 Good morning, Austin We are calling to order meeting number 276 of the Massachusetts gaming commission on Thursday September 12th 2019 at 10 a.m. At our offices at 101 Federal Street here in Boston We'll begin with item number two commissioner Stevens, please Good morning, madam chair in front of you have the minutes from the August 15th 2019 Commission meeting I'd move the adoption of the minutes from that meeting again subject any grammatical corrections or other material changes Any discussion? I'm sorry. I did have a question and I should have asked Director Wells and maybe somebody will remember on page 5 when she talks about The the junk at licensing requirements she clarified that At the very end of that page 5 she clarified that when the IEB is referring to junkets They're specifically we were referring to junkets and Macau. I thought it was not Macau In the context of marketing, right? We're not really talking about All slicing the junkets in Macau or whatever that scheme is there We can make that change. Okay any other Suggested edits or questions or comments? Sure, it's not here, but they're excellent. Thank you. Do I have a second to commissioner Stevens motion a second with that correction? All those in favor I opposed for zero. Thank you She can see we're missing today commissioner Cameron Think she's on a lovely golf course at the Ryder Cup the cup in Scotland. So We Hoping that she has good Scotland weather, but we are missing her today Okay administrative update director of contraption. Good morning commissioners. Good morning. A couple things I just wanted to update you on Just as reminder We traditionally release gross gaming revenue for the previous month on the 15th The 15th is a Sunday. So as we follow our press track past practice We'll release that on Monday the 16th. So An FYI The next thing I want to do was to give you an update on some staffing issues some what I call open positions Some of which are open, but are the interviewing process and or background check process? So I'll let you know what they are. We have a senior enforcement counsel that is in the interviewing process In fact, some interviews are happening this morning. We have gaming agents in Metro Boston We have three offers made for people background check and may have an additional position for a backfill on someone We found out may be leaving us. So if there are folks who are interested in being a gaming agent, please keep posted with our website and That may be an opportunity for someone We have a senior systems engineer. We have an offer out with a background check in process We have an IT cloud specialist position We haven't interviewed that one because that one is contingent upon some structural IT changes Which I that's another issue. I may come back to you with an explain with our CEO So just to hold off on that one, please We do have however a senior service desk specialist. We have an offer made to a great individual was in background check right now We expect that to be taken care of relatively soon and also the IEB lost their open-source specialist so we're in the process of Refining that job posting and having that posted you have to get an HRD template to get that done and get that out soon So those are our open positions as they wouldn't have any questions on those in just in case you do I brought our HR person Okay, thank you. The next thing I want to do is recognize Director Vander Linden Who was asked to serve on Singapore has a national council on problem gaming within that national council? They have an international advisory panel and mark has been asked to serve on the international advisory panel Which I think is a tribute to a lot of the work that he and I would say in part the Commission does on responsible gaming Previous members that are people we know Dr. Volberg has been a previous member of that Keith White has been a previous member of that and I think Mark will do a great job and as much as I think we are a leader I also believe that participating in that will benefit us also So I just want to congratulate Mark on that and let you all know about that Yeah, let me just add to that to that point I think as you as you alluded to director the The work that we've done here is recognized and we've talked about this before it's recognized in other places It's really important for the industry for the business model and of course most importantly for the players and I really Think that director Vander Linden could Come at a later time either today or a later Commission meeting and give more details of the trip that he already took and some of the feedback that he what we learned from What they wrestle with in other jurisdictions Singapore is really a premier market in Asia and one that again as you say we could learn from but It's great that that he was asked to participate and then he's able to do that Great. Thank you Just want to note that director Wells Just came in is there any need to clarify that to go over with director Wells The edit on the minutes. We're good. I think we're good. Excellent. Thank you so much and congratulations tomorrow The next item on the agenda is consideration of a petition filed with the Massachusetts gaming Commission relative to the 16 denial of the application for a gaming license submitted by mass gaming and entertainment Before we begin and if you'll indulge me, I would like to explain the process that we will follow today We are here on a procedural legal matter Accordingly we will begin by asking our lawyers to brief us on the law pertaining to reconsideration or reopening of previous agency licensing decisions We will then allow the petitioner to present its position to the Commission We expect that presentation to be limited to the very narrow issues related to Reconsideration that are probably before the Commission today Of course any commissioner may Ask any question or offer any comment during the course of either presentation Because this is a legal matter We will not be opening the floor for public comments today However, regardless of the outcome of today's review There will be an appropriate time for public comment and input on the subject of a gaming establishment in region C in the future To that end, I would like to acknowledge received by the Commission of numerous written comments relative to region C related issues Since these comments were largely not directly related to the narrow issue now before us They have not been included in the public materials for review by the Commission today Again, these materials may be reviewed at the appropriate time in the future and they're very critical to our process Before I continue I'd like to acknowledge the presence of at least we know of one elected official our Mayor retreats who is here from Brockton today. I hope we haven't missed anyone else Thank you mayor for being here today and thank you for your continued interest in this important subject matter and Commitment to ensuring the best possible outcome for the region for the Commonwealth as a whole We'd like to also pause for a moment at this point and remember a person who would undoubtedly have been present here today the late Bill Carpenter The city of Brockton Bill is a great champion for the city of champions a tremendous advocate for the region and as I understand it all right all around good man We'll keep it in front of mine today during these proceedings At the conclusion of the presentations by the Commission's counsel and Mg&E's counsel the Commissioners will discuss the matter in open meeting In vote on the outcome The first question that will consider is whether the Commission has the authority to Reconsider a previous decision relative to the award of a gaming license Secondly If we determine that we do possess that authority we will decide whether there are sufficient grounds in this case Whether they exist to probably exercise that authority to reconsider the Commission 2016 decision As I mentioned we are here today on a petition sub submitted by mass gaming and entertainment For reconsideration of the Commission's prior decision to deny its application for a gaming license It's important to clarify a few points at the outset because this is not uncomplicated If the petition is allowed and the Commission agrees to reconsider its prior decision It does not mean that the gaming license is awarded to mass gaming and Entertainment and they can go ahead and commence construction of a casino in Brockton Instead such a decision would only meet if the Commission agrees to set up a further proceeding in which we would review the prior application again and determine based on the particulars of the submission Including public input whether to award the game gaming a license. Excuse me On the other hand if the Commission denies mass gaming and entertainment's petition today It does not mean that there will never be a casino in Brockton Or elsewhere in Regency As long as the Regency gaming license has not been awarded the Commission may choose to reopen Regency To bids from any interested party including mass gaming entertainment at any time The question as to whether to reopen Regency is not before the Commission today, however Do any of my fellow colleagues have further comments before we turn over to our lawyers? Thank You madam chair just a follow-up on the scope of what we're here for today I did want to clarify there were a number of submissions by MGE's council Particularly the one that came in this week and just from my perspective going forward for our council and for MGE's council To me anything beyond page 5 and that submission is really beyond the scope of what we're talking about today I want to hear What has to do with the question of law? Do we have the authority and should we so I just want to make clear as we go forward to Not only the parties here, but any other parties Anything past page 5 and that submission to me is beyond the scope of why we are here today any further Comments or considerations, I think that Commissioner O'Brien has raised An important point. We did receive a PowerPoint. I believe yesterday from MGE and That is included in our Documents that was publicly posted and I don't believe that any minds have been made up In terms of relevancy, we would have to be convinced Of course as to the how they're relevant to the narrow issue before I'm speaking for myself when I say we I really should only say I would have to be convinced And we will allow you the opportunity to make sure to be heard on all that when it Would when we I believe you'll be going second Okay, and thank you. So I think at this point I'm borrowing any other comments That we will turn now to attorney blue attorney Throwsman That's Catherine blue and Todd Grossman. I understand that we've allocated This is probably the best news for all of us about 20 minutes for each argument I only say that not for our front row, but for the folks behind That we are limiting our presentations In a fair way We thank you for proceeding Thank You madam chair and commissioners this morning the legal department has a brief presentation regarding your discretion Mr. Grossman will be going through the PowerPoint that we put together and it will also be up on the screen Thank you and good morning madam chair and commissioners as miss blue mentioned we did prepare a PowerPoint that will Run through help us run through some of the legal issues Relative to this matter as the chair Reference previously the commission did receive a request for mass gaming and entertainment Seeking a reconsideration of a previous licensing decision Upon receipt the chair asked that the legal department take a look at whether That is an issue that the commission can properly consider So we'll focus our remarks on that the first question as we lay out here then is can the commission Reconsider or reopen a previous