skinner. Yes, I have some of the same concerns relative to I mean, we'll get to this on Thursday. Tomorrow relative to the play management regulations, there are some things in there about notification that I didn't I don't remember seeing in any of the demonstrations. So just I think we're thinking alike there somewhat. Yeah. And I guess that's why it's this is why we go through this process. And the good news is that we've learned along the way. So I'm just asking that question. So was there public comment? Was this up for public comment? Yeah, there is a public comment, but not really to that, Commissioner O'Brien. I think Paul is going to turn to that after we discussed this some such sections, sections three and four that are new. I just want to get it. So three were added and not public comment. That's what I'm just trying to figure. I would have thought they'd flag it if it was a problem, unless you're saying this language was not out for public comment. Well, I'm hearing that it may have been out in public comment under the certificate of operation, but we haven't, have we heard, have we held that hearing it? I can't keep track. I'm so sorry. Bad hearing, Madam Chair, I believe is next week and that reg comes back next Friday for final approval. I will just add on this one. This isn't something we need to add today. We were doing it mostly for consistency with the gaming side where there is a display of a physical license. But, you know, if there is this, these two paragraphs have not gone out for comment. So if there is some concern, we can certainly sort of scrap these for today, move the reg along and bring it back later for more discussion. And then it would go out for public comment, but it's not, it's not anything we absolutely need today. Again, it was more for consistency with the gaming side. Chair. Yes, commissioner. It does look like Pennsylvania has required this to be displayed. On quote, the holders onsite sports book and on a page which by virtue of the construction of the website, authorized players must access before beginning a sportsway during session, end quote. So there are jurisdictions which do say that a certificate has to be prominently displayed. Does it say on the app too or just the website? It says website, but it also says licensees online sports book. I would read that pretty broadly if it were me, thinking that they also include the app in that, but I could be wrong. Really help commissioner Maynard. Any, any thoughts then commissioners? Do you want to go ahead and move on on three and four? What do you want to read as Carrie suggested? We don't, we haven't gotten public input on this particular issue and perhaps our operators listening just saying it's just not a big deal. And then, then, you know, to, I think everyone's point is consistent in that we require conspicuous posting of our licenses in physical facilities. What do you want to do? My preference would be to put it off and, as you'd like to put it, put it in the parking lot and come back and address it at another time so that we can move these along. Not having public input on it is something that concerns me. So if we can put it off for today and come back, that would be my preference. And I joined in that. Okay. If you all right with that commissioner Brian? Yeah, I mean, if they haven't had a chance to comment and we don't need it today, but we need to act on these because of the lapse issue with the emergency rags, I say we approve what needs to happen today and then flag it to bring it back before mobile launches. It doesn't make sense to have it, but it makes sense to have public comment on it before we do it. Yeah, it makes sense to have it. And I think commissioner Mayer's got at least one example which suggests that it would go into the app. It's funny though, I didn't see. They certainly didn't show us that in any of our tech. They weren't like, here's your, you know, the licensee certificate or license though. All righty, we'll just, we'll put a little hold on it and circle back. I just asked one clarifying question. Do we, do you want to add number three and not four or just not add either right now? Either is fine. Just, just asking for clarification. I think it's fair to do neither, right? Commissioner Hill. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Fair question. All right. And then very briefly, the public comment on 220 actually responds to an older version of 220 as far as I can tell. Fandall is asking that in effect that the commission allow temporary licenses to survive past five years if the commission has not made a durable finding of suitability in that time. The commission was very clear in its discussions and its instructions to us as we drafted the regulations that a temporary license should not persist past five years. In addition, that is the lifespan of an ordinary license and an operator should not be operating under a temporary license for longer than they could operate under, under a regular full license. So we do not recommend accepting that comment. And that's all we have on 220. Remind me of the three-year thing and the five-year thing. Doesn't the IAB have an out of years? If the, Madam Chair, what you might be driving at is if the IAB determines that the operator is, if the, pardon me, if the IAB completes its investigation within three years, the commission then makes a durable finding of suitability. If the operator is suitable, their license becomes a regular license. If the operator is not suitable, their temporary license is terminated. Paul, is this regulatory language consistent with 23N? I did look at it last night. I just, I don't have it in front of me. So I can't remember, but I remember, I remember thinking that perhaps it was not. I'm sorry, Commissioner Skinner. I'm not sure precisely which language you're referring to. That in terms of the expiration of the temporary license, does it jive with 23N? We think that it's, the short answer is yes. A temporary license lasts for the longer of one year or when a permanent lasts for the longer of one year or when a permanent or when a final determination on the operator license is made. Largely, this regulation provides that a temporary license shall last