 And as we have been doing since March, we are using remote collaborative technology to conduct this public meeting given relief that Governor Baker provided in an executive order, relieving us of certain requirements under the open meeting law. We will proceed in the event that there's any disruption in today's meeting. Please go to the Gaming Commission's website, and there'll be instructions just to make a note going forward. Karen, while the executive director did note that, given Loretta Miliosa's status as interim, she won't be joining. And so because we can't see every number, she's not here by phone either. We can convene today public meeting number 322 for my fellow commissioners who've been here from the start. That's a meaningful look at Commissioner Karen. Hard to believe, huh? Yeah, it's almost a whole year's worth of meetings, right? I mean, that's amazing. Every day. Yeah. We really have. So number 322, and it is now 1003 on October 1. Happy October, everyone. We'll get started. We have a very limited agenda today, but it was important to convene so that all the commissioners could be involved in this important decision-making process. So it's limited in scope, and we're taking advantage of the connectivity that we have through RIMO to take care of these kinds of matters efficiently rather than waiting another whole cycle to next Thursday. So Executive, you know, I keep on calling you a commissioner, Karen. I don't think I am. Yeah, a good motion. Executive Director Wells, if you could just start us off on this process, thanks. Yeah, so Madam Chair, members of the commission, Chair Judd Stein and I did work with Commissioner Cameron on a draft of the job posting for the Director of the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau, which outlines the duties and responsibilities, skills and qualifications, experience, education, and training. The proposal is that we review that document today, see if there's any input or any suggested changes from the rest of the commissioners to get some kind of consensus that this is what the job is and this would be an appropriate posting. And then we would start by posting the position and starting the competitive process for hiring of the Director of the I.D. So Karen, do you want to walk us through the document? Is that? Yeah, I was thinking you have it right up here. I was thinking I would share the document if that's helpful to the commissioners. I think that makes sense, right? All right. So can everyone see that? Is that showing up the text here? Yeah. So hold on. So just walking through the document. Maybe if you did one page at a time, it might be a little larger, Karen. Is that possible? OK, let me see. If anyone can chime in on how to do that, it's just. Oh, it might be in view. Yeah. Karen, if you go down and just increase where it says 100 percent. Further, I will expand it. Oh, that's a good idea. There we go. Thank you, Sterl. You're welcome. OK, so we use the same format that we generally use for job description, job postings at the commission to give the overview. And we started out with some language from the statute because this is a statutorily designated position and there is some language in 23 K section six about that. So we pulled some language there. Usually we do indicate in job postings who is the supervisor. And in this language from the statute indicates that head of the IEB, which is identified as deputy director of investigations and enforcement, is under the direction control and supervision of the chair. So what we've done here is put that in here directly to quote the statute. We do use the term director of investigations and enforcement here and Kathy and I have had discussions about incorporating that deputy director from the statute. So it would be deputy director, comma, director of investigations and enforcement bureau. So it incorporates both the statutory reference and also the structure within the agency itself. And this language about the being the executive administrative head of the bureau and ministering the laws, that's all from the statute. So all that language is in there and this language about the bureau performing such functions as the chair may determine in relation to enforcement, including the investigations of our licensees of the commission is all from the statute. So why don't I pause there, see if there's any questions, suggestions on changes there, anything that the commissioners have any input in before we move forward. I can't see everyone, so people should just chime in. Let me just say this is great. It comes directly from the statute. The question that I think might be in people's minds, we don't necessarily have to address it. In the job description is the relation of the deputy director with the executive director. Right, right. So Kathy and I chatted about that and what makes sense, Kathy, I don't know if you want to give your thoughts first and then I can chime in after you. Well, at a certain point, we do address the executive director somewhat. So that you know, I've been operating under the statute since July of last year. There was a bit of a disruption at the beginning. And the way that Edward Joshin and I worked together on this was that I would fulfill my statutory obligations. The bureau's director has full administrative responsibilities of the bureau, but it sits within the commission. And the executive director, of course, runs the commission administrative and has exactly the same statutory language. So from my perspective, the bureau would want to benefit from the collective benefit of the administrative efficiencies of the commission. And so, for instance, the legal team for the commission provides legal services to the bureau throughout, of course, there's specialized legal services for the bureau, but Todd and team would provide all the benefits of guidance on regulatory matters that expand across the commission. So I see it as the chair would maybe be a tiebreaker if the bureau's director really had perhaps an HR matter that they felt very strongly about. And somehow it conflicted, perhaps, on a financial basis, a budgetary basis with the executive director, given that the executive director is in charge of the finance through the single responsibility of the hire of the chief financial and accounting officer. Now, they would have to work it out. But the executive director's responsibility probably is not over by the statute. The chair does have unique authority over that particular position. And I tried to divorce myself from that when I thought about it before I came here as I tried to understand the structure. And I continue to do that in trying to divorce personalities and people from the rules and try to think about the rules as a way to navigate these responsibilities. Karen, I don't know if you want to chime in, but if you want to give more concrete examples that we talked about. Yeah, so I flag for Kathy some examples, because I would like to understand what the expectation is from the commission is to my role as executive director and how you want this to work. In looking at the statute, the executive director is the administrative head of the agency. And the deputy director is the head and the administrative head of the bureau, which is within the commission. So there necessitates some connection between the executive director and the deputy director with respect to some administrative responsibilities within the office. The statute does give the deputy director, so the head of the IEB, a lot of authority to run that bureau. But there are going to be circumstances, for example, HR issues, budget issues, salary issues, those administrative issues, work space, things like that. I think we should expect there would be a connection between the executive director and the deputy director in that role. The other piece Kathy and I have talked about is if there is a particular matter that may come before the commission, in a judicatory manner, the deputy director does have significant authority there. I think I could be a resource there, particularly given that I have experience with the IEB. If the commission would be interested in some feedback from the commission on how that could work, if you would like some sort of assistance given there, if appropriate, and looking for feedback on that. Go ahead, Enrique, can you finish? Well, I think it's all a very good discussion, and I think it mirrors a lot of the practices that we've had in the past and most notably in the recent past. I was really more concretely thinking about how do we say all of that in this job description. I think that the statutory language, if I were applying for the job, you'd go to the statute. Yeah, and it's directly quoted here. I just think we're silent on everything we both said. Yeah, what if we continue through and see if we think about because in terms of, again, I said to Karen, another chair might decide to have full control in a way that's different because of that statutory language. It is a unique structure, and it's different from other states. It is different from New Jersey. It is different from Nevada. It is the statute that the Massachusetts legislature adopted. And so I can only say that if we're hiring and we're having a competitive external hire, perhaps Nevada is going to be a candidate. But if we push it outside, the first place any candidate would go to is the statute. So in terms of if we're going to suggest something that deviates from the statutory language, we do need to be all on board. But let's see if we can go through. We can't, of course, I'm saying if we're suggesting even, we really can't. We have to comply with the statute. So let's go through. And I can only say that when we think about it, I'm trying to detach people in the roles. And that includes me, and that includes each of the individual commissioners, and that includes even Karen. And reason-wise, because it's the only way we can really think about roles and responsibilities, if you start attaching individuals, it gets confusing. And this is a really healthy discussion for us to have because of this juncture. We also have Todd on the phone to help us. I can only tell you that the way I've been navigating, me