decision relative to the award of a gaming license The obvious companion to that question is question number two on the first slide Which is if the commission can reconsider or reopen a previous decision? What are the appropriate grounds upon which to base such a decision? So let's jump right into the first question on the next slide the threshold issue as we mentioned presently before the commission is whether the commission can Reconsider or reopen a previous decision decision relative to the award of a gaming license and let's be specific about what the previous decision was mass gaming and entertainment has requested the commission reconsider its August 11th 2016 decision to deny its application For a gaming license to construct a gaming establishment in Brockton, Massachusetts Their request is in the packet for anyone to take a look at as is the that 2016 decision It is important to note what they have not asked so mass gaming entertainment has not and has never in the past Appealed that decision to a court or otherwise or in any way asserted that the matter was Incorrectly decided as a matter of law or wasn't supported by the facts in the record This is an important distinction as we walk through the present consideration as there are certain timeline issues that come into Play with appeals. There are typically hard and fast timelines That would preclude review of certain matters if they were filed beyond the timelines Whereas with reconsideration, there are different Indicators that we should look at to determine whether it's okay to consider a past decision So on the next slide we get into the actual legal authority This seems to be a well a fairly well-settled area of the law and the established Principle is outlined in the first bullet where we say and there are a number of cases that talk about this in slightly different language But essentially in the absence of express or perceive statutory limitations Administrative agencies possess an inherent power to reconsider their decisions That's exactly the situation. We have before us M. Genie has asked you to reconsider a past decision That being said there are limitations on that power and the power to reconsider must be sparingly used if Administrative decisions are to have resolving force on which persons can rely Meaning that obviously once a decision is made you don't want to just Go around changing decisions that people have come to rely upon unless there's a good reason for it So that is part of the principle that you are allowed to reconsider a decision But you should do so sparingly and thoughtful the exercise to Reopen or not to reopen Rest in the sound discretion of the commission and it's reviewable only for an abuse of discretion So that's the outer limit as to How far courts have said that agencies can go you can't obviously abuse The discretion that you have and we'll go through some of the principles that you'll want to consider in determining How far you are allowed to go But all summed up the courts have said that administrative agencies have broad discretion over procedural matters before them and The courts will defer to an agency's procedural rulings and review them for error of law or abuse of discretion The matter presently before you is such a procedural matter and the jurisprudence tells us that the mass gaming commission has broad Discretion over this as to whether to reopen the matter or not to reopen It's always helpful to take a look at the specific legal authority when it comes to the commission's discretion and We've cited this often and you're likely very familiar with it, but it's helpful to bring up in context like this as well The commission has been granted a very broad discretion itself by statute and it's explicit It starts in chapter 23 K section 1 paragraph 10 says that the power and authority Granted to the commission shall be construed as broadly as necessary for the implementation administration and Enforcement of this chapter so we add these principles on top of the already existing jurisprudence that the courts have said apply to reconsideration It's also helpful in the next two bullet points. We talk about to look at the The vast discretion that the commission has when it comes to the award of a gaming license itself and The statute talks about it in a number of places We've cited a couple of here for your reference and these are important principles to bear in mind when you are Determining whether or not to reopen or reconsider this present matter So the statute says that the commission shall have all powers necessary or convenient to carry out and Effectuate its purposes including but not limited to the power to develop criteria in addition to those outlined in this chapter to assess Which applications for gaming licenses will provide the highest and best value to the Commonwealth and the region in Which a gaming establishment is located? that language particularly the language that Talks about the highest and best value to the Commonwealth and the region Convays a very clear intent by the legislature to grant the commission's broad discretion To determine whether or not to award a gaming license. So essentially you would have to satisfy yourself Based upon all the evidence and the facts before you that any applicant has Satisfied you that they will provide such value The statute goes on and talks about it in one other place. That's worthy of Taking a look at its section 19a where the statute talks about the award of the category one gaming license in particular And it says that gaming licenses shall only be issued to applicants who are qualified under the criteria set forth in the chapter This chapter as determined by the Commission Within any region if the Commission is not convinced that there is an applicant that has both met the eligibility criteria and provided Convincing evidence that the applicant will provide value to the region in which the gaming establishment is Proposed to be located and to the Commonwealth and no gaming license shall be awarded in that region Again, it's helpful to look at the language in this provision that talks about That there there has to be convincing evidence that the applicant will provide value to the region that again indicates a Desire by the the legislature and the governor to provide a broad grant of discretion To the Commission over the award of a gaming license, and that's what we have Before us here today So let's let's take a quick look at the outer limits of that. What does an abuse of discretion actually look like? What does it mean? Well, the language is fairly broad and it the court has said that when reviewing an agency's decision for an abuse of discretion That the court will look to see whether the decision was reasonable Now most of the things we do we hope are reasonable But generally that means that they have to be based upon the record and the facts before you The court has offered some specific guidance though in the context of reconsideration or re-opening As to what it may consider to be the hallmarks of a reasonable decision And it said here in the second paragraph while each agency's decision to reopen a proceeding must be considered in the specific Context of the circumstances presented and the statutory scheme involved Factors generally to be weighed by the agency include the advantages of preserving finality The desire for stability the degree of haste or care and making the first decision Timeliness and the specific equities involved So the 2016 Gaming Commission decision relative to the application of MG&E should be reviewed in the context of these principles It has been suggested at times that there is actually a Statute that may impose an impediment here and that is chapter 23k Section 17g the question is whether that imposes a barrier to your reconsideration at all So let's recall one of the principles We talked about a few slides back where we said that in the absence of express or perceive statutory limitations Administrative agencies possess an inherent power to reconsider their decisions So the question is in this context, what if any is the significance of section 17g? Well, 17g itself says that the Commission shall have full discretion as to whether to issue a license that applicants shall have no legal right or privilege to a gaming license and shall not be entitled to any further review if denied by the Commission the Language that we want to look at closely here is the phrase further review. What does further review mean? Does that mean court review? Does it mean review by the Commission or what exactly? Is this provision of the law getting it and The question being does it impose specifically an express or perceive statutory limitation of the sort that would preclude on its face the Commission from Reconsidering the previous licensing decision as M. G and E has requested It's our position that it does not that that's not what that statute was in design to preclude the Commission itself has never formally a bind on this section But it seems clear to us that section 17g was intended to preclude judicial review Of the award or denial of a gaming license and that it was not intended To prevent the Commission from reviewing its own decision as to whether to award such a license Mr. Grossman I Don't want to interrupt the cadence of your presentation, but it might be helpful if we do address some questions along the way Just to be clear in the city of revere matter the SJC language doesn't Doesn't say address the issue of administrative review it only addresses judicial review and The language in the statute says further review doesn't say judicial review Well, I respect your position Would it be fair to also say it hasn't been resolved with exact clarity that this is restricted to strictly judicial review that's a very fair position to take and reasonable The opinion we offer is ours. It's based upon our understanding of chapter 23k And I think supported by what the SJC said in that revere decision that you've referenced and though the court was not Squarely addressing the statute in the context. We're looking at it here today It did offer some insight as to what the purpose of the statute was and I think it is applicable to To our review and we've added that language here for you and everyone to take a look at But it's really the second piece of the quoted language that I think gets to the clear intent of that particular statute Where the court said this is the second provision that second section 17g Reveals a clear legislative intent to sharply curtail judicial review of commission licensing decisions and thereby Avoid the cost and delays of protracted litigation It seems so this I I think a provision like this is somewhat unique to include in any type of licensing scheme I've never seen one like it. I'm not saying they don't exist anywhere But I've never seen anything quite like it. It seemed that in the development of the gaming law the Legislature and governor were well aware that some of these decisions could be contentious and they wanted to ensure that the decisions didn't get held up in court such that These facilities could never get constructed. So they included this language in 17g But it seems counter to the rest of the jurisprudence on Reconsideration and reopening to apply that restriction to yourself Because of the broad discretion Because of the otherwise broad discretion and as we'll get into I think on the next slide there are certain situations Where you would definitely want to? Reconsider a decision and just to be clear 17g is limited to just the licensing decision that yes And the common office only given the opportunity to award three Four in the end three and then the slide So it really was a provision that was limited in scope just for our licensing decisions I believe so But the suggestion is that finality was Important but at