until a permanent determination on the operator, pardon me, until a determination on the operator's full license application is made. And the primary, the primary additional work that the commission does to get to that final determination on the operator application is making the durable finding of suitability. Cutting off the temporary license at five years if a durable finding of durable suitability has not been made in that time is a reasonable exercise of the commission's discretion to determine whether or not to, to make a decision on an application. Can I ask this question? I don't need to cut you off, but it's reasonable assumption if the IEB has not made a determination. What if it is, this is my question that I don't think was answered. Under it, where we said, and I remember as Commissioner O'Brien who said, the IEB should have a timeline no longer than three years. But didn't we give IEB a bit of an out in case there's extraordinary circumstances? Nina. Yes, so. Okay. So now what if IEB has extraordinary circumstances and this particular applicant is waiting for a decision. And it's now five years. If I understand Mr. Lynch, he's saying, we're just out, the applicant would just need to cease operating at that five-year juncture even though our own entity hasn't made it finding one way or another, just hasn't completed its work. Madam Chair, if I can just. And that's the interpretation that I think is inconsistent perhaps with 23 end. We have to make a final determination. Right. That's right. Okay. Madam Chair, if I can try, and I know you all have had probably more on your, certainly a lot more on your docus than we have where we've been focused a little bit more just on the rags. And so my memory on the 219, if I could just sort of try to read, 219 is actually where this is all discussed. It's the one we just talked about. So the out was this extension period, the three years at the outset, the ability to extend. And I recall the conversation at the time was also if you're at that point where you're four years in and there are these temporary licenses out there with suitability determinations not yet made, the commission could certainly change the rag again and extend it again. The effort here was back whenever this happened. I think this was in the early fall when these first came up. The balance that I recall the commission was trying to get at was not having temporary licenses last forever or certainly longer than existing five year licenses for a durable license. Giving the IAB as you said a way to, for times extraordinary circumstances to have that longer period where the applicant chooses to continue through the process. That's why they have to ask for that renewal and leaving the possibility that there may be an even longer extension needed by a change to the rag three or four years in. So that was the discussion that led to the 219, 220. As Paul pointed out, what the commenter was pointing to and 220 actually got moved to 219 in the drafting process. So I think the comments were received perhaps on a paragraph. So we didn't bring this up with respect to the last one I'm just acting on. No, you did. This was this is the idea of the three year process and it expires, right? I mean, that's that's the same. But it's three years, it's three years. That was it. But we gave IAB as you should always get a timeline some kind of an extraordinary circumstances. Somebody, yeah, loss of human resources, loss of something that allows IAB to continue doing its work. What I'm hearing from this commenter is that they could end up losing out on the ability to continue operating if our work is delayed. Not anything that they have control over. Our work is delayed. Am I reading am I wrong? No, you're not wrong. They would lose out assuming they've made a request to extend. They would get those renewals up to five years. So they would have had under a temporary licensing scheme. And again, remember, there's also a financial piece to this of how, you know, what someone's paying for five years worth of licensure. The ability to offer. That is they may be doing everything right. I'm not. I'm not. IAB. Okay. Yeah. So they may, pardon me. Mina, may I step in with one point? Well, let me just finish one thought, Paul. So they would get the first five years. And then again, I think the commission's discussion several months ago was if you find yourself in this situation three or four years in, you may actually want to revise this this wreck to go further. But that's that's the 219. But that's, that's the, that was a, that was a fairly lengthy discussion that commission had at the outside, I believe on this. And I would say rags can be changed. And this is our right now moment. Correct. Okay. Commissioner Maynard, I might be missing something here. No, no, I, I'm with you, Madam Chair, and then yeah, we thought a lot about this. And I remember I joined commissioner O'Brien on the years and I agreed that there should be a timeline, but I hadn't contemplated. And what's great about public comment period is someone will point out something that we missed when we thought about it the first time. In short, the applicant has a really good point here, which is we could actually be down the road on this. And they've done nothing wrong. They've done everything right. They followed the regulation to a T and they may have to cease operations. And so I would want to fix that and whether it's, maybe it's adding additional language, right? Maybe it's adding a language in that says, you know what, and if we're in this situation, you know, the commission must meet to determine, I don't know what you want to do with it, but I think leaving the language as is and saying, well, we'll deal with it in four years from now is, I may not even be here four years from now. So, you know, I don't know that I agree with that, that line thinking. If I may add one point, Madam Chair, the applicant, the operator can reapply after their temporary license expires. That they would have to cease operations, Paul, and that's huge. I remember during our roundtable, ceasing operations is what we were trying to avoid because of all of the issues around the future bets about wallets. So that's my concern. I