personally, has been since last July. And I don't think you probably have seen too many disruptions. And I would probably continue to navigate. But if I were to leave tomorrow, another chair would also look at this language. And so I just, I'm- Which is why it's important to really flesh this out now. That's right. And Ricky, I read that second paragraph, and it led me to think if I were applying for this job, I'd have concerns. Is someone going to tell me how the team conducts an investigation? And we talked that through. And I don't think that. I know that's not the case. And so I think a candidate may want to know that, frankly. So it's just a question of, yes, that's the language. But how do we, in fact, implement this is really what we're talking about. And I don't think it's as easy as, well, this is what it says. So some addition to that second paragraph about the relationship between, I mean, I love all the statutory language that we've included. But some addition to that second paragraph that somehow spells out the relationship between the director of the IEB and the executive director is what you're suggesting. I guess I'd like to know what we're proposing that relationship to be. You just described it. You and Karen sort of did. The question I have, the question I only had is how do we just put it in a sustained paragraph? OK, so let's go through and see about all the responsibilities. And then we can go back if we want to say that, again, it would be based on me and how I perceive it. And that's important for everybody to realize how I see it as the functioning of the executive director as the commissioner, just like Karen said, the administrative for the commission. And then I gave the example with Karen. If we hired somebody who said suddenly, you know what? The bureau really needs to be separate, physically separate. The chances of investigations being compromised somehow between staff, et cetera, they really need to be separate. The statute sort of suggests that, but the chair does supervise. And so I would, my personal would say, slow down. We're working with the executive director who has a totality administrative responsibility with the commission. And you still sit within the commission. So that's a concrete example. Well, that was, frankly, how we came about to when Steve delegated the supervision to the executive director. That was one of the questions that had to be. That was one of the solutions. Well, my former, my successor delegated the authority to many people. And in the delegation, he also attempted to revoke the delegation. There's a long history. The truth is, is that I'm not comfortable delegating statutory authority based on the legal advice I've received. I am very comfortable asking people to help me accomplish that. And so that's the distinction I want to make clear is that this statutory authority really can't be delegated away, because no matter what, in the end, whoever it's delegated to owns it. Yeah, so I think we should just say that. We should say that in the, somewhere, as Bruce says, that there's a coordination. There's a practice. There's a role for the executive director in this. However, we want to phrase it. Maybe we don't have to come up with it today. But that's been my point as to try to, because on its own, it just feels like, well, the end, which is a statutory language, that it just reports to the chair. And that even since it starts, it ends there. We want to go down to the other parts we talked about, that maybe the next step. We do want to give the applicants sort of an overview of what the responsibilities are. I think the general overview is that there is supervision over four divisions. You have the licensing division, the gaming agents division, the financial investigation division, and the chief enforcement counsel's office. And then this other language about the state police that's statutory. So there is sort of this dual reporting for the state police gaming enforcement unit to the deputy director, as well as the colonel of the state police. And then there's also language about coordination with the attorney general's office and the ABCC. So that language is statutory. And then also, I thought it was important to put in this language and the statute about the near being a law enforcement agency, just so any applicant would understand. There are some specific powers and authorities given by statute. For example, I mean, subpoena power, things like that. So the fact that it is by statute of law enforcement agency is helpful in helping a potential candidate understand the scope of responsibilities. So that's sort of the overview. Is there anything else about a general overview or the bureau that the commission thinks should be added to help a candidate understand? OK. So now I'm going to scroll down to duties and responsibilities here. First bullet is to administer the complete licensing and registration process within the bureau, including investigations of both individual and entity applicants for licensure or registration. So that incorporates the Licensing Division and the investigations team, which includes state police. And we also have some civilian investigators. And that whole process is overseen by the head of the IEV. So that's a big function that's been a ton of work over the years. So I think that made sense for the first bullet. And then there's oversee on-site compliance of License in Massachusetts gaming establishments with all applicable laws, as well as compliance with approved casino internal control submissions. So this piece has to do with the gaming agents division and our on-site compliance, which is a significant responsibility within the bureau. As you know, that's one of the largest, second to state police, the largest units in the office of the, I think, approximately 33 FTE count with a 33 FTE count there. And it is a 24-7 operation. So that's very important within the bureau. Third bullet is oversee adverse action process, including issuance of civil administrative penalties for serious non-compliance by licensees. So that has to do with the Chief Enforcement Counsel's Office and sort of the legal component of the bureau, which works in conjunction with the gaming agents division and with the licensing division. So all those pieces, they all work together. Then we also have some other language in here, fourth bullet point, provide effective management of and leadership for all divisions within the bureau. That's a critical function. There's a lot going on within the bureau. And you would need someone with that management and leadership ability. The next bullet point is continually review and develop policies and procedures within the bureau for all investigations and enforcement activities. And that's something I feel strongly about that is a good thing to put in the job description. Because we've had conversations about the fact that we don't want to remain stagnant, that we want to reevaluate, we constantly want to do better, we don't want to create an agency where, well, this is how we've always done it, so this is how we do it. And I think that in the job description, that part of the job is to take a fresh look and review. And also, we want to make sure that policies and procedures are documented. Because if they're not documented, people just doing things, oh, this is how I think we're supposed to do things, it's not effective management. And then it's difficult to do a review process. We also have a bullet point for administering appropriate training so that folks have the knowledgeable regulations, laws, and policies and procedures. We also do have a bullet point, which references the executive director, which talks about in coordination with the executive director partner with the finance department to develop and oversee the annual budget. Any time you have a significant division or bureau within any state agency, the budgetary process is very important. And managing that budget is important and understanding that you are working within the constraints of the budget. So that is one piece where there is an example of a direct link with the executive director. Maybe you want to flush out some others. You know, I'm certainly over to any comments that commissioners have on that. And then monitor IED operations to assess performance against budget and legal requirements and implement changes as necessary. So that's more than that's similar to the policies and procedures. It's a little bit broader, though, that we're always looking to be flexible within our budget requirements. And also, we've got to comply with the law. You know, the law may change. We never know. There may be any issues may come up. And we want to do sort of an assessment about how we're doing and performance metrics. And that's very important with any kind of strong state agency. So that's sort of the overview and the bullet points, certainly open to any suggestions, comments, additions, subtractions. You know what, Karen, you just hit me when you just said the example about the coordination with the executive director for finance and oversee the annual budget. It occurs to me that there's a couple of other bullets that right there providing assessing performance against budget and legal requirements, for example, or understanding, reviewing the policies and procedures that could also be done in coordination with the executive director as more of the administrative function. So I wonder if we could break these bullets into two sub-bullets. You know, there's a portion of them that are clearly of the deputy director, especially those that pertain to investigations. And then maybe a subheading that would say something in administrative functions in conjunction with the executive director, bullet, bullet, bullet, which are the ones that are towards the latter part of these paragraphs. Do you see what I'm saying? Sorry, are you saying, so for example, maybe coordinate administrative functions such as HR, legal, budget, executive director? Look at, yeah, in coordination would be to do in coordination with the executive director, reference that on a couple of other bullets as well. The one about assessing performance, the one about policies and