this point your position is that it really is addressing judicial review That's my position. Yes Thank you very much Before we move on to the next slide there was some discussion in the past about whether or not we would need regs If we were going to move forward and reconsider I take it from sort of the discussion in the Papers that have been submitted to us thus far that There doesn't seem to be a lot of dispute that we do not need to do that if we choose to reconsider I just want to clarify that before we go any further into what would entail what would be entailed in a reconsideration. I Don't think you would need regulations per se. You would certainly need to agree upon a procedure of some sorts We of course have an RFA to procedure. I would expect that Any review would be at least somewhat modeled on that. So we do have some infrastructure though Let me stop you. Maybe I didn't I mean make myself clear in terms of just the process for reconsidering Am I to take it from the presentation both of the parties that we do not need any sort of regulations for that No, I don't believe you need this is just a procedural matter There had been conversation about that earlier. I just wanted to make clear for the record We're proceeding on the on that No, I think this is the procedure I We with that and thanks for clarifying. It's also it occurs to me that these decisions are so few that for us to Issue rags around it, you know whether we have four or five because there was one reconsideration or not Would really defeat the purpose in my opinion of the of the regulations I agree. I mean I just took to In my mind come for things that are going to be repeated over and over Yeah, I I think that Commissioner O'Brien was addressing an earlier letter that was issued by the Commission raising that question and it sounds as though We've moved on based on the input from Thank you The only other before we move on you did mention that MGE did not pursue an appeal through the judicial Process in that there were limits. Can you remind me on how many? What the time limit is for for seeking judicial review? Sure, if it's a 30 a decision you typically have 30 days If it's a search or a reclaim 60 days in that case indicated that the more appropriate review process is Thank you Does anybody else want to interrupt like I did? I I actually have a question later on but which I think you already alluded to but Right and we'll reserve our right to ask questions throughout without hopefully disturbing your cadence too much No, it's helpful not to get caught up in a cadence. So, okay, I appreciate it The next slide we talk about the actual grounds for Reconsideration and these are taken from a variety of cases on the subject And through those cases we found that some of the examples of appropriate grounds for an administrative agency to Reconsider a decision include things like and this is not an exclusive or exhaustive list To remedy a fraud or a mistake To address changes in a regulation or a regulatory scheme If governing decisional law has changed there was one instance in which the Supreme Court actually changed a legal Principle upon which a previous decision was based and Even a number of years later Going back to review that decision was appropriate to ensure that it was in conformance with the new law If there's a change to the applicable on the ground facts Or finally to prevent a miscarriage of justice the one that seems most applicable to the present matter would be a change to the applicable on the ground facts will certainly leave it to Mg&e to make that point But of all of them there's been no assertion of any fraud or mistake or anything like that Those are just some of the other reasons that you could review an administrative decision and just to get back to the timelines and The 17g discussion These are the reasons why you don't ever want to box an administrative agency in and say you can never Reconsider a decision because you could find out and there this has happened not in our world But in the administrative law world where you find out even many years later that a decision was based on mistaken Information or someone who perjured themselves or something of that nature So you want to make sure that administrative agencies have the ability to go back and correct that the error or the decision that was based on that faulty information was made and There's a passage here at the end that I think sums that all up this case comes from a sex offender registry board case Which of course is oftentimes largely based on witness testimony and expert testimony and people get classified as sex offenders based upon this testimony and the court said in an instance like that if the evidence the board Substantially relied on in reaching its final classification decision where subsequently demonstrated to be false inaccurate or utterly Unreliable the board would retain the discretion to exercise this inherent authority to reconsider to prevent or mitigate a miscarriage of justice So I think that's just an illustration as to why you don't want hard and fast time frames or things like that Assigned to reconsideration and as we'll see coming up Timeliness and time frames are an important factor to consider but should not be the sole consideration in making a decision Actually, I might stop you before we get into the timeliness because these ties into the question I have so The grounds for reconsideration If I could tie that slide back to two slides ago where you also talk about the factors and specific context and circumstances presented Or to be weighed for the reconsideration The gaming license is clearly one of the most consequential licenses that this commission has made or will make In your opinion does the magnitude of the decision factor into Whether Something like this should be reconsidered. I think you should consider everything that in and of itself Would not be a deciding factor You should not just say that this is such a big decision that we're never going to reconsider it because there should be there might be other Circumstances that would lead you like fraud or mistake or change in the law or some of the other things We just talked about so it's certainly something to consider and that's what the court did say here that you're a decision to reconsider must be considered In the specific context of the circumstances, so I'd say that is a factor But you could also consider the level of scrutiny that went into the decision and how Whether a lot of research went into it and preparation and thoughtfulness and things like that So yes, it is a consideration, but not yeah, it clearly cuts both ways. I was just thinking theoretically if Given the different consequence of the consequential aspect of decisions in your opinion the courts of mind whether those would be Another factor to to to to consider in reconsider For instance, but there's a change of law I could imagine a change of law Would if the Status of the legal landscape at the time we consider an application Might have deterred other applicants from applying So if you only go back and reconsider the initial applicant or applicants and not think about those who may have Been deterred from applying because of the legal landscape and then the legal landscape changes That alone shouldn't be enough to just consider reconsider the initial applicants should it it you know and when in other words factors that Will never know which may have led to a different bidding process Well, I think the answer is that any one factor could be outcome Determinative depending upon what it is and how clear it is And that's really up to the Commission as to whether the circumstances are different from the way They were back when the decision was made as a general matter though I would say you want to look at these things holistically and decide based upon a number of factors What the reasonable outcome here should be but certainly the complexities of the decision Present a bunch of unknowns at the time the decision was made I think you may be alluding to the competitive environment You know which which was complicated and had multi-factors at the time which may be changing. I think if anything that Falls under the category of the on the ground facts over there in the fifth fifth bullet Which again is one of the factors that we should we should take into account We can move on to slide nine which addresses the timeliness issue Question has been raised as to whether there's an express timeline To exercise your inherent authority here. I think we've already really covered that but our Position is that there is not This is distinct from an appeal where there is typically a Hard and fast timeline, but that being said Timing is a factor to be considered and administrative agency decisions as we talked about May be reviewed for an abuse of discretion And as we said for example the 30 a appeals typically have a 30-day deadline. So there are Circumstances where there are hard and fast deadlines, but this St. Paul Fire and marine insurance case was just one example where a court actually did find that an administrative agency had abused its discretion based upon the timeliness issue and This case involved cancellation of an insurance policy. It was a little bit complicated and there was an administrative agency decision where the Holder of the policy had appealed they were denied Shortly thereafter that the final decision was made. They learned that there had been a fraud involved That caused the cancellation of the policy But they never the the policy holder never took any steps to ask for reconsideration then They waited about five years later where there had been criminal charges and other circumstances Circumstances that arose and the actual the DIA did reopen the case The insurance company appealed arguing that they waited too long and the court said yes You waited too long. You knew about this five years ago. You should have raised it then you should have sought reconsideration then And so that's where the finality and the timeliness and all those types of issues Come into play. So there is a limit to Reconsideration and this is a good example The court has said we just added this here at the end that if this would not be the time to do it necessarily But if you wanted to prescribe some kind of time limit, which I don't think would necessarily be advisable because there are so many different Circumstances that it could arise that you could by regulation set a time limit on any reconsiderations of different decisions But we don't have one at the moment certainly. So that doesn't come into play here. And so that's the the end of our presentation happy, of course to take any questions or we can Stand by as we go through Because we could return to you for further clarification. You're not going anywhere. We'll be here Any questions commissioners Devans Okay Thank you Thank you So I understand that MG and E is represented by counsel Goodwin proctor I'd love for you to identify yourselves for our record and you know that you are Being strained so we would love for you to be able to speak clearly into the microphone So that everybody at home can hear you as well You need a little break Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am chair and commissioners David Appel with me is Roberto for Saras my partner from Goodwin Proctor on behalf of Mg and E and on behalf of Rush Street the corporate parent of Mg and E and Neil Bloom who's sitting with us here who is the founder of Rush Street and the co-owner of Rush Street and really the driving force behind Rush Street and behind this project So there's a There's a slogan in the law that if If you agree with everything that the other side says You really should just not open your mouth and sit down But being a lawyer you want to take that yeah, maybe I should ask your client I'm