appreciate it. I mean, unless you're saying it could all happen in concert, there's cease operations, but they're doing this. I guess I'm not sure. Yeah, sorry. So isn't there, isn't the current, if they apply for the renewal and that instance then it continues until it's acted on? Like that was my memory, like a PPC even, right? That was the first one to come up for renewal. Do we have some similar language where it's like, okay, you've come in, you're at the three, you put in for your renewal request. If we're not done yet, do we have language that says, and the license continues in that status while that request is pending? I guess that's what I'm wondering, is that the fix where once they put that request to extend in, does it then say, you extend your prior status until we've duly kitted? Because I know that's the case for the CAT ones. I would join Commissioner O'Brien in seeking language. And is that language that would fit? I might suggest, because it's an important change and we want to make sure we get it right, that the reg could be voted on as is, and we could add that to the list of things that we're going to bring, really think about it, bring it back. Because again, it shouldn't be a problem for a while, we won't hold on it, we won't wait. But we can do that. Why don't we entertain the change and then bring it back if it's wrong? We could do that. I sort of see this as wrong, the way it's written right now, as opposed to it being right. So I'm wondering if for the sake of trying to make sure we do get through these emergencies that have to get done today, do we move on to 221 while somebody pulls the language for us? To be clear, there's no sense of urgency. We don't need to leave until 1130 today. We have to be at the State House at noon. No, I'm just saying, in terms of keeping the cadence moving, if somebody goes and can find that language that pertains to the CAT1 renewals? We're on 220 right now. We have two more recs. So let's all just relax for a second. I think the clarification, Commissioner O'Brien bear with me, because I just may be missing this, but do you agree that right now, the way it's written, is that should somehow, because of a mishap on, things happen in an agency, things get complicated, and investigation could be very, very complicated. The ultimate outcome could be full durable suitability. It just could take long. Let's hope that it never happens. But if it did go five years, is it fair that they would have to shut down cease operations? No, that's why I was looking for that other language, because to me, that seems to put the protections in, that if the delay is on our end, and they've put the request in between the 21 and 24, and we're the delay, if it reads that it continues until we adjudicate that renewal request, then there is no lapse. You know what I mean? Unless they fail to do so. So the language that Mr. Winchell is suggesting, if we haven't done our job in five years, isn't it just that, to just strike that language? And won't it just won't the reg stand on its own without that? Madam Chair, while you certainly could do that, I would say that we'd want to circle back to 219 and fix that. I would just say the point that, and perhaps I didn't articulate well, the five years comes from the fact that had the commission found durable suitability at the outset, that would be the term of the license. They're not getting less time than a full license by virtue of anyone not completing a temporary suitability obligation. Rather, they're getting a temporary license with a lower fee and the ability to operate fully. Nina, but they're not, they're going to have to cease operations, and that's huge. Correct, which is where the renewal piece comes in. So that's why I was suggesting that they would then have a renewal process as well. When would they get the renewal done? I'm looking for the language Commissioner O'Brien's looking for. The commission would allow them to renew up to, this is where the three to five years is right now, but they could certainly apply for another license. They could do that earlier than the five years to allow it to never lapse, as Paul suggested. But we certainly could look for the language Commissioner O'Brien's looking to make it clear that while the renewals pending, nothing lapses. But to be clear too, we are asking the applicant to do more work. And again, because it's all on our end, I just am pointing out that I just, you know, where it's on our end, I would argue to make it as fair of a process as possible. If it's all on our end. But remember, that's when we're trying to strike the balance on our end, or if they're not fulsome in their responses to IEV. So we were trying to make it, you know, keep both parties moving on the plan. And I'm trying to find the language in the 100. That's not cooperative on, if they're not cooperative. Well, but there's a difference between not cooperating. We would have other means finding them not suitable. I mean, cooperation. We're trying to disorientivize, just what Mina said, which is riding out five years on a million as opposed to getting through the process of paying the other four. That was the other motivation behind why we did that. Well, I guess I'm pointing out that I'm not. Assuming any bad conduct, I'm just saying, if it's the delay is on our end, this right now, it would be if it's completely on our end, they're, they're fully cooperating, but it's still on our end. They would have to cease operations. Well, not if we put the language in, though, is once it's in, then it goes. And also not if they apply for renewal of the temporary license. Is, do I have the right? I guess they would do that if I would do that. Certainly if they're, if they're worried about having to cease operations, if they're a bad actor somehow and not cooperating, I'm not sure they would apply for a license. So I guess the bad actor thing, I know I remember that discussion, but I probably did not fully appreciate what this gentleman brings up. Is that if it, you know, my answer is, I don't think it helped. I hope that we don't get to a five-year suitability reduce. Madam chair, I'm sorry to throw another wrinkle into this, but I think that part of the part of