procedures, all of those things could also be done or should also be done in coordination with the executive director. Yeah, I guess the question is, is that the chair by statute or is that the executive director? And what do you think? I hate to go back to the beginning, but as I'm reading this, I think one of the ways it might clear up what we're struggling with is we've somewhat stuck with the language of the statute, but not entirely tracked it. And I think if we stick closer to the tracking of the language, it might make that division a little easier to delineate. So the first sentence as is. And just so you know, I didn't write this Karen paraphrase in the statute. I just wanted to put the statutory reference in. No, if you break it up so you could, if you had that first sentence under the direction and control supervision of the chair, the director of the IEB, the friends, shall be responsible for administering and enforcing the laws relative to the bureau and to each administrative unit of the bureau pursuant to 23K section six. You then go back to the statute and pull the specific sentences. The bureau shall be under the supervision and control of the deputy director of IEB. It is falls within the commission. It is the primary enforcement HF regulatory matters. But I think if you break that out and sort of reinforce that sort of the day to day supervision and control of IEB falls on the deputy director. And I think when you get back into duties and responsibilities, the discussion about the execution of some of those day to day supervision and control of the bureau can then be delineated effectively to say, you know what, ED can help them execute this versus chair has supervision here. I think if we break that up that way, I just feel like it's easier to break up what we're talking about further down. Okay. Yeah. And I can go back and pull that language from the statute. Does that make sense to everybody else? So we're adding additional language there that's more specific about the role of the deputy director. Is that what you're suggesting? What I'm doing is tracking the statute. Yeah. Almost verbatim so that that first sentence, what it does is it conflates the, when it says is the executive and administrative head of the bureau. Yeah. That's actually a completely separate sentence in the statute. Right. If you remove that, read as is, put that statutory sentence in where that yellow is now. Yeah. And it follows more naturally. Like here's the broader supervisor structure from chair to deputy director. Yeah. Okay. So Eileen, Eileen, can you, Eileen, do you have the statute in front of you? Could you read it so you saw that folks understand because I want to understand the distinction. Yeah. The distinction. I'm being careful to make sure that the role, the deputy director is clear. And so. So it basically, this paragraph takes what is section six A and just shortens it a little bit. Yeah. I think Karen tried to make it less legal, more friendly. You want it as digestible as possible, but I do think if we break it back out, it helps with the discussion that we're having because they break it up to say there shall be within the commission an IEB, which is the primary enforcement agency for regulatory matters under this chapter. Bureau shall perform such functions as the chair may determine in relation to enforcement, including investigation of licensees. That's sort of standalone paragraph that we have in there. The next two sentences we've conflated into one, but they actually read distinctly, which is the bureau shall be under the supervision and control of the deputy director of investigations and enforcement period. The deputy director shall be the executive and administrative head of the bureau and shall be responsible for administering and enforcing the laws relative to the bureau and each administrative unit of the bureau. And I think when you read it that way, the delineation between the chair's role in relation to that position in the bureau and then what the responsibilities are of the deputy director is just a little more clearly delineated if we just track that language. And what's the distinction? Because I think right now it shortens, it goes under the control of the chair and then says, and is the executive head and responsible for everything. And then it goes back out further as opposed to when I read the statute, it's a little bit clearer. Here's the chair. Chair decides X and deputy director answers to that person. These are the first day of the response. You're just breaking up a little question. A half of the day of supervisory possibilities in the bureau is to me, it reinforces that while there is this chain of command from chair to deputy director, deputy director has her own independent statutory obligations to supervise and control that bureau. And I think if you write it that way, then it's clearer when you're reading it that yes, there's a structural chain of command. There's also an inherent day-to-day supervision control responsibility that rests with this person. And I think it's clear if you track just literally what the statute says in 6A. I think that makes sense too. It really does. I don't see any of the distinction. I'm sorry, but I am assuming that you're saying the same thing that I think I understand now. I don't think I'm, you know, I think the statute, I've only read the statute and I don't know how it's helping us in terms of today. Well, because right now as written, it conflates two very distinct sentences about the responsibilities of the deputy director position. And it subsumes them within a sentence that points out the chair is the supervisor of that person. And I think it minimizes the fact that there's an independent statutory obligation of supervision control over the bureau by this position. So if you separate them out, to me that makes it clear that there are two separate statutory obligations. There's the structural one within the commission where you have chair, deputy director, but then you look at deputy director, what do you have responsibilities for? You have responsibilities for the supervision and control of that bureau. Yeah, so like I see as a box within, the commission is a big box and I see this unit within the commission. The chair and the commission, you know, I happen to have two roles. I'm a chair and a commissioner, I'm one of five. And then there's this box with the IEB that really probably if I had to guess, and I'm guessing, because legislative intent is difficult to guess, they wanted to, and Commissioner Cameron, you're more aware of this than me, than I mean, they wanted to make sure that it would be void of that investigatory bias. That could be true independence, but that the chair, they wanted the chair in this instance to control it. Now, in terms of the bias, there's a lot of discussion around how I can control that, all of which I don't need to get into right today, but that that chair directs controls and supervises that individual who has a bunch of... Right, but not the bureau. You see what I'm saying? That's the distinction that I'm drawing. But of course, but it is the, you're absolutely right, except for this language about the functions of the relationship to enforcement, blah, blah, blah. But in terms of the execution of the bureau, it falls under, and I think that's why it's written the way that it is. So I do think there is a distinction there between what you're talking about and then the day-to-day supervision and execution of the people that staff that bureau. And that does follow. So who do you think is in charge of the day-to-day supervision of the... The deputy director. The deputy director. I agree with that. And then in terms of the deputy director, the deputy director's performance, who would you say evaluates that? And that, well, performance is a different issue. Who can then supervise? Who directs controls and supervises it. And that goes out of the fair. That would be separate from evaluation. Right, because who evaluates this person is not delineated in the statute. And that is something that could go up to ED. So I see what I'm saying is when I read 6A as is, compared to how it's been shortened to try to make it more digestible as written in this posting, the actual authority and responsibility that rests on this person gets minimized as it's written right now. And I think conflated. And I think if we track this, that becomes clear. I guess I do. I don't think we're... And in terms of the deputy director's role, I don't think we have any disagreement. I think what we're talking about is the executive director's role is the... No, but I'm saying you clearly, if we stick with the statutory language and paragraph one, for me anyway, when we get down and to do some responsibilities and interactions with the ED, it's clear to delineate that in the execution of those, they can absolutely work with the ED to execute those functions. There's no statutory bar. So what is the... So what are you doing, Eileen, with respect to the direction control and supervision of the chair? How are you not minimizing that with that? I'm not minimizing at all. I'm tracking the statutory language. I'm saying there's a delineation between the overarching structure and responsibility and control as to that title and position in terms of tasks and then the day-to-day supervision and control which statutorily wraps some of the soldiers of the deputy director of the ID. So if we track the language and the statute, both are in there respectively in the way they should be. Karen, how are you feeling about that? So I'm just trying to come up with a solution. Maybe you just put in the job description that something to the effect of director of the investigation enforcement bureau, some kind of preface that it's a... The bureau is created by statute and just put the statutory language in and instead of trying to adjust it, put it in. And that leads you to those... That would be those first two paragraphs and then go back into the director of the IEB. This is how it works on the ground right now. Right. And then you could get into the other stuff later but as long as it's... If you're just quoting the statute, I don't know how you can go