inclined to do that being a lawyer. I think I'm constitutionally incapable of doing that. So Why don't we start with the quickly with the narrow legal question as Framed by the as framed by the my mr. Grossman and miss blue and the commission staff And as applied to this matter can the commission reconsider Mg and E's application for a gaming license and The answer is an unequivocal yes We are we really are a hundred percent in agreement with everything mr. Grossman said on the subject And we're not going to labor that I think there's no no dispute here that the on the very narrow legal question That the commission does have discretion the only dispute that has arisen is an 11th hour dispute in a letter that was submitted on behalf of the The no-dose group Which we received I think the act on Tuesday afternoon, and I believe as part of the commission's packet Where they take the position? or lawyer on behalf of the no-dose group takes the position that that the That the the gaming law specifically chapter 23k 17g which mr. Grossman talked about acts as a Conclusion of some sort on the commission's ability discretion to reconsider What the notice group does not do however in their letter is that they site to 17g But conveniently leave out the first sentence of 17g the first sentence of 17g Makes it clear that quote the commission shall have full discretion as to whether whether to issue a License they focus on the second part and the the the language concerning further review and Interpret that to me that further review means that you yourselves cannot further review But as mr. Grossman pointed out the SJC I think has clearly stated in the city of City of Revere versus mass gaming commission case that further review Specifically within the meaning of 17g means and is limited to judicial review and doesn't in any way affect The broad discretion that is given to the commission by virtue of the first sentence in 17g The notice group does not cite that binding authority from the SJC So what we have here is on one side of the ledger we have we have Ourselves we have the commission staff. We have seven justices of the SJC and we have the law All saying you have discretion to reconsider and on the other side We have a what what frankly is a self-interested party Ignoring the law and taking a different position. I don't think this is really a close call The the next issue just read the first sentence to me in its entirety, please The commission shall have full discretion as to whether to issue a license, right? So that's issuing a license. That's issuing a license, but there's no time limit on that there's no it's it's full discretion with regard to issuing a license and challenging your mind in the process or thinking about it again or As we're suggesting reconsidering an earlier decision So yeah, I don't think it's debated that when the application was before the commission that there was full discretion to To whether or not to grant or deny and then the next sentence is The next sentence is quote applicants shall have no legal right or privilege to a gaming license And Shall not be entitled to any further review if denied by the commission if denied right if denied And so the question really is around The SJC has determined further review at least with respect to judicial review means that they they are interpreting as Judicial review is precluded But of course, they're allowing for certiori in terms of equities, correct? That's that's conceivable and they've left open that possibility But they've made it clear that they are They recognize that the legislature has given broad discretion to the commission And they're not going to interfere with that broad discretion so long as it's exercised in so long as the discretion is not abused So long as it's exercised in reasonable fashion And there's nothing to suggest that reconsideration Under these circumstances would be anything but reason which I think gets us to Uh the next issue which is the appropriate grounds for reconsideration Which is the second question as framed by uh by miss blue and mr. Grossman What are the appropriate grounds upon which the base of decision to reconsider and again here we Agree with the staff, you know as the staff made it clear mr. Grossman made clear in his presentation There are there are really many grounds on which to reconsider And I think some of those grounds a non exclusive list Is on slide eight of the commission's of the commission's present of commission staff's presentation And one of those one of those many grounds is Changed factual circumstances The The the the right to reconsider the grounds for reconsideration Are expressly under the case law not limited to as the notice group again would suggest Mitigating mitigating a miscarriage of trust of justice Again, it's the the the touchstone here the test here is what is reason is What is it when is it reasonable for the for the commission to reconsider? Here, you know at least for today's purposes We're certainly not going to argue that there was a miscarriage of justice in the in the original decision Um, I think it could conceivable to be argued, but that's not our point certainly not here today Here our focus is on change circumstances, which justify reconsideration and the Reasonableness of reconsideration under the circumstances So let's turn to change circumstances Um And we we'd like to we'd like the commission to focus on three change circumstances that have occurred between The denial decision that was made by the commission by a vote on april 28th of 2016 And then formalize as mr. Grossman indicated in a written decision that was issued, I believe on august 11th of 2016 and what has changed since then and we're going to focus on Three changes the first being Uh a change with regard to the status of the mashpee wampanoa um and It's our position that the the mashpee have gone from a position where as of april of 2016 When the commission considered mg and e's petition Initial petition initial application Uh, they had land and trust status. They had broken ground They were They they were on their way to building a casino in taunton Things have changed dramatically to the point where They really have no realistic chance of ever building a casino in regency and we're not going to you know debate whether or not That that's our view But I think that that is the natural inference from the facts That's of what's happened Since april of 2016 now. We know that you know some some commissioners May disagree with us As to how big a role The mashpee played in the decision to deny mg and e's application Um, and we recognize that the commission has concerns separate and apart From the mashpee they had concerns with mg and e's design They had concerns with other aspects of the proposal which we're prepared to respond to But I think there really can be no question That the mashpee and the mashpee status as of that time Was a was a factor Can I stop you for a moment? Sure Is it your position that any change in circumstance on the ground would then allow someone moving for reconsideration? To put additional evidence in on any other topic. So there were multiple reasons in this case That the application was denied in 2016. Is it your position that a change in factual circumstances related to the wampanoag? Would then allow you to present in front of us? Any other change in circumstance that you wanted to put in? Yeah, I I think there's I think there's a materiality test You know and that the the change in circumstances have to be Important changes in circumstances that really Affect the decision or affect the people who would ultimately be affected by the decision So it's you know and obviously the commission In making the determination as to whether or not to reconsider that's not reconsideration in and of itself That's just a decision whether or not they're going to be whether or not they're going to reconsider And to take into account material change circumstances important change circumstances I think is is is valid So are your change in circumstances the wampanoag status or is it beyond that? It's uh, it's it's be it's beyond that. I mean we had that's that's the first of the change circumstances and the you know, I but What I think it's important here is to focus on the fact that You have to remember the context in which the denial was made And when I say that the wampanoag played a role In that denial or their status at the time played a role and we believe a crucial role But we don't have to debate that right now Well, but if your change in circumstances the wampanoag says there's something in the vote or the public record or the Decision that you want to point to that says I am saying that this is part of why you should reconsider Oh, sure. They're on the on the very day that the commission denied Um, genie's application by a four to one vote Uh, then then chair crossby Noted quote that the 800 pound elephant in the room closed quote is the mashpee wampanoag And the status of the mashpee wampanoag I mean the mashpee wampanoag had appeared before the commission Um on march 15th of 2016 They had broken ground on april 5th of 2016 and This commission's consideration of mg and e's application Occurred in late april and the denial was just a little over a shade over three weeks After the mashpee had broken ground There were express discussion about saturation issues concerns about saturation And all of that has disappeared and I would suggest that's a You know, that's a a humongous change in circumstances Um What leads us to the conclusion? That the mashpee really don't have a realistic chance are you know facts some of which not all of which But some of which we've outlined on slide on slide three and these are just facts You know, these are undeniable can't be disputed That shortly after the mashpee broke ground federal judge young here in the federal court in boston Um reverse the earlier decision of interior and noted that the the decision that they'd made To give land and trust status to the to the mashpee was clearly wrong And he said quote with respect to the department of interior This is not a close call close quote he remanded for additional consideration by the department of the interior and the department of the interior In september of this past year came out with an unequivocal position Rejecting an alternative ground that the mashpee had presented for land and trust status Uh the mashpee are appealing that in the courts as you all know it's very difficult to to reverse a decision by a You know by by by any administrative agency and here the mashpee candidly acknowledged in a filing in federal court Here in boston just a little over a week ago That that its current challenge to doi's 2018 decision quote could possibly require additional years of litigation close quote, and I think that's an optimistic statement of any Uh the mashpee also owe their casino partner the ginting corporation from malaysia Uh in excess at this point of four hundred forty million dollars Which uh ginting is prepared to write off and has stated in its in its books that it's it's going to write off Um and it has been widely reported that there is an ongoing extensive federal grand jury investigation Into the financial workings of the mashpee Which has also caused a Or led to a recall election for the mashpee chairman Cedric Cromwell, which is scheduled to take place Later this later this week So all of those facts which again are undeniable suggest that The situation that existed when this commission made its decision With that 800 pound elephant in the room Have changed dramatically and that 800 pound elephant has shrunk to the point of disappearance Can I So just just on that If you say that was a big factor in in in the decision Of of the commission at the time that 800 pound Gorilla Could that have also and we were we were