the reason this is is proving a little harder to resolve at the outset is looking through, as I'm looking through the gaming rag, the gaming regs because of, you had, I don't actually don't know when this was promulgated, but at some point you have also put in a regulation about the award of new licenses. And sort of after the first term happens, there's going to be a need for even full licenses to renew and to keep going, you know, let's assume everybody gets durable suitability this year. They would still need to go through that, you know, you still need that renewal process. You need to address this issue that you're raising, which is a very good one, that you don't want someone to cease operations when nothing bad is happening, the operation is going great, we want to continue in the state. And so I think one of the issues is that the temporary license reg was intended to sort of address this unique issue in this particular statute. To get licenses before full suitability and during this period. So while I don't want to suggest that going four years down is a way of kicking it down the road, but I would rather, I think what we, with the commission, what I would advise you do is you have a reg and we could, this can come up in fairly short order about what happens at the end of a license period. We've been very focused at the beginning of license periods right now, but what happens towards the end of either a temporary or regular license period, allowing renewal as Commissioner O'Brien says to have, you know, so if the renewal is delayed through no fault of the applicant, you keep going, you keep operating, whether it's temporary or not. Because I think there's a bunch of other issues to go there too. When do you- Nina, what's your suggestion for today? My suggestion for today is I respectfully disagree with the commenter that you didn't consider this issue. You considered this issue at length. You did decide on a balance that the temporary licensees should not have a longer license than a full license at the moment. But that, so for today, I would accept the language as it is- I agree with that right there. I agree with that, but what we weren't probably thinking about is what I've raised today, is that what if it's all on us? Correct. And what I would suggest is for today, if you accept this reg, you still have a process that works that is fair to licensees of both types, whether or not they have a full license or a temporary license. And that you essentially, I assume if there's agreement that legal be directed to draft a reg sooner rather than later on the renewal of licenses, which captures, which addresses these issues more directly, because I think that's where really the rubber meets the road on this, is when you get towards the end of a license term, you want a way to make sure an applicant does not have to shut down because of that, and I certainly agree with that. I think that's what we're looking for. And this commentator may not have been fully appreciating or maybe appreciated the other, the other, but as imagining that the scenario I'm imagining. So I appreciate Mr. Winshell weighing in here. Commissioner, shall you talk with the directive that Reg B drafted to address this? Commissioner O'Brien? I am particularly, he's got a good point too. I mean, the, how they're going to be renewed in general still needs to be drafted. And so even if it's a standalone with that language that fixes it right now, and then it's rolled into what will ultimately be the full on renewal, Reg so that it's consistent with how we treat the casinos. I'm comfortable with that today. And when you say consistent with casinos, you're not saying retail, you're saying casinos. Correct, correct. With how they're treated under the renewal process in that environment. Me, that makes sense. You've got to be working on it as we do the process. I want to point out that I understand that we've taken an approach to be as consistent as possible, but I personally, and this is on just one of five, don't feel that it always has to be completely and compliant and aligned with casino and casino play because they are two different statutes. So to the extent that we are consistent, that helps in our operations. But certainly there are commissions that also do lottery and do additional eye gaming and it's not always going to be aligned. So I would just point, that's my personal opinion that while we work to align with the gaming, it's not always going to be possible. So I'm not really sure. I guess I'm just pointing out, I'm not sure because I haven't thought about 23K and that provision. I'm not sure if I agree entirely. So I don't want it to be brought up next time. We had this discussion. I am, I just haven't thought about that piece. I may be in agreement, I may not. But I do think if we can have the directive that we'll have a standalone that addresses the renewal and include this issue that no operators have to shut down if it's all on us. However, if we say that I'm good. Commissioner Skinner, I've talked enough. No, I'm good with moving forward as recommended by legal. Okay, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Maynard. Agreed. As long as we address the ultimate issue, which is we don't want an operator to cease in the 11th hour, if it's on us, I'm fine with moving forward. Excellent. Thank you. So there are no other recommended changes, Paul, or any other issues that you may need to raise with respect to money. Nothing else on 220, Madam Chair. Okay. That emotion. I can make a motion, Madam Chair. I move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement and the draft of 205 CMR 220 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 or edits? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. And Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. 