wrong. So if you wanna put more of the statute and just put it in its complete form, I don't see how that hurts, but... Well, I guess I would ask that during this... Let's just say we're interviewing somebody and they say, well, what is my relation to the executive director? Do I say in the interview? Well, it's my position that the chair directs and controls and supervises you. So I would have the ability to evaluate you and then that would be passed on with respect to the executive director in the budgetary scheme and we would do that all in a coordinated fashion. Or do I say the executive director would be evaluating you? I don't think that they're asking who's evaluating them. I see it as two different things too. No, I am asking, I'm actually asking the precise question of evaluation. Which I think can be the ED as the administrative agency because that's separate and distinct from supervised. Yeah, I... And then in terms of the chairs, overall supervision and control of the affairs of the organization, how does that fit in? It's not in conflict with having someone else do part of the evaluation or be involved in the evaluation. It doesn't in any way negate it. So Karen, did Ed evaluate you? Yes. When he was delegated to the authority, did Gail, I'm not sure if he did. I don't think he did not when you had come in. Did Gail evaluate you when she was delegated to the authority? It was always the executive director. I don't think so. It was always the executive director. What's that, Matt? I actually, if we could get back to just this, when I read this... I'm wondering, I just think it's interesting. I just, I'm sorry. I'm looking at history because Karen has been in that role. So I just think it's interesting because I really saw Karen in it. I treated her in the function as I understood. Well, let me add one thing. Gail, since you bring up history, sorry if this is gonna take too long, but there was an increased real reluctance when we were going through the licensing process of having commissioners involved in any way, even the perception of having been involved in the investigation that we were later going to be deciding on. That's my concern and that's what I was struggling with when we talked about this is how do we make it clear to a candidate that you won't have that... You won't have that. You won't have, you know, I'm sorry, this is about a comparison. You know, the president directs the deputy, the FBI director to do an investigation and you have to be independent. And that was a real concern. Maybe that's less of a concern now, but that was the reason why, partly, partly, this delegation took place. So, but I can explain one of the concerns that I have is that delegation took place and then when my successor tried to revoke it, he was challenged because of this notion of administrative bias and when in fact, the challenge was really about the administration of the timeliness of an important investigation. The chair should be able to, under the statute, be able to set timelines, for instance, of an investigation. The chair should not, although the language could give permission to become more involved in the investigation, that's tricky because then as a commissioner, you need to be, you would want to be involved in resolving an appeal, for instance. That piece can be navigated by the proper walling off. I've discussed this with our council. I discuss this on day one of my tenure here. It can be, and that's exactly what his problem is imagined by our statutory structure. So what you can't do as an organization is eliminate statutory language and say, well, because we don't like it and we fear we want it to be done differently. We never felt like we did that, Kathy. Well, we never felt like we didn't. Well, I don't. I think perhaps you may not feel that you did that. I think there could be an, I think there were implications that, that it did take away the chair's authority to be able to complete the statute by delegating it to the executive director. We're not talking about that here. Karen and I have been functioning with IEB director under the structure that I'm very comfortable with based on the statutory language. In terms of for an interview for clarifying the role, this is important to understand. And if you're saying that the executive director would have, let's say, the authority to recommend a firing, would that be the executive director's sole authority or would it come back to the commissioners? Would it go to the chair? That's really important. I would want to understand that because when I, if I were the applicant, I would think this role, and Karen actually said it to me. When she reads it, she thinks that the fact that they report to the chair makes it elevate, makes it an elevated position. And so if we're saying, but no, it's kind of like that, but not really. You really report to the executive director, the executive director evaluates you and will actually have authority to, to hire fire. I mean, I think that's a really important question. No one has extrapolated out that far, Kathy. No one has implied that. No, that's right, but we're having a discussion. And nothing in the language that I'm talking about raises the specter of that. What it talks about is the day-to-day functionality of the bureau and it comes off the statutory authority that rests on that person's shoulders and the fact that this person as ED is going to interact with that individual. And there may be times when we as a commission do have to refuse ourselves and you're going to have to completely delegate out to the ED and it's involved in evaluating or making recommendations in no way, undercuts or in any way changes or removes or slops off statutory language, in my opinion. So, okay, okay, I agree with you all on that. I guess the only thing I asked was when you mentioned evaluation, this is completely a practical question, guys. Yeah. I think it's completely, I'm not having any concern really about the administrative functions. I think Karen, we can fix the language to address Commissioner Zuniga's concern about making sure the administrative efficiencies are accomplished under, because remember it is within the commission. It doesn't sit outside of the commission, but for an individual who including potentially Loretta, who is potentially we don't know if she'll apply or not, if they ask the question, well, this is a weird structure, it's statutorily who hires and fires me. We should be able to answer that question. So your question is the higher and firing of the deputy director, the IEB director or people under them? I think under them, I think that there would be, I think Karen and I've talked about this, you would use the efficiencies of the HR department and the budgetary restraints that the executive director has to deal with, but the IEB director would have that authority. I don't know. I would say that Karen, you didn't have the executive director dictating that, but you certainly worked with the executive director on the efficiencies. And this is where Ed and I, we never talked about those matters. It was just happening, but Karen would tell me, update me on those kinds of developments, but it was fluid because of the need for using the HR resources, but it would ultimately have been the director of the IEB's decision. And I suppose another chair might say, wait, I really want you to hire A. Well, that's where it gets tricky and we're trying to put language in here that clarifies the roles. So I do like Commissioner O'Brien's idea. I was struggling with, how do we let this person know what they're actually responsible and are they going to have an interference with an investigation? So that piece. But you know, you're using the word interference. I'm reading this description and thinking what's going on. That's why I think the more we can clarify it in this job description, the better we are. And I think that additional language does help with that clarification. But one might say, when you say interfere, Commissioner O'Brien- No, I'm saying that's what a candidate could think when they- Right, but one thing I would say is that for instance, when you suggest interference, I'm not sure if that means the imposing a timeline, for instance. No, timelines are certainly well within absolutely. I'm talking about the actual investigation, the steps, who to investigate, who not to investigate. Those are the things I'm talking about, not timelines. Hey, listen, are you kidding? That's a critical piece. I would totally agree with that. Then we're aligned on that. Yes, yes. Yeah, I'm hearing there is some alignment and what I'm sort of hearing from all of you is that it would make sense really just put the whole section 6A in there because it does identify the role of the deputy director very strongly. So that would be helpful. And what I also hear is some consensus that there is this connection with the executive director on administrative functions, the HR budget, and maybe we put in some language, you know, budget HR and other administrative functions of the agency as a whole. So that would, Eileen, is that matching up with your thinking? I'm trying to match up with your thinking and what Kathy's thinking. I think we can get pretty close here in that there is administrative connection between the IEB and the agency as a whole, but the 6A does talk about the bureau performing the functions. And I'm focused on that word functions, you know, to differentiate between what Gail's talking about, getting in the nitty-gritty of an investigation on enforcement action. So the chairs sort of have that overview on functions relation to enforcement, including the investigation of the licensees. So that may be the way to resolve this. So there's some clarity for any applicant. Because if you, and I agree, if you read the statute, and I remember reading it the way before I even, you know, put in for the job eight years ago, there's a lot of authority in the statute for the deputy director. So that seems to make sense in that that's how it would work, you know, with the executive director and the deputy director. So from my perspective as chair, I would imagine that over the course, let's say we hired Gene Smith. And Gene