conducting a competitive procurement effectively and soliciting You know anybody who would be interested There was at least one other Proponent before that never got to us in new bedford Who was not able to put together a proposal But be that you know that aside could that have been a factor That prevented other applicants from Coming before us to make that decision. I think theoretically it could it could have been Although all those other applicants I believe Dropped out for express reasons Having to do with their own financial circumstances That really had nothing to do with the with the mashup as expressed as as expressed at the time And I think you're referring to k g urban and and others who would or or or anyone else or that matter Or those that you may not even have known of could have just made a business decision based on The legal landscape at the time as you put it the breaking of ground. There could have been somebody who Still running their numbers and said with This doesn't make sense and that's could have theoretically. I don't think you know empirically That's what occurred. You don't have that evidence, but we will never know Well, I think k g urban. I think submitted a letter to the commission which they Explained either in the letter or in public comments that they were unable to get financing Which was one of the main reasons if not the Exclusive reason why they abandoned their their application I think my point is that We'll never know if there was someone and I you know, I'm not being naive because I suspect that Folks like you must have really would know of your competitors, but I'm just We really will never know if some other um enterprise made a decision not to even Whisper about being an applicant in light of the fact that there was breaking a ground. Well, it's interesting We have the benefit of time and we also have the benefit now of A public comments that were solicited by the commission at the end of last year Where it's been widely reported some of these changed facts regarding the mash Have been widely reported and to the extent that Anyone was interested Or wanted to participate in a bidding process in region region c There have been ample opportunities Expressly in the context of the public comments to raise their hand and say they had such an interest But we've heard nothing Well, but that's far That's far different than actually having an open process with no other bidders Would you say would you agree with that? Um an official rfa an official rfa compared to Open comment period has a legal matter, but I don't think it's a practical matter It is but we have a statutory framework that we have to follow in terms of if we go an issue Any of these licenses some of the competitors are in this room right now And even people who aren't competing for a region c license have submitted letters such as the notos I'm just asking on the question of law That is not asking for public comment is not the equivalent of determining an open bid and whether there are other As a matter of course, that that's certainly true, but you know there there was a public process There were five initial applicants three dropped out very quickly kj urban kj urban dropped out a bit later And all i'm suggesting is that there have been there's been opportunity after opportunity after opportunity for others to At least suggest to the commission that they may be interested And the only thing we've heard is recently from the notos group, which is not interested in competing You know, they're not interested in competing for a category one license I mean they've made clear that They they they want to They're prepared to make an investment of around 300 million dollars For a slots parlor and a horse race track that would require a change in the law They don't they don't want to compete for a category one license They want to Change the the rules in the middle of the game to suit their interests And they're frankly the only ones who've suggested anything In all this time even though, you know, there have been opportunities again many many opportunities for people to say We're we're interested, you know now that the mashpee are no longer a viable candy So in any event just to quickly move just to add on the change circumstances I and i'm not sure if it's in the notos letter or if i've just probably read it in the press But I believe there's legislation pending to and uh to perhaps recognize the tribe as Officially in a way that it would bypass the the doi Um, uh, there there is there is there is legislation. There is legislation that you know that the mashpee has been Pushing in congress. It's gone nowhere. It's gone nowhere in congress We we think that the chance of that legislation going anywhere is Somewhere between zero and none Even you know certainly in the trump administration Um, even with the change in administration There is clear bipartisan opposition to that bill in the senate Which is not going to change even if the democrats state control of the senate So we think that you know the chance of that bill proceeding or making headway are close to zero And even if it does somehow miraculously get through congress I think that there are very serious constitutional concerns having to do with separation of powers With respect to the introduction of that bill in the context of judge young's decision You know, it really is an effort explicitly to Overrule a a decision by a federal judge in in in what is a final decision in an ongoing So I think that you you know, even if they somehow some way years from now Got a bill through congress that would lead to additional years of of litigation Uh, and certainly would not be good for brockton or for anyone else in southeastern massachusetts Or for the commonwealth, uh as a whole Mr. Bloom, did you want to say something I heard you Yes, I wanted to clarify I could in case there's any confusion The other parties who were bidding and considered bidding Uh, we're all doing this Before the decision came out of the department of interior a few months before your meeting on a final decision Uh, so that uh, it wasn't that they were Uh, dissuaded by a decision that that the land was going to be in trust The land was not put in trust the department of interior had spent I think something like four years and had been unable to make any decision in this matter It was only a few months before your final your decision that the department of interior ruled Uh, that the land should go in trust and the other parties who were bidding potentially Dropped out before that decision um Just the last two last two points that i'm going to turn it over to mr. berseris Uh, other changed circumstances, which we also regard as material changed circumstances here Is that in the in the time between the denial and today? A a casino has opened across the massachusetts border Intivered in rhoda island the twin rivers casino And as a result of the opening of that casino Tens of millions of dollars in gaming revenue that would otherwise be coming to massachusetts are now going to rhoda island Also, you know since this decision Both mgm has opened and encore have opened and we would suggest that as a result region c Which is arguably and i think probably empirically The neediest region in the state has been left further behind And with that i will turn it over to mr. berseris Thank you commissioners and taking commissioner o' bryan's Instruction to heart i'm going to speed through many of these slides to skip over many of the slides which The commissioner commissioners believe aren't relevant to today. I think that was slide six on but Talking about region c where mr. Apfel left out. I think a good place to start is Madam chair at the start talked about the grounds to exercise this broad discretion There's great agreement that there's broad discretion. So let's talk about the grounds to exercise that And the commission's mission statement specifically says that the commission is to strive to The greatest possible economic to provide the greatest possible economic development benefits and revenues to the people of the common And what this means to region c in brockton and brockton is one of the few majority minority cities in this state and For years southeast massachusetts has felt that they're the region left behind Springfield has the mgm grant Worcester has announced that you know the red sox are moving the triple-a team there There's a lot of investment in worcester from the colleges there Boston gets the encore and region c is just left behind And brockton needs this and mayor red regus who came up here He would invite, you know some opportunity to address the commission either now or at the end mr. Bloom With me and without me has visited with mayor red regus and before that with mayor carpenter on multiple occasions This is really a partnership And when you talk to mayor red regus and his chief planner Rob may You know they emphasize jobs jobs jobs And as this slide talks there would be 2 000 construction jobs 1800 permanent jobs for brockton This is a city that needs a new high school one of the largest high schools east of the mississippi It needs a new high school We're talking about You know what what would this mean is that we did a new report that we just submitted and innovations report economic study That even with the new circumstances on the ground the twin river casino the mgm the encore That this would provide $55 million and net additional tax revenues to the state annually every year That takes into consideration Cannibalization we have other studies as well. I know that we've talked with staff before About this and this is one of those things that mr. Bloom is looking to put as much as 700 million dollars of his own money into this You know, he wants to get the studies right And he believes in this and he believes in this obviously for himself, but also for the city of brockton Now Um, we also talk about every year this would return 100 million dollars in revenue Annually from road island in connecticut This is money that we're losing every year to the casinos and you know, it's in part one of the reasons why there's this bipartisan Opposition to the mashpee because the senators the democratic senators in road island are strongly opposed to any bill there So, um, you know, the last Point as we talk about the revitalization of brockton and just how much that would mean and on slide five Uh commissioner mcdonnell Superior court judge mcdonnell He voted in favor of the application. It was a four to one decision. He was the lone vote in favor And what's notable is he Wanted to support and grant the license even with the prospect Of the mashpee casino just I think it's 15 miles down the highway in taunton Despite that possibility of the mashpee casino. He's still favored it and I think his words You know bear repeating here So we've got a city of brockton that desperately needs economic development workforce development and the infusion of capital in order to serve its citizens And then we have in the form of rush street A private party not a government entity a private party that is committed to invest almost 700 million dollars into the community With a proven track record And three other urban areas So I go back to the question. Let's look at what a no vote means A no vote means brockton. We're sorry You can't have it Now um again, I invite the commission at the end of these remarks to to hear from mayor vodriguez himself Because he'll tell you just how much this means for brockton, but all of southeast massachusetts And how they will take this to rebuild a school and have jobs now. I take commissioner o bryan's uh Suggestion to heart and we'll skip over these slides, but I think it bears worth mentioning That neil bloom Was a fundamental partner behind the fannyall hall project Behind the copley place project