5-0. Let's move on to 2-21. Who's got this one? I believe I have this one, Paul. So this one is fairly straightforward. This is another one of the this is I believe the licensing fee. I'm sorry, I've lost my page a little bit here. Page 74. Thank you. And there were no comments received. No changes were proposing. And so we are just simply looking for final adoption. Again, this is to take the licensing and assessment fee of the million dollars for the license initially and then the payment of any fees and through the commission's budget and reconciliation process. Any questions on this one? Commissioner Skinner, are you all set? Are you still looking? I'm all set. Okay. Commissioner Hill, are you all set or are you still looking? I'm all set, Madam Chair. Commissioner Maynard, are you all set or are you still looking? Good. Commissioner Bryan, still looking or are you all set? I'm all set. All right. I have a motion. Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approve the amended small business impact statement and the draft of 205 CMR 221 as included in the commissioners 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 or edits? Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. Aye. I vote yes. 5-0. Now I've lost my page. Are we on pace? Could somebody help me out, please? I can return to favor. It's page 82. Thank you. And Madam Chair, I think, Mina, is that 2-18? Or sorry, I don't have my packet. Correct, Harry. So did we want to? Okay, thank you. So Madam Chair and Commissioners, I'm just going to turn it over to Associate General Counsel Wang to circle back and introduce 205-CMR-218 for us. Morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. If you look on page 79, you have in your packet a draft of 205-CMR-218, general sports wagering application requirements, standards, and procedures, along with an amended small business impact statement. This regulation governs the standards and procedures for determinations of applicant and qualifier suitability. When this regulation came before you on October 27, 2022, 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 January 17, 2023, presided over by Commissioner Brad Hill. We did not receive any comments at the public hearing, but we did receive two written comments which I'll ask Paul Comner from Anderson and Krieger to discuss in more detail. At this time, we're looking for a vote to finalize the promulgation process and file the regulation with the Secretary of State. I will now turn it over to Attorney Comner to discuss the comments and answer any questions. Thank you. Both comments were received from BedMGM. Both addressed the Commission's treatment of confidential or proprietary information. The first comment asks that to the extent possible, the Commission notify the applicant before any confidential or proprietary information is discussed during these meetings. This is not clearly feasible. It potentially creates open meeting law problems because such notifications might have to be, would likely have to be run through staff who might have other and might suggest what a Commissioner is thinking about and processing an application and we would not want to create rights and opportunities for disputes with applicants through regulation in this manner. The second comment asks that any information, asked the Commission amend the regulation to say that any information given to persons providing technical assistance that is confidential or proprietary be stored securely or promptly deleted or destroyed. Again, we would not want to create a right to this by regulation. We understand these concerns and these comments are good reminders to be careful with the treatment of confidential or proprietary information included in applications but we do not recommend adopting these amendments to a 5CMR 218. Notably they're not asking anything about personally protected information or anything like that. They're just mentioning what they imagine is confidential and proprietary. Right, Paul? That's correct, Madam Chair. All right. Commissioners, have you had a chance to go through the reg? Thank you. Commissioner Hill, any questions? Commissioner Skinner? Nope. I'm good with Paul's recommendation. Yep. You all set? Yeah, I think so. I'll circle back. Commissioner Hill, you gave a thumbs up. You're all set. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any questions or do you want to revisit any of the regulations? I don't have any other comments, sir. You certainly have been living it. Yeah. All of us. Right. Okay. And there's no recommendation to adopt any of the public comments. But do I have a motion? And unless Commissioner Mayer, do you have any other given that we've been living it any recommendations? No, no. My thought is there are existing laws to protect information. We do not have to contact. Commissioner Mayer, I'm very sorry. I couldn't quite hear you. And my apologies. I think the existing laws cover the handling of information. I don't think that the regulations need. And at that point, if this is helpful, we typically include language in all of our contracts with our vendors and consultants that requires them to store and maintain sensitive information like that in accordance with the law. And as we otherwise do. Okay. Do I have a motion? Run 218 at this point. Is that the right number? 218. 218. 218. Yep. I moved that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 218 included in the commissioners 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 and finalize the regulation promulgation process. Any? Second. Any questions? That was good. Commissioner Bryant. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And Commissioner Mayer. Hi. I got you. 5-0. Thank you. Okay. Is it Ying? Yes. Good morning again. Starting on page 93, you also have in your packet a draft of 205 CMR 233, sports wagering voluntary self-exclusion along with an amended small business impact statement. This regulation establishes a protocol for patrons to self exclude themselves from engaging in sports wagering and sets for responsibilities for operators regarding self excluded patrons. When this regulation came before you on November 10th, 2022, 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 January 17th, 2023, presided over by commissioner Brad Hill. We did not receive any comments at the public hearing, but we did receive one written comment which I'll ask Annie Lee from Anderson and Krieger to discuss more in detail. At this time, we're looking for a vote to finalize the promulgation process and file the regulation with the secretary of state. I will now turn it over to attorney Lee