Smith comes in and does a stellar performance. If given the chair's role here, now of course everybody's going to have an impression because the role is so big within the commission, but I would give, do a performance evaluation and coordinate that in conjunction with the executive director because of that oversight role and lobby for a raise. And then the executive director would have to deal with the budget and the budgetary process and, you know, commissioners. Zuniga's involved in that as treasurer. So there would be full discussion. But let's say Gene Smith doesn't do well, but that's only the perception of the executive director. Just, you know, what the executive director is just clashing, but the chair sees the Gene Smith is doing just fine. Are we as a commission saying that the executive director has that authority or can the chair go to the commission and say, this position needs to be secure? Now, I work collaboratively with all of you. That's why we're actually having this discussion today. I want to make sure everybody's on board. Are we ceding that to the executive director? Under the statute, the executive director may make hires subject to our approval. But doesn't mean that we don't have the capacity to make hires as a board. I don't recommend that. The operations are with the executive director. This position, I wonder if it's because of the structure, if it's different. If the evaluation of everything is through the executive director and she's in charge, and I say she because it's Karen today, but he or she is in charge of all staff, including the IAB director, then we need that clarified. Because it's not obvious to me, but obviously any candidate would want to know that. So for me to clarify what I'm saying, because I think I'm saying something and you're hearing something different, which is they are not really exclusive. To have the ED involved as part of the evaluative process in no way suggests we don't have the authority and continue to maintain the authority to select and have control over hiring and firing of the director of the IAB. So this idea that there is interaction and collaboration and work going on between deputy director of IAB and ED that would include, in my view, correctly an evaluation of performance doesn't negate our authority. They are not mutually exclusive. The fact that the ED involved does not then have us completely divest ourselves of authority. So I don't think we're saying different things. No, that's not, I agree entirely. To me, this is literally taking statutory language so we don't recreate the wheel and create confusion or problems in the opening part of this job description. Then you have the functionality parts. You go into the detail later that is in fact for the reality on the ground of making an agency function, you're going to have to interact with the ED. And yeah, that person is going to be able to give feedback if they have a circumstance where someone says, you know what you're doing? And then it comes back to the commission to make that determination. It does not mean we are ceding authority. Yeah. Then I think we're in agreement. Yeah, I think that clarifies it and it is an important piece. And I think in reality, an executive director, now we're on our third one, has never made these key decisions without input from the commission. It's never been us against them ever and it really should be, right? Yeah, and this is just a good juncture, Gail, to have this conversation because we won't always have this immediate history. You know, we can't really work on just past. So it's a good understanding. Agreed. No, I, hey listen, everything should be evaluated and making sure we're following the law properly. But yet we still have a way to function that makes sense. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. No, and you have to resolve it because it's going to be the question the candidate asks. Who's hiring me? Who can fire me? Yeah. And what are my responsibilities? Hey, can you imagine we're looking at each other going, oh no. I don't know. She does. So, what I'm hearing is- Yeah, a great starting point, so. What I'm hearing is that there is agreement that it is a commission as a body higher in fire. Is that correct? Yep. Okay. Okay. And of course with respect to the chair's input because of that role. And if there is a question in the interview process about performance evaluation, it would be similar to what we're doing here in conjunction with the executive director and the chair and probably input from the commission. Of course. Does that make sense? Yes. Yes. Always skip. And the challenge will be if there's a challenge, would be if there's a chair and the commission just aren't aligned on this issue. That would be a challenge going forward. I don't see it with us because of how I operate. Another chair might say it really is completely within the chair's control because of that language. Yep. Okay. And they have statutory language to point to. Well, and honestly, Well, but then they're putting themselves in jeopardy. And if someone wanted to do that, that would, you know, we would just have to point out why that we think that they are putting themselves in jeopardy to operate that way. But... Well, and the reason my real logic, again, divorcing myself on the road, Commissioner Cameron, is that the legislature, if they had really wanted it to be this separate thing, they would have kept it outside the commission. But it is within the commissioned construct. So there has to be a natural use of these resources to create efficiencies. Correct. Consensus. That's what we're saying. Yes. But on the other hand, the chair in this role has some kind of a distinct difference and that language is there. And as I said, it's my inclination. I don't delegate it away, but I sure as had a whole bunch of help to have it accomplished. And that's with the executive director and with a strong deputy director or IEB director, with the IEB director. Yes. Yes. It's a huge role. And the good news is Karen did have the role and she appreciates how big of a role it is. But that fundamental question is, as Bruce just pointed out, is who do I truly answer to? Well, it is tricky. It is tricky. The construct is difficult. Right. So as far as some specific language so we can get this posting done, do you want some kind of, what I'm hearing is that, well, let me do a hypothetical. Maybe this will flush it out. If the head of the IEB wants to give one of the division chiefs a raise, who signs off on that? Is that the chair or is that the executive director? You mean within IEB? Correct. Or wants to restructure or promote someone? I think that that IEB director could make the case to the executive director who has total budgetary. And then, of course, go to the chair and the commission and not just the chair even, because the commission doesn't have to get involved with every single hire. You know, if it's someone with a raise, I think they would make the case and make the case to the chair and say this is what we think is appropriate. But I would think that, you know, in order to get to that step, you'd have to be on the same page with the executive director. Right, and I think if there was a collision, then the chair might try to be an umpire of sorts. And then if it becomes, this is really not working, the chair goes, the commission says, this is, you know, this collision is happening. We've got to figure out policies and procedures to help on this. Yeah, hopefully that won't happen. Hopefully. That's right. I don't think we're imagining it. I do think things will be worked out. So there's language in this posting about, you know, in coordination with the executive director. So do you like that language for the posting for, so you could change that, you know, in coordination with the executive director, you know. No, because it is in coordination with the executive director. Right, so budget and other administrative functions with the understanding, if there are real issues, we have the commission as a resource to resolve issues. Yes, and that's the way it's been functioning for every position, frankly. That's what's been happening. So we're just codifying that and clearly laying out what the roles and responsibilities are. Karen, that's second to last bullet. I would just expand upon it. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Not just finance, it's legal, it's HR, it's, you know, communications, you know, it's kind of partner with other commission departments to effectively assist with the management of the IEB. I mean, that's kind of trouble. Let's be really careful though, Bruce. It's then, you know, if it's legal and there's a collision in terms of a legal analysis, you know, the, there's the, I liken it more as a, not a decision-making partnership, rather a sharing of administrative efficiencies. The commission has one HR department. Does it make sense within the bureau to have an HR, you know, specialist? No, Enrique is going absolutely not. The budget, right? You just saw a dollar sentence. As opposed to, yeah, exactly. As opposed to the executive director over every other, you know, unit has really control and supervision can make the decisions. I think the executive director and the IEB director will always be needing to share ideas and partner and, but the IEB director will have to, you know, be coordinating in order to access the resources they need to administer the functions of the bureau, right? Right. I just wanted to extend that. God, if there's a decision, a decision would not necessarily be that solely of the executive director because there is a little bit of a say. Right, so the word partner makes sense then, right? As opposed to decision-making. Yeah, that's the best thing, yeah. And make sure that everybody's on the same page. Yeah, my point on that last bullet was just not limiting the finance. Right, yeah. Yeah, and of course the finance is unique. And as I remind Karen all the time, you own that all on your own. Yeah, thank you. With commissioner Zendikas. With treasurer, some aspects of treasurer, yeah. Yeah, yeah. If you want legal in there, because I'm just playing around with the language I know if we could see it on