You could see these before and afters in hugely successful other developments niagara falls pittsburgh philadelphia And we have for the commission just the dramatic success of these projects This one is in illinois This one is connectedy. You see the before and after of what the casino could look like in wuster Talked about brockton. This is what it currently looks like. This is the fairgrounds in brockton This is notable is that the only other issue before the mashpee and frankly we all believe the mashpee word as chairman crossby said the 800 pound gorilla 800 pound elephant in the room There were comments about well, I don't love the design. This was the design Um, I think it looks okay, but there were comments that it didn't have this wow factor Now that was the only other real criticism here and We and that the location on the site We have listened to that. We have met with the city planner rob may and mayor rodriguez We have presented this on their recommendations. This is what they want. They want something higher that can be seen from root 24 Because the restaurants are moved closer to belmont street the restaurants are accessible so that people can generate street traffic again Um, mr. Saras, I'd like to ask a question I appreciate The fact that you do want to move ahead on these slides as a matter of straight and strict fairness and Mayor rodriguez, please Know that I say this with great respect How do I reconcile the fact that my fellow commissioners in 2016 made a decision That it did deny awarding the application that you've now come before us to ask for reconsideration How do I reconcile on a fairness factor? that You would like to move ahead not only perhaps on reconsideration Of the application that was before them in 2016, but now Perhaps even an enhanced application Where we haven't afforded A competitor who may right now have been spending a great deal of resources To assess their market in another community that's Perhaps equally needy Or equally well-sighted And they've been investing in their back rooms and in doing the numbers and perhaps Hiring their own consultants And a mayor or an elected official who would also Like to be here to be able to make a case For their application How as a matter of equity the same equities that judge bottsford weighed in her case How do we reconcile that with respect to a reconsideration? Of a denied application So madam chair, I understand and you know, it's a good question But I guess what I'd say is we are here as you said Simply for the decision of whether we have the authority to To reconsider we think that that's You know, that's agreed upon with the parties Perhaps in subsequent Hearings we will discuss that question and set that question up I think we believe very strongly that there are no such other competitors out there There was a year ago and we've been at this now for more than a year We submitted our first letter in june of last year And part of the process that the commission has set up has been Let's have a comment period and we got comments. We got comments from plain ridge casino We got comments from from others But there are no other competitor and as you said, it's a relatively small market We know who they are and there are no others here The no dose group certainly knew how to chime in even though they're not seeking a regency license And I think what you'll hear from the state house from the legislature is they don't want to amend the bill And the inaction in regency has really left open for Um other people like the no dose group to look for something in wear them that isn't regency to seek changes in the legislation For plain ridge to try to seek a change in the legislation. There's this the vacuum there And so it's in a way. It's putting form over substance because In practice, everyone knows it's out there But that is something, you know, there could be another comment period You know for the next meeting to see, you know, you know, if there are any other competitors and in fact chairman prosby actually Uh, I think it was the meeting before he resigned Even suggested because I think he saw that the delay in regency and you know, we would perhaps, you know Go back and look at that transcript because he saw and acknowledged the problems with the delay in regency And he recognized and I think to be clear, uh, we did have a little bit of work To be done earlier after my appointment, but we did Acknowledge right away that your motion for reconsideration And are here today in light of that. So you've prompted the discussion And and and we you know, thank you for that And whether or not, you know, I can't speak for my fellow commissioners how regency would have Um, the discussions would have resumed, but I suspect that no one here is forgetting about the, you know, regency so But I am I am struck by something that Mr. Grossman, you know brought to our attention is that we do have A statutory obligation to think about the highest and best value for the commonwealth and If we were to proceed On one course with you And not do a competitive bit How can I personally is it one of Four here one of five ultimately know that we've we've gotten that So I I think the question is, you know, here we're talking, you know, what are what are the alternatives? Is that there's no other there's no other competitive bit out there? They would have raised their hand. They would have submitted a comment Right. So in a way, it's a false option And you if you reopen it We're talking about another three years and by that time that's three more years Of tiberton and twin river just, you know eating into Now we're not asking for the license today And this is obviously a very public proceeding And if there's anyone else out there with more than half a billion dollars of investment That's interested in this they'll be monitoring. There are competitors in this hearing room Monitoring this this is not a secret So in a way this abstract theoretical possibility Of another bitter is actually going to cost the state You know hundreds of millions of dollars it would lose 55 million dollars a year just in tax revenue Just for the theoretical abstract You know possibility that there's somebody else out there There isn't that's the end if there is They have an opportunity to raise their hand and we see that With plain ridge trying to get a change in legislation no dose group trying to get a change in legislation This vacuum in region c to extend it remains is just going to cause further clamoring for the legislature to act So, you know this your question brings us to really what is our penultimate slide Um, you know, what are the options here? You know do nothing and I don't think anyone would suggest that's an option You know further market research. I mean candidly We can revisit the decision and grant the Motion to reconsider and Have time to do that We can do and and we expect the market research to continue We have done three different studies A very recent study. We just submitted and those studies take into account on for they take into account the growth of twin river and tibetan And mgm, which is really completely, you know, not in the market They take all those things into consideration and and believe it mr. Bloom As much as he wants to help rock and he's not going to get into something where there's market problems And he's every development he's done has been a smashing success. So This is a place where in a way we can trust the market forces You know waiting for the mashbees. That's just not going to happen. That's you know, that's completely ruled out unrealistic just not going to happen Uh, you know change in the current gaming legislation. I mean, that's you know, you know further delay could invite that and we've heard that from legislators who want to expand regency change regency as long as it's a vacuum Um, and the last bullet is really what we're talking about a new competitive process And that again for I think we're sort of inviting that we've been inviting that the last year. This is a very public thing We had public comment. We got hundreds of submissions. A lot of them were repeat submissions, of course But we got submissions from market participants right and so You know in a way This has been a de facto Competitive process informal competitive process. We see the nodos group. We see plain ridge wanting more We now hear Worcester is looking to expand regency So I think de facto informal competitive process has actually been going on And it would just put form over substance to say Oh, you know, we're not going to exercise the discretion because there might be sometime down the road another competitor But again, we don't have to decide that today today. It's just whether we have the authority to do it And it seems like we're in agreement here Well, and then there's the second question should we proceed and should we should we proceed and we believe that you should proceed If the commission wants to receive further comment on that Then we would you know, we could present further on that next month Um, there there are options to You know, I I do think it's a false alternative to look for other market participants but The commission could be creative in a way to do that while moving forward with With mass game, right? This is there's it's a long road to actually granting the license We can keep moving forward And to the extent that there are You know New competitors. There's another change in circumstance and a realistic market participant You know wants to jump in Well, there's you know, that's going to happen before you ultimately grant a license here in any regard There's there's you're not running the risk of granting a license tomorrow I made a few were we'd accept it But um, you're not running the risk of granting a license tomorrow and then two weeks from now You know a big corporation says oh we want it in um, all those big corporations know about this And frankly, um, you know the time that this process will take as we move forward They'll have plenty of opportunity to jump it um You know, we we we talked about all of this And these are some of the things that Mass gaming has already achieved, you know, it and in short it has all the host community agreements It was found suitable already. It was found suitable And you know, I think the bottom line on this is that Brockton wants it and with the host agreements that could the nearby community And when was the host um agreement when in place that It was back in back in 16, but they they have all was in 2016 as well. But when was the vote We actually entered into it before way before the Before the final hearing and I should say if you look at that list of things that we have done It will take years for a new person They have to find a site They have to Have a referendum they have to we entered into community agreements with all of the communities around there We did traffic studies Economic impact studies And just meeting it's interesting because you meet with mayor Rodriguez and his city planner and They know a hulf of real estate in southeast massachusetts. So there was even another parcel I mean, there aren't many parcels of this size that you could say, oh, you know, maybe another city or another company will come up They're just not that many and in fact mayor Rodriguez and you know, and and the city planner may Actually referenced a large piece of property that has already been developed and say You know, what are the other possible options? They're just not there, right? So again It's it's a false hypothetical abstract, but even if you're, you know, to protect against that There's nothing stopping them from raising their hand and jumping that they won't we know they won't there's not the land Um available like this near a highway that would be suitable Um and then uh, that's you know in closing. I know mr. Bloom