to begin to discuss the comments and answering the questions. Thank you, Ying, and good morning commissioners. So as Ying stated, there's one comment by an operator, Bet MGM, and this pertains to the sanctions piece of 233. So on your packet, the comment was provided to 2307 which starts on the packet page 98. The substantive portion is at page 99. The comment from the operator was to propose removing the reckless standard for sanctions currently is drafted and this is consistent with 133. On VSE for casino gambling, an operator can be sanctioned for their knowing or reckless failure to exclude or eject someone from the establishment who is on the voluntary self-exclusion list. We do not recommend accepting this comment because reckless is itself already a high standard before liability can be imposed. And as I said, this standard comes from 133. And so for consistency, we would also recommend rejecting this comment. I will flag for the commission that this involves enforcement of the sports wagering act which I understand has been a topic of discussion for the commission. Do you repeat that please, Ms. Lee? Yes, I will flag that 2307 to which this comment is made involves enforcement of the sports wagering act which I know has been before this commission to discuss. I believe the nature of the discussions has been whether 232 might supplant the sanctions provisions provided in 2307, which again, I will state was carried over from 133 by understand that the gaming act provides for enforcement in a different scheme than potentially the sports wagering act. Madam chair, if I may just on that, I think we just want to flag this because we didn't want to, this had come up in the past but we don't think there was a robust discussion of this particular issue in 233 when it first came up. And given that I think we are, you had asked us at the last meeting for a memorandum on some of the issues around enforcement, we didn't want to simply enact this without at least flagging this issue. And there was planned to be whatever the commission does on enforcement a probably revisions to other regs that mentioned enforcement for today's purposes. Go ahead. Sorry. I'm having, can I tell you to be honest mean I'm having trouble finding the word reckless. I must be not on the right. Oh, I'm sorry for you on that issue. And you have the page handy. Yep, it's page 99 at the top. I was looking at 97 my assumptions. Is that the top? Okay. And so your point, Mia, in terms of enforcement. So sort of there's sort of two points. Sorry, I didn't mean to have you have the group gloss over the one that came in the comment. The one that came in the comment I think is just very simply, they'd like to remove recklessly and we don't recommend that you do that. That's the standard for behavior in one. So I don't think we're recommending any changes in one in 07-1. I just want to note so that it wasn't skipped over. This is set up with the same enforcement process as in the gaming context in two at least. And so the whether or not the commission wants to do what we did the other day, which is to say that if the bureau or the commission or simply change it to the commission or just at least or pass us as is and knowing that we are going to revisit this issue at a later day. Because I can't tell just looking at this provision who is even the enforcement. I can't tell who is conditioning suspending every vote. It would be so that the setup of this in a lot of these wrecks has been the grounds for it. And then it would be the bureau for everything but penalties. And the commission would be that would be the one doing penalties under two and three. Based on the enforcement trap that you have. It's no, it's not. It's based on this right in here. It's based on the enforcement mechanism for the similar provisions on the gaming side. It's the current enforcement draft that was in the packet last week actually differs from this as well. So we would have been recommending a change anyway. Commissioners, any questions? So what Nina's pointing out is that right now on and again without looking at this particular provision that the IEB is the enforcement has enforcement powers. And what else are you pointing out? I was simply pointing out that the way that this would be enforced is initially through a decision for everything but penalties through a decision or notice of the IEB followed with an opportunity for appeal to the commission. But that's really the enforcement mechanism that's here. The commission under 23 and 16 would be the one to do penalties. That would not be the Bureau. Well, we're going to have a more wholesome discussion on this at some point and so we can reconcile or else it will just stand as it's. Right? Correct. That's what I just didn't want to sort of be. Thank you. I appreciate the transparency. I appreciate that. It's again under subsection 07-3 it does say the commission may assess the civil administrative penalty on the sports unit according to 23 and section 16 for a violation. So you note the statutory provision there. Right. And is it then it's a May? All right. Any questions? No recommended changes at this juncture. All right. Drive the motion. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 233 as included in the commissioners 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 further discussion? Edits? Commissioner Bryan? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. I vote yes. 5-0. So commissioners, that concludes I believe all the regulations, right? Carrie, are we all set on your piece? Yes, we're all set. Thank you. I know that we have been invited to attend the treasures I'm serving in, which begins at noon. Most of us are here in the office. It's a short walk. If we, if Commissioner Skinner needed to excuse herself, she could, but I'm wondering if we could indulge, if you can indulge me and just have Council Grossman walk through the regulation that is pertinent to us as we will be engaging in the evaluation that collective lens over the course of the next few days and part of it, which of course under our regulation is an assessment of suitability. And as we think about that, it's a reminder that it's preliminary versus durable suitability analysis. And it's hard. It's hard to think about in terms of the standards. So, Todd, if you have now had a chance to think about that, that might be helpful. Commissioners, are we okay? Or do we need to, do we need to conclude this meeting right now? All set for another five minutes? Excellent. Thanks. So five minutes. I will, I'd be happy to share the screen if that's helpful so you can look at the actual regulation. I highlighted a couple of areas that I think you might want to, or I'd like to direct your attention. Thank you. Okay. So this is just the meeting packet you're looking at. This is page 53 for anyone. Just make it a tad bigger, please, Todd. Sure. So you'll recall, of course, that we've spent a good deal of time talking about the distinction between the durable finding of suitability and the preliminary finding, and that all germinates right here in 2.15. So I'll just quickly show you that the durable finding is discussed here in section one, and the preliminary finding is discussed here in section two. And just by way of kind of overarching understanding, the durable finding of suitability process is largely consistent with the process that is utilized in the existing review, or for the existing review, on the gaming side of the house. And it requires, for example, that there be clear and convincing evidence of the applicant and qualifiers suitability, and that such finding be made after an adjudicatory proceeding. And then if it's otherwise, the qualifications are determined consistent with section 115.031, which is the suitability standards there. So let me hold on a second. Yeah, that's better. So I'll come back to what I'm scrolling over, but I just wanted to show you that down below are the sections that will apply when the commission gets to the durable findings of suitability on the sports wagering side. And this is what the IEB is investigating and what you will be looking at in the coming months when the investigations are complete and the matters come before you at the adjudicatory proceedings. It is the familiar suitability standard here where you're essentially considering and evaluating the overall reputation of the applicant. And as Chapter 23K talks about, it gets into the integrity, honesty, good character of the applicant and then all of the other familiar categories of review that come into play when you're considering one's suitability. And then this is the section here that the commission was just looking at as part of the adoption process here. This gets into the automatic disqualifiers, if you will, things that if they were to occur automatically require the commission to determine that someone is unsuitable. And they're pretty relatively egregious things not to characterize them, but if the person makes a false statement and material fact to the commission, the individual has had a license revoked by another regulatory body being convicted of certain felonies and things along those lines. We can get into a little more detail here, but I just wanted to point out that that's essentially the durable finding of suitability that we will get into momentarily. And with the exception, you'll recall of the WIN entity and the MGM entity, which has gone through that on the gaming side of the house. None of the other applicants that have come before the commission for a sports wager and operator license have qualified for that durable finding because they have not been able to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant and all the qualifiers are suitable in that the IEB has not conducted the full background investigation. The commission has not convened that adjudicatory procedure. So that's why with those two exceptions, the commission has not awarded nor have any of the applicants been eligible for that durable finding of suitability. So let's go into the preliminary finding. That is the alternative one, and that is discussed here in section two. And one of the more important things to bear in mind here is the first sentence, which is how we kind of pivot from the durable finding and all the standards that go along with that into this preliminary finding territory. And we said right here, you'll recall in the introductory sentence, not withstanding any other provision of 205 CMR-215, the commission may essentially award this preliminary finding in the fashion we'll discuss momentarily. But this language is important because essentially it carves out that clear and convincing standard and the requirement that the determination be made at adjudicatory proceeding and other things like that. And it sets other standards in place so that the commission can make this preliminary finding. And so let's go through this a little bit. So it says that the commission in its sole discretion may determine in accordance with a section below that we can have a look at, which I can just represent to you that this section is just the section where the qualifiers are identified, the individuals and entities who have to be designated as qualifiers, that an applicant or qualifier is preliminary suitable and in accordance with this, this is 25012 is the section we're looking at. And you'll remember that it's not based on a full background investigation being performed or a full adjudicatory proceeding being convened, instead what it's based on. And as we have done with all the applicants who've come before you with those two exceptions, is that they have provided these certifications and we'll take a look at those real quick and the investigatory reports, which you're very well acquainted with because we've looked at those for all of the applications that have come before you. And the next couple of provisions here talk about those two things. Those are the two things that the commission by regulation is to base its decisions as to whether an entity or an applicant is preliminarily suitable. And the first thing is the certification and this is obviously an important piece of it. This was the recognition by the commission that we will not be conducting the full background check. So we're going to require that the applicant, including all of its qualifiers, certify to the commission a number of things. And the first was that, and well, let me back