the screen. You could have in coordination with the executive director partner with the other, with other departments on administrative functions, including but not limited to finance, HR, and legal and communications. Do you want legal in there? Yes, because that's something we've talked about that how Todd's team really does provide guidance to and has been on really very broad legal matters. The Redis team is really focused on IEB legal functions. And we like the idea of them continuing to collaborate together. Yeah, that's critical. Let's add IT. Let's not forget our friends in IT. Never forget IT. Finance IT, yeah. Yeah. Katrina's like. Come on Karen, where's IT? All right. It's just a broad enough. So I have in coordination with the executive director partner with other departments on administrative functions, including but not limited to finance, IT, HR, and legal and communications. And that's actually a really important piece of the puzzle because you wouldn't want the person come in thinking I've got to build or maintain all of those kinds of functions. They have access to benefit of that big umbrella. Right, okay. Karen, at the top of this document we have the posting as director. Do we need to add deputy director? Well, we've got it in here. It's a little confusing because we've got other directors. So, you know, Kathy and I, I think Kathy had a good idea. So we call it the comma rule. It's deputy director comma director of investigations and enforcement bureau. So it matches the statute identifying it as the deputy director of investigations and enforcement but director of the bureau. Okay. Yeah. And so in terms of any organization chart which we know that Karen is working on and that's her thing, she could use that deputy director comma more than once, not necessarily solely but she could choose it to be the sole deputy director under the statute and then have other ones if that's what she wants to do. But that's her big ball of wax she's got to work on now. We're happy to have that as a key assignment because it's going to add a lot of clarity. And so is there a consensus that I should adjust this first paragraph and really just include all the language in the statute so it's clear and we're not paraphrasing? Yeah. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. I do too. I like Eileen's suggestion. Yeah. I had thought just referring to the statute itself but I think it probably does help to spell it out and just use it verbatim. I appreciate it though. And Karen, just so you know, I think down below we might be repeated so because I think you'll just make sure. Okay, I'm just changing the volunteer. When you'll just want to make sure it's not duplicative gamble mode. No, I think we should probably have an introductory sentence but I could do that. I don't know if you've got to do that right now. Just start off with a reference to the chapter. All right, I'll just highlight that and I can have that but that's easy enough. You don't need to. Okay, so yes. Well, this just makes it really all clear. Guys, we'll have it easy. It's a complex structure. So any other comments or about the duties and responsibilities? Okay. They were short and considerably. There was so many in the first one. Yeah. And it was a little yeah, it was where you went to kindergarten. Really. So commissioner, commissioner Cameron, then you're, you've had a chance to look at it but you feel we're not, we didn't, we're not omitting anything that we want to include. No, I don't think so. Sometimes it's hard to think what you'll, what we should include as opposed to. No, we don't want candidates to glaze over when they read this. No kidding. I should be excited about applying. Right. So the next section is on skills and qualifications. So the first bullet here, we do have ability to understand gaming regulatory requirements particularly internal control submissions by casino operators. We may not get, you know, because we're in Massachusetts, it's a very limited number of people that understand gaming in Massachusetts. You may not get some of that has experience in that area. We wanted to flag it because that is such a critical component of the operations. I mean, you look at what the game agents are doing on a daily basis with the internal control submissions. So that would mean either experience with it or you've got to be able to understand. I think it's difficult to include that because down below you say regulatory experience in the casino gaming industry is preferred. Well, it says our other regulatory organization. So it's helpful if you have this experience. Obviously, you're going to have a stronger ability to understand this if you have experience in it. But at a minimum, you've got to be able, you know, we've got to have some kind of determination in the hiring process that someone would be able to understand this. Because if they don't have the ability to understand this, they can't do the job. I think ability to understand this grade is fine. Okay. And, you know, it won't dissuade anybody from, you know, from saying, well, my banking experience or my utility regulatory experience, you know, or internal controls, I think it's just fine. Right. The question is, do you want to leave with that bullet? Are you going to lose people if they see something that specific and don't extrapolate to their own experience? Is there a way to reorder the bullets? Yeah, we can, you know, I can flip any of these around. Do you want to run through these and then see what the commission wants to do as far as the order? Would that help? Let's flip the first and last. Start off with the good character, honesty, integrity piece. Yeah. Check. Yeah. Like that. And go wrong with that. Okay. Although sometimes that takes a little self-reflection. It's all good. Honesty is not there. Decent humility. I will say the statute has honesty, integrity and good character in that order. Does anybody care what order it's in? Let's do it the same. Let's do it the same way. Okay. If it's in there, what? These, you know, if you're holding your licensees to a standard, you want it. Yes. That's weird. I didn't think about that. That's good, Karen. And you can flip that second bullet down to the end to make Commissioner O'Brien's point that that's not, but it does say understand and not have, you know, expertise. Yeah. I would hope that someone wouldn't be turned over. Yeah. And that was our point. I mean, it is, it is a big plus. And how about if we said complex regulatory requirements Yeah. Well, you know, and then we get the preference with respect to regulating gaming as a preferred down below. Cause, Okay. The only thing is there is a, there is a specific reference to internal control submissions and that, you know, by casino operators. What do you mean? See the next clause. So that's lifted from the statute, Karen. Well, no, no, that's just, just knowing, knowing what you know. That's involved of what we do on a daily basis. So what if we say ability to, to understand complex regulatory requirements. Yeah. Including internal control submissions by casino. Are there other, are there other industries Enrique, maybe in finance that SEC Yeah. internal. Yeah. There's a lot of internal control in finance. Not, I don't think, and I said particularly with the ability to understand it's fine here. I would actually shy away from complex Kathy, you know, from this standpoint, and I had actually thought about it on the experience where it says experience in complex investigations. It particularly those three words from the standpoint of trying to recruit minorities. The best practice is to look at things like experience, you know, like minimum 10 years and we don't have that here, but We took it out. Yeah. Because those things tend to act as a barrier to the, for the, you know, for those opportunities. So I'm sorry if it's just, if it's just the word complex that I think doesn't add too much, but maybe it takes away from... Well, and it's interesting, Enrique, you mentioned that, because what we, originally in the original job description, it had put, it had been criminal investigations. So it changed it to complex because it doesn't necessarily need to be criminal. There's also investigations. So that's why it's interesting. So do you want just experience in investigations? Yep. Take out complex. I think he's raising a good point. That's a great flag. Thank you, Enrique. That was my big contribution from this whole section. Is there anything else in the skills and qualifications, this height? And I don't know why it's flagged. I don't take integrity. I don't know why it's flagged. Not your hate when that happens. We want you to have a comma. Oxford comma. He has for a comma after the end. And then take out the comma at the end of character. Oxford comma, yeah. Thank you. Mary likes a good Oxford comma, so much she's listed in there. Sure, her does too. Experience in creating administrative efficiencies through technological solutions and our system innovations. Because particularly, we deal with process so often, the whole licensing process, the regulatory review for all these things, someone that has some experience and thinks that way would be very helpful. Demonstrated confidence in magnitude of first workforce, written and verbal skills, many tasks and pressure situations. All these are kind of just the type of skills you'd have to have in order to be successful. Yeah. I would add somewhere, and I think we can make it clearer that, and it may be under that third bullet, but talking about presenting in public, you talk about the public arena, but yeah, you know, making a public presentation, I think is a critical skill that the other ones kind of danced around. So maybe ability to make ability or experience making public presentations. Are you all right with the second bullet being second, or do you want to have it in a different place? I'm not going to move that down. I'm going to move that down. I like the third bullet being the next one. I do too. Yeah, agreed. And it kind of goes hand in hand, right? Yeah. And it demonstrates our priorities. Yeah, I like that. I think that's right. Commissioner, I think that's exactly right. So then... There's something