would just like to address the commission Thank you. Thank you, madam chair commissioners. I just add one other factor here There have been some cities further south Okay, that have looked at this and The economics don't work for them Uh because they're Don't have the population as you go further south towards the water and that's where the other competitors dropped out and This site is a terrific site in Brockton. It's Really just a few minutes right off of the expressway Uh, we're 24 and that's what makes this a a viable project But in all of these discussions We haven't really talked about a Brockton Which is so desperately in need and I think that's a relevant Consideration in this entire discussion. I've been working on this project for five over five years This is an incredible opportunity for Brockton Who has such a need for jobs economic development and additional revenue? I wouldn't be undertaking this project If I thought I was going to have an economic Unsuccessful project We're going to invest as you know about 700 million dollars of which I personally going to be putting up 100 million dollars plus We have a partner who would be doing the same I wouldn't let this go bad For our reputation. I've never had a casino project that hasn't been successful Uh, and as much as I want to do this for Brock that I would not I would not undertake it if I thought it wasn't going to work out So we have gotten a variety of studies in terms of the Viability and we just got a recent one to take into consideration all of the factors that have occurred Over the last few years and we got it and it delivered it to you from the innovation group Which was just completed. I think within the last week And their conclusion is that we get 351 million dollars of annual gaming revenue Plus 55 million net Additional gaming taxes to the common level and of that 351 million 126 million comes from Massachusetts Residents who are gambling in Rhode Island and elsewhere Um, and we'll get additional new Revenue from out-of-state parties We also Got two other studies. They weren't full studies, but they gave us revenue estimates. They were commissioned by our partner Uh, and they were very close to the study that you have Uh, one group gma was less than 5% less revenue and the other group Was Roughly almost 10 10 percent more than the 350. So you've got two other groups have come up with numbers very close to the 350 so We're we're we're convinced that this will be a reasonably successful project and I was here during all of the discussions When the decision was made after this land had been put in trust And really the biggest concern From everybody was the fact that should this commonwealth have two casinos in regency if there was a real chance that the Uh, Indian tribe would have a casino and it was now in trust and they just started construction Um That was a make massive factor in the decision We were not asked to make changes in our proposal. It was mentioned at the final hearing, but we've made changes That would make this a better project. We're happy to do that. We've discussed that with the city And it has a lot more wow factor Uh, but I take great pride in redeveloping projects in distressed areas I've done it before I really feel good about it and actually we want to make a profit But we want to do something that's helpful for the state and the community You could call all the mayors and other representatives of the cities. We've done this and they'd all tell you we did exactly what we were asked for and more Uh, what Brockton gets out of this is a huge huge benefits They get about six million dollars of upfront money plus significant as much as 10 million dollars in traffic mitigation We pay them a minimum of 10 million dollars every year Uh, they get 3,500 direct and indirect jobs 1,800 direct we give a preference to Brockton residents for jobs and to the extent they're not filled by Brockton We have agreed with all the surrounding communities to give them a benefit As far as same arrangements for local vendors give them opportunities And the bottom line is I got to say this Honestly to you all All right, if I don't get to build this this is not going to change my life I was I was a poor kid I got a good education. I was raised by a single mother I got lucky I was a partner at a big law firm that didn't have a dime to my name and started a real estate company And this is America turned out to be a great success This won't change my life but You will have taken away a once in a lifetime opportunity for Brockton And I urge all of you to go to Brockton and see what's going on there and the need for this project It's a hundred a hundred thousand people They have the biggest high school In new england that there's a desperate need It's a minority majority city. They're unemployment rate is higher There's a potential if we do this that the residential Market there would change and people could take the train and rock into Boston Where housing is so much cheaper there that you can't believe it So I've got my heart in doing this for Brockton. I've hung in here for a long time But I will tell you that I wouldn't do it if I was going to lose 700 million or ruin my reputation So we feel this is going to be successful I don't think it's a home run That's going to be a very good investment And I urge you to reconsider our application Madam chair These connected east city officials actually offered to drive here to testify on the mr. Bloom We told them that was not necessary, but I think mayor Rodriguez would like to address the commission So I did establish parameters That are important in terms of fairness and equity It is very uncomfortable for me To stick to my guns in this case because I don't want to be disrespectful I do want to ask my fellow commissioners before we turn to your requests, mr. Braceras that On this narrow threshold issue. Do we have other questions? Are the legal the legal issues that are before us? Do we have other questions because as I said earlier, this is not uncomplicated Given our responsibilities Beyond the narrow statute that you've turned to today I'm the new kid here, but I take very seriously the overall Um obligations we have to the commonwealth to achieve the highest and best value Like mr. Bloom. I want to always do my homework And I want to make sure we make decisions that are most informed I have yet to be convinced That not getting more information on how a decision to go forward on your Or other applications will be the best For the commonwealth I see That there have been studies done And I would like to be able to confirm their accuracy I'm not saying I don't believe they're not accurate That's who I am, but I need to hear from my fellow commissioners because the grounds have to be reasonable And Because of the competing statutory Obligations, I want to make sure we act reasonably and don't abuse our discretion Because that discretion is broad But it is not absolute well, um along along along the lines of what you are what you um articulate, um, and chair, I think, um Mr. Bloom and and and the lawyers present an argument. I believe Towards us reopening or considering reopening the the region There Their their argument relative to the highest and best value that I think Ties to is one of opportunity costs and how much time They it would take To reopen versus, you know, they're seemingly Just reconsider which would also take time immediately Um In in my opinion, uh If that was one if that that that's one one thing for us to um to talk about whether it's today or later time If we stick with a narrow question of the authority, which is what I think we came to do I'm glad that there's agreement between the parties. I I I agree with it I think we do have the broad authority Now whether we want to reconsider or not that really is When the question of the alternative, uh, which is well summarized in your presentation Is is most relevant, uh, would we want to Reopen, uh, um, you know verify confirm those market studies. Um I do have a couple of questions of them But I don't think it's relevant to address them Right now I did read them with interest because I've been tracking that competitive landscape for example So, um, I think this discussion should be around that second question. Um, and I am Let's just say a 60 40 on if we're going to do something we should really consider reopening the The bidding if you will to confirm or not To study in more detail What is available or feasible in that in that region There's a couple of other things that come up and I think you also mentioned them the validity of the vote Which was now You know, it's bordering on four years whether we would require a new vote or or could are able to just you know Use the city is able to use that vote and that post community agreement because it has Changed or not, but that's one thing that Through the opening of the bidding process we could we could confirm I would agree with the chair and commissioners in here in terms of they think it's unanimous that the commission has the authority to reconsider the decision that was made back in 2016 as to the question of whether We should in this case um I think for a number of factors and the timeliness of it Which leads into I think the reasonableness of the request also fundamental fairness and sort of latches argument in terms of Other people who would have been or could be current bidders and while I respect The business acumen and the work that you've done As someone sitting up here with a statutory mandate to get the highest and best value for the commonwealth Saying take my word for it. There's no other bidders just doesn't suffice It needs to be a fair open competitive robust transparent process And so that to me cuts against the reasonableness of doing that While the wampanoag status may have been a factor when you go back and look at the comments And the rationale behind the rejection and denial of the application in 2016 It does not Limit itself to that and there were other concerns about the type of jobs the quality of jobs the pay of jobs The site of the location itself across from the high school that you've been talking about The closed vote in the community of 140 in change Would that in fact be Weighing against reconsideration at this point in terms of fundamental fairness and reasonableness to the community All of those factors To me when you weigh the basis for reconsidering something two years out in this landscape Cut against us reconsidering it at this point A bigger conversation. No one has forgotten regency. We are all fully aware that it is out there And I think that is a conversation for another day, but in terms of what is narrowly before us today I would agree that we have the authority but based on The facts and the decision and the facts before us in terms of change circumstances on the ground I do not think that this is an appropriate move for the commission to make All right, I Had to repeat what some of my colleagues have already shared. I Have certainly Come in agreement on jurisdiction When it comes to grounds for reconsideration, uh, though there are some New facts as they have been pointed out to us I think commissioner brian made a good point in reviewing our record of our decision But At least for me some of those issues Did not weigh on my decision At that point to deny the application Um, some of the other things that were pointed out and you know, we're currently on this slide with respect to The city of brockton those were a lot of the facts that were presented to us At the time of the first application hearing and again to Echo the point if nothing to Stress our concern about this this commission has been well aware That the way the legislation was structured there were could potentially be some challenges for region c And certainly a region That has significant economic