up just half a step. The first two here apply to the applicant itself and the qualifiers, so both. And so both of them have to certify that they understand that a license may be denied or revoked if they have willfully, knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally provided false or misleading information to the commission. So it's important because, of course, the commission is relying in part on the information that's being provided by the applicants and entities. And so it needed to be clear as it is here that if anything is misstated, if it's false, if it's misleading in any way, that will provide the commission with grounds upon which it may revoke any license that was previously issued. The second one, and this again applies to the applicant and the qualifiers, is that they need to certify that to the best of their reasonable knowledge and belief that they are suitable under these standards. And the most important one I might suggest is this highlighted one here, which is 215.03 and four. And those are the ones that we looked at before that are included in the durable finding section, if you will, that include the honesty, integrity, good character, the financial standing, and all of those other familiar topics. And we can take another look at those, but that's essentially what the applicant and the qualifiers are attesting to, is that essentially they're familiar with the standard that they will be reviewed under for the durable finding and their belief under the pains and penalties of perjury, they are suitable. And so that's what they're certifying. And then third, the applicant itself is certifying not just that it is suitable, but that to the best of its understanding, all of the other people associated with it, its qualifiers are also suitable. So not only are you having the individuals and entities themselves tell you that they're suitable, but you're requiring the applicant as the umbrella group, if you will, to certify that it believes that all of its qualifiers are suitable as well. So that's the certification piece of it you're getting and that you're relying on in large part in making this preliminary finding. But of course, the preliminary finding doesn't stop there. So that's a part of it. The other part of it is the IEB's report. And it's important to recall, as we're now very familiar with, that the IEB is not conducting a comprehensive probity review of these applicants and entities. What they are doing is described here in paragraph B though. And they are conducting an investigation into the qualifications and suitability of the applicant or qualifier. But the investigation may be limited to a review of the certification, the applicant's self-disclosed licensing and compliance history and other jurisdictions, self-disclosed open litigation involving an applicant, and an open source check concerning the applicant or if a natural person a qualifier. And then it shall submit a report. And as we've seen on a number of occasions now, this is exactly what the IEB reports have included that have come before you and that in the instances where you have voted to allow an applicant to move forward have relied upon in reaching the conclusion that there is substantial evidence in the record of the preliminary suitability having been established. You're relying on those two things, the certifications and the information contained in the IEB's report. And as I don't need to tell you, of course, you have probed a number of areas that are described in the IEB's report, a number of pieces of information that either the IEB has discovered as part of its open source checks or that the applicant itself has disclosed. So those are the two components that the commission relies upon in making these preliminary findings of suitability. And then, of course, we carve out here that the deliberations will be held in accordance with this section of 218, which I will represent to you as the section that says that the proceeding will be conducted at a public meeting and not an adjudicatory proceeding. So those are the big pieces. Here's the section where the commission has identified the individuals and entities that have to be deemed qualified, i.e. qualifiers. And then the other two things I just wanted to show you quickly are you'll recall this section, which talks about the waivers. We talked about this a little bit as part of the regulation adoption process. This is where that 15% language is included. For essentially, not essentially, for institutional investors. That 15% is consistent with the gaming side. There's a provision for the qualification of new individuals. This, of course, hasn't happened yet, but there is a provision in there that will govern that. And then I think it was Paul mentioned this provision here. I just wanted to draw your attention to here, which says that the applicant may ask for review of any determination made by the Bureau, essentially any scoping decision or otherwise they have a right, essentially, to appeal it to the commission. So that's where that comes from. So that's, I'll take this down. That's the overview of 215. We've been using it for a number of weeks now, and that's where it all comes from. And for preliminary licensure, our preliminary suitability, the standard of evidence is substantial evidence. That's right, yep. Okay, so that gives us a framework to think about as we go into our work over the next few days, commissioners. And I really appreciate Todd you being flexible with that assignment real time. So thank you. It occurred to me while we were going through it, if I could help. Is that good director Bells? Do you have anything? I can't hear you. Nothing further. Nothing further. Commissioners, commissioner Skinner, anything further? Not for me, no. Okay. Commissioner Hill, are you all set? Okay, commissioner Maynard. Commissioner O'Brien, are you all set? Great. So with that, I need a motion to adjourn. And to the legal team, thank you so much for all your good work today. I got through it all. Thank you. Thank you, your turn. Second. Okay, commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. Thanks so much. Have a great day, everybody. And we'll see you, we can be later this afternoon.