wrong. Ability or experience, yeah, you've got... I think he was just saying either word. I don't think he needs both. You need both. Right. In other words, if they can't say on their resume, look, I made this public presentation, but yet when speaking to them, you know they have the ability to do it because they're articulate and they are able to understand what the job requires here. So I think I like... So experience and our ability... Yes, I like both. Like as... Experience and our ability to... To make public presentations or... She just presented the word Smith thing. It should be different. Yeah, experience and our ability to present... Present in a public forum... Pogently and coherently in public or something like that. Is that what you're... You still have a little bit of a word Smith issue, but that's okay. You will get to it. Experience in... In a public forum. Presenting... Yeah. Experience or ability... In a public meeting or a public forum. Yeah. Yeah. You say that. Still a word Smith problem. I mean, where are you? We need your help. Yeah, I'm wondering if you experience or demonstrate ability in making or all presentations in public forums. What was it? Demonstrate ability to what? What was that? In making. In making or all presentations in a public forum. This is funny, isn't it? This person has got to be... We're still close. But I love that we're doing this in a public arena. I love that. This is for me my favorite kind of meeting where we're just getting it done. I love it. You like to making... Experience in or demonstrate... Experience or demonstrate... Experience or demonstrate an ability in making or all presentations in a public forum. How's that? I think that's fine, yeah. No. All right, anything else on the skills and qualifications? Yeah, Karen, only if under that ability to synthesize, summarize and disseminate information, there is a mention of the public arena. Yeah. But I think we cover that with the new language we just put in. But I think that ability to summarize, synthesize and disseminate important details in accessible fashion and in a timely manner, I would just take out in a public arena. Yeah, we don't need to do that now. That's right. Because it's redundant, right? Yeah, and also, you know, we want them to synthesize in private too. Right. I'd synthesize strictly in public. Not too much in private. Keep with our transparency. Right. You know, we've got the business of financial reports that, you know, supervising that division is a big piece of the job. You've got to at least have the ability to do it, whether or not you have the experience. You know, if you can't do that, you won't be able to do the job. So that's really important. I'm hoping Mike is listening right now. Okay, and then experience, education and training, bachelor's degree and significant management experience. We had some back and forth about the, you know, the number of years. If you give a number of years, you potentially could miss out on a candidate. So, you know, we didn't necessarily want to limit that, but management experience is going to be critical because it is a big unit. And you're not only supervising, you know, different divisions with different functions, but you've also got interaction with the Massachusetts State Police, which is, you know, it's sort of a different type of management because it's a sister agency. So this is broad enough to cover a lot, I think, is what my point is. I would just want to point out that we also have a posting for the licensing division chief, which does call for no more, you know, between five and 10 years of management experience. So I want us to be somewhat consistent, but I would think this position would require no less than five years. Right. Well, you know, the interesting thing is on that versus that might have been posted without our being as aware as we want to be with respect to the implications that Commissioner Zuniga just mentioned in terms of how we evaluate what management experience is and how it might impact a candidate of color. So the five to 10 years, you know, that was in another posting. We used a number in the last posting commissioner camera. Maybe you remember. Yes. And I'm in a total agreement. I like significant and not put a number on it. Commissioner Zuniga, are you comfortable with the word significant? Yes, totally fine. He'd say it's a high level job, but you know, I'm in agreement with this. So I think Commissioner Stevens, if you'll allow us to keep significant in there, but be of course cognizant of that other posting, it just might be the type of management experience. I suspect we'll probably see more than five years, but again, it's also the quality as well as the quantity of years. Sure. Then I would just, again, I'm just pointing that out. I'm happy with the word significant, but you know, let's also send a message that, you know, as we, as our team does other postings that we don't see that we reflect that language. Yeah, and that is something, you know, so with that position and we're also working on the position for the legal division, we do have not only, you know, Tripti and their team, they also flag the same issue. So they, even in comments, they flag the same issue. And then we do have Jill now as our diversity point person for the commission is involved in every hire. So I'm encouraged that we're going in that direction and consistent there. So that's perfect. Yeah. Yeah, so we do have, you know, experience and investigations. We don't limit it to criminal investigations. And I didn't, you know, include this language about same kind of thing we did up above, which including the ability to understand the suitability investigatory process, you're going to be very limited in scope if someone has to have experience in that area. But, you know, to Enrique's point, you know, ICC investigations, other, you know, federal regulatory agencies, that may coordinate well and this person might have the ability to understand. Okay. We do ask for regulatory experience in the casino gaming industry or other regulatory eight organization preferred. That is going to be helpful, obviously. So I've added that we do have language that JD's not required but considered a plus. I did push for that in the posting. My experience in the position is that I am constantly dealing with other attorneys in, you know, general counsels at companies, the licensee. So that has been a benefit. Also, this person is supervising the chief enforcement counsel's office so they're supervising attorneys. So it may not be required, but it would be something that would be an asset. We don't want to eliminate anyone that may want to apply, that doesn't have a JD, but recognizing that would be helpful. So attorneys, if they see the posting, they say, oh, this might make sense for me, you know, as an attorney with this other experience as well. So, I know Gail's not as sole desire on it. Well, I don't want to exclude anyone is what I'm saying. And if this helps you bring in some more attorneys because they don't look at it as strictly investigations, I'm fine, but I don't want, I've always wanted a bigger pool of candidates. Right. So that's why we specifically said it's not required. Yeah, I think it's fine. I think there's so much about, you know, hearing processes, regulations, that usually a JD brings real understanding of the nuances of language and whatnot. I think it's fine the way it reads. Okay. We know that Oxford comma. Yeah. Yeah. Tell you, it's something I've come to appreciate, not being a lawyer myself, of the importance. And then we do include next paragraph, successful candidate would support the mission and values of the gaming commission, advance a fair, transparent, participatory process. I thought that, I think Kathy had included that. That's important, especially, you know, sort of the beginning of the end, that this is something, somewhere it's going to be noted. We have the salary range, 145 to 160. Any questions on that? Okay. And then... And we have to put the numbers in, correct? Well, I think for Tileo, this is my understanding. And this, we'll have to give this, I have sent a draft over to HR. If it goes in the state system to be posted on the mask gov system, through the Tileo system, we may have to make some, I don't know if they have to make some adjustments, but HR will let us know if we have to make some adjustments in order to get it. You know, I don't know if there's limits on that, but we can post this on our website, et cetera. So we may have to coordinate with them on what makes sense for that particular avenue for posting. Yeah, background check, query check. And then just some language, this language at the bottom is, I think we put in all of our posting just to give some understanding of what the commission does as a whole. And also a policy is that we do not discriminate. Right. Do you think it's important when we say drug screen that folks know that it is not, that that does not include marijuana? Or we just leave it the way it is. This is how we've done it. I know, but the laws changed since eight, nine years ago when we first put this together. So I just didn't know if it was important to clarify that or not. You know, I may have to talk to HR and legal about what the best practice is for that, because I'm sure we're not the first agency dealing with that. What if we only said illegal drug screen? Well, it's still illegal federally, so. Yeah. Yeah. But we do not screen for cannabis in our profile. Right. I'm sure that's something that could be specified in the interview. Yeah, I was just gonna say the same thing, Enrique. Is that anybody from applying? Yeah, nobody has to have the drug screen until they get an offer. So it would only be the final candidate. So we could explain that. Right. I'm fine. I just thought of it that remember when we had that discussion early on and we decided not to screen for cannabis. That was a decision we made, which was different than other agencies, right? Right. But even since then the law has expanded. So I'm fine. We're fine. Okay. So it seems like what would need to do seems like we're in pretty good shape here. I would just need to add sort of a sentence introducing this chapter under the law that this is where the position comes from. But if you're comfortable, I can play around with that. That come up with something I think is consistent with what you're all saying here. Any other comments, thoughts, or anything else you want to go over? I think we should go over the strategy for posting so that we can get, as Commissioner Cameron said in the lightest applicant poll. I know that Jill will have some good strategies, but if we could just brainstorm real quickly. Yeah, I would like to, you know, at some point here from HR is to where we think we can get this out. I mean, there's international gaming regulatory groups. There's some of the, you know, the usuals like LinkedIn or Indeed. I mean, just to post this on the state system isn't going to be as broadly as we reach a broad group of candidates. So what I could do is if we're comfortable with the sort of the general framework and make the adjustments, I could also update the commission because we'll have to, maybe we could come up with a proposal for where this is going and how we're posting it within the staff and then address that at a public meeting. Does that make sense? Next Thursday. We have, I think, I know that we're juggling some appointments. Line shifted today to 8 a.m. So, juggling. So, do we need to do that or could you do that just as a one off with each of us, just as a listening exercise? I guess it would be as- Yeah, I could do that. Cause what I'd probably do is, you know, well, let me ask, I want to do this properly if, because I don't want to violate any open meeting law, but if I'm just doing an introductory sentence, I think we generally have a sense of that. And I think, you know, Gail and I have been, you know, we've been working together on this effort. So, if everybody's comfortable that we would, we would make sure that it reflects today's discussion. I don't think that anyone's concerned about the wordsmithing. I am not. I'm happy as well to let you guys decide which, which. It sounds like what I'm hearing is more is better. So the broader we can get it out. So I can check in with the commissioners. I can have Tripti and Jill check in with the commissioners, indicate these are some of our ideas. And then if any commissioner has any other ideas, we can always add it. That's right. What you could do is update us. You could update us that on, you know, next Thursday. And then if somebody says, oh, I thought of another idea, then just add it because it's okay. What would the timeframe be then? Commissioners, that's why I thought it was really important for us to convene today, because we wanted to get this going. Yes, I think quickly we could, we could just, you know, we're adding not only the state, you know, the state, the usual suspects within the state, but broadening that with our gaming publications. So are we talking a four week posting? All right, does that feel right to you? Because of the, it's a big job, what do you think? I guess a month is plenty of time. That sounds right. Yeah. A month is fine. Can I ask, they just apply, how do they apply? Leo helps us, I believe. Right, so they, yeah. Bunny, I don't know how you apply for the job. Yeah. I mean, usually they have an email address. They can submit electronically through to Leo or else, if they, for example, if we would post this on our website, someone can submit a cover letter and a resume. And so a cover letter and a resume, and that's what we expect. Yeah, yeah. And then an email address to email it to say HR, you know? Yeah, yeah. Whatever those mechanics, but that's all we want. That's all we want is a cover letter. Yeah, we want to simplify it, so we don't dissuade people from. I understand. And then, of course, maybe what we could then do is convene an administrative meeting like this, just on process, once we, we can't review the candidates. Well, we can always do it in public, I suppose, but that can be done through a different process. But I think that needs to be discussed, just the process that we want to engage in. So before we get actual, before you start looking, maybe that's a better way of putting it, Karen. Yeah. Any applications will convene a meeting like this so that you can go through what you anticipate for a process and how we're going to make this higher as a team. Yeah. Does that make sense? Eileen, are you in agreement with that kind of, that's what we did, I think, with John Ricke with them, initially with the executive director. So we'll just have another quick convene before anybody starts to open up any of the applications. Then I know Jill is on here. Did you have any thoughts now or did you want to take a little time to think about it? I know Tripti's on a day off today, so she's not available. And I know Derek is on the call as well. Any thoughts regarding recruitment? Correct. Yes, I would add that there are other avenues in addition to what the commissioners mentioned, the partnership and also affinity groups like the Mass Black Lawyers Association, the Hispanic Lawyers Association, Asian American, you know, that sort of thing. So, you know, I would look at that and there are various law enforcement groups, that sort of thing. Yeah, the law enforcement groups too. Everybody looks to IECP for the law enforcement postings. That's the go-to place for jobs. Okay, great. Yeah, so that's where we want to do that crossover. Wider, that's a wider, yeah. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any thoughts too in terms of the law enforcement side? No. Okay, that's it. Nothing. And Jill, you've been following our discussion. Were you comfortable with the edits we made to make sure that we weren't inadvertently creating a barrier? I think those were well thought out and I agree fully. Yes. Okay, excellent. Good. What do you think, Karen? I think this was very helpful. I think I have a draft ready to go and I'll finalize that first sentence and we will begin the process to get this moving. Yeah, I appreciate everybody's input today because, you know, we can't do it separately. And so it's important to go through some of the sometimes tough statutory language to understand because it is not complicated. So, I appreciate today's guidance. And I wish that quite frankly, if we hadn't had such a big bit of business when I first was appointed, this would have been the exercise I would have loved to have done on day one. So thank you so much. It really is helpful. Can I just clarify one thing? Natasha was very helpful and sent me an email just to clarify that the commission does use the Tuleo applicant tracking system for all the job applications, but they don't have an established practice for accepting applications through email. When you post a job to our website, it's a link to the Commonwealth job page in order to drive all applications through the applicant tracking system. And that allows the commission to ensure that we collect consistent information from all candidates and that our record keeping of applications is consistent and compliant with applicable laws and best practices. So thanks Natasha for sending that over. So that's the system. So that's really helpful for the posting for the Massachusetts posting, but for one of the organizations that Jill, which I can't remember mentioned. Yeah, so you can alert them, but then there would be a reference that would in Natasha's phone. Put some back in that system. Yeah. So that's helpful, thanks Natasha. They're still taking hard copies, huh? Wow. Rather than emails. What she's saying is they're not, that they go through Tuleo. But do they email it to that group? Is that what you're saying? Or do they want a hard copy? What powers? Because she said there's no email capability. I guess not an email address that we can use. Right, so you can't email, here she's, hold on, she's got a comment here one second to me. Hold on a second, sorry. Generally we send job alerts out to other organizations. We link, we include a link to our website. So if you sent it to the IACP, there'd be a link to say this is how you reply. Okay, that's fine. But that link goes back into the big system. Not to us directly. So it goes into HRS. That's what, yes. So hopefully that doesn't cause a lot of friction. Yeah. And it doesn't complicate. And it's been working successfully so far. So we, we get a lot of applications. Yeah. Excellent. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner Cameron. Yeah. It'd be interesting if you still had to decide if you wanted ivory or, or a slight green tint for your resume, right? Well, that's, yeah, that's what I'm saying. I think I misunderstood, which was it gets emailed there rather than to us. Because I was saying, wow. So, so I think we're all set to move forward. Madam chair, so I think that, but we do have the executive session and that's 11 o'clock invite. So we would have to. That's okay. So I just want to make sure everybody's comfortable with this item number two on our agenda. We're all set. No further steps. We'll have, we'll take a quick look. You'll get posted and everybody will navigate. We'll reconvene on the next steps of process. So in terms of commissioner updates, that's next on our agenda. Number three, nothing. Nothing. Okay. We'll go. Number four, I don't have any other business I've anticipated it all. So it's morning. We took care of that. In terms of number five, the commission does anticipate that it will meet an executive session in accordance with general laws, chapter 30 a section 21 a three to discuss strategy with respect to litigation as discussion of the subject matter at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the commission. In the public session of the commission, meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session. In order to go into executive session, we do have to have a roll call vote by majority. Is there anyone who wishes to move on that? So moved. Second. Thank you. We'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. And commissioner Stevens. Aye. And I vote five zero. Thank you. Shara for recording that. And as always, thank you for all of your help. So I don't, at this point, we don't need to adjourn because we will adjourn at the conclusion of the executive session.