needs I would certainly suggest that region b also had some certain Economic needs at the same time um, so I Fully appreciate our authority to reconsider. I just Struggle with the facts As it relates to grounds for reconsideration for reconsidering this application Can we make a few comments? Keep it very narrow and again I'm in an awkward position of Having been requested for The mayor to speak and I would offer the mayor to give his remarks as to my friends from his connectivity I'm I'm not sure where you are. They're not here. They're not here. Yeah, they're they didn't come But I I do want to offer at least two minutes or so may every you've come here And we know that you're in a very particular position right now. So thank you With that said again, it's uh, you've heard from my fellow commissioners on the legal issue We will take your your follow-up before we make our if there's a motion before us Okay, but first let's hear from the average. Yes. Thank you Thank you, madam chair and commissioners, um and welcome Under the circumstances Um You've already know in her at the issues that our city face And it's been it's been brought out here very clearly We have the fourth largest school system in the commonwealth of massachusetts Boston, wister springfield and then brought Which possibly makes us the fourth largest community in massachusetts But yet when you sit down and think about it and it's been brought out here. Boston is boston Wister just got the ball sox Springfield has mgm and what is brought in half? We from the southeastern part of the state feels that massachusetts ends around 128 And the rest of us are left with crumbs we get crumbs And we don't have the ability to do much for ourselves because we often feel that the state doesn't do much to help us out Anytime an opportunity shows up or presents itself For some odd reason The upper part of the state gets it the western part of the state gets it boston gets it and we are left with absolutely nothing We are also the only city implement county The only city there's 26 community 27 communities 26 towns in one city That's where the hospitals are that's where the social service agencies are And lately we've become the catch-all for the issues of homelessness And the issues affecting the opioid crisis in our community We did a a little survey not too long ago We found out that over 70 of the people who are homeless in our city are not from our city They're people that come from the outside From the smaller towns migrating into the city looking for help But what can we do to help as a city official? We're looking at We don't have the resources that the boston's and the wisters in springfields have But we have the issues that come along with cities I have been a supporter of this casino project since its inception Heavily catholic sometimes you look at gambling as but i'm not looking at it because of gambling I'm looking at it because of three issues jobs Resources to our community in creating a destination for rock, which we do not have Uh recently we had a visit from the president of cape bird that came to brockton They had to stay in quincy because we don't have a high-end hotel To host dignitaries in our community We don't have hotels. We don't have restaurants Dignifying of dignities that come into our community So when this opportunity was presented to us we're looking at it as an opportunity to kind of get into the city to look like a city Uh the jobs when you look at it 2000 plus jobs It might not mean much to boston or that are folks sitting here, but to us it means a lot You know, we've got a very diverse community People who barely speak english in our community But those individuals want nothing more than an opportunity To be able to to to work and provide for their families And then when you look at resources to our community We talked about the fact that our high school is over 50 years old And it needs renovations 10 years ago, but we can't afford to do it You know anytime a project comes down the pipeline, you've got opposition from opposition And then the state drops the ball most of the time when it comes time to helping our community out So I ask you what do you got to lose by helping the fourth largest community in massachusetts? What do you have to lose why I mean when they put up the slide as far as uh miscarriage of justice That's what I see happening to boston in the surrounding community There's a severe miscarriage of justice when it comes to when it comes to providing The fourth largest community in massachusetts with resources and opportunities. That's what we're asking for So I implore you Although you're sitting here saying you don't want to reopen this because there probably could be Some additional competition coming down the pipeline, but i'm here basically pulling from my city I'm pulling from my city because no one else is The state isn't helping us. No one else is doing this and if there's individuals who are willing to help us Please do not stand on there on our way and let us become the city that we should be Thank you. Thank you, mr. Mayor. Thank you. Um Madam chair, just three three quick points. I mean, I have others but i'll pass on those I know he's paying for you Well three three quick points one one is Just a reminder. I don't think anyone really needs reminding, but it's important to keep in mind That reconsideration is not the same thing as approval And the homework that you're talking about the checking of the market studies The checking to determine whether or not The market really is Oversaturated or not could all be done in the context of a robust reconsideration process Before determination is made whether or not to approve the reconsideration second second point All of the other alternatives Including opening up a new process Um, which we've already been through But all of those other alternatives I would suggest are unreasonable and unreasonable because they necessarily and inevitably cause Additional delay of at least three years before any shovel is in the ground as compared to reconsideration Which could give 85 million dollars to the commonwealth immediately and shovels would be in the ground Quickly, if not by the end of this year in early 2020, which would make an enormous difference I mean the schenectady project that we flipped through Schenectady schenectady opened in 2017 The rfa process for schenectady started at the exact same time as the rfa process for For region for regency and yet they're now getting Tens hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and Brockton and the southeast region are getting nothing And then finally the last point is before Before making a decision not to reconsider not to have a discussion about reconsideration Um Why not why why not test what what mr. Berserys described as the hypothetical of other competitors By doing what chairman crossby Suggested about a year ago and putting out A an informal solicitation of interest to see if anybody else raises their hand If anybody else is interested and is willing to make the sort of commitment that mr. Bloom has made over the course of the last five years I would think that would be an important factor to consider if no one raises their hand Given enough time to do that That would be an important factor to consider before Determining not to reconsider Mgne's proposal Thank you Are you all set or do you have anything additional to add Catherine or Todd nothing further to add, okay Hello commissioners. Do you have additional questions comments? The only other comment that I would make in terms of the points you just raised is I keep parkening back to our obligation to have an open Competitive process and having sort of a presumptive person who's already further along in they process Who's continuing to go and then inviting bidders to me while it would test the market to some extent I think there are risks To that as well And so while I hear you I would not be inclined to do that on this posture in terms of reconsidering But aren't those the the exact sort of considerations that could be made in the context Of a true reconsideration process Where you're deciding whether or not to approve the project or not I disagree I think that it gives an unfair advantage and doesn't give an open process to anyone who wants to take a look at the region But but I don't see what what the risk is if somebody raises their hand and says, oh, you know, it's a viable alternative Or it's a viable market player. It's not just you know some you know outlier individual Then that could be factored by the commission as to whether to exercise its ability to reconsider We're not suggesting that you know, then no one would get a head start That the the point that we're making is that there are no viable alternatives And if this commission decides that it's you know, not going to even consider this question Then regency may never be tapped Because the prospect of going through another two to three year process here Where a casino would be opened then, you know, two years after that meaning five years before any benefits to regency That will just chill any application And meanwhile, you know the you know, just the economics of it you have tiberton and The other Rhode Island casinos will just build up their market, you know control As the you know first movers in the market I I don't see the downside to actually soliciting interest If nothing's there then no there has to be no worries about a head start If there is someone there, well, then that could be taken into consideration That's a very different posture than asking us to reconsider what was denied in 16 I think you're talking about two very different things Well, I think we're I mean we're just asking you to see whether you have the authority to reconsider I think that was the question put before us and then you know in the Next hearing month two months ahead We can sit consider whether to exercise that authority That you're only here to decide whether you have and then you could decide whether to exercise it And in that time frame there can be a solicitation of interest And if there is you know great interest, then maybe that's taken into account and it's so you know, there are all these other competitors I'm going to stop you for a moment my Understanding and maybe the chair and the other commissioners can clarify I I believe the commission marked up for agenda and is prepared to vote on the question of do we have the authority and if we are choosing to do that today There are grounds sufficient for us to move ahead on the motion for Reconsideration of the 2016 denial Of the application for the license and Regency And that's important from the start Mr. Rosaris I've made it very clear that I inherited this motion for reconsideration And quite frankly it was hard for me to understand whether or not we had the authority so we marked it up very clearly for a narrow narrow legal issue With that said as I stated at the very beginning If we make a decision to move forward with your Motion for reconsideration, we would get the public input If we decide to Not Move forward on your motion for reconsideration We will get that public input But there'd be no process there'd be no How would you get because we're suggesting he remains open. We're suggesting we're suggesting a hybrid Well, you're you you're suggesting a hybrid, but it does take out one factor And that is and that I see I'm not sure how my fellow commissioner see The topic of Regency will um Take into consideration I suspect But I can't guess What the public may be interested in but it could take into consideration factors beside who is interested in actually applying And so you're suggesting if you know would you determine that there's no other Bitter we could move forward on your motion. Am I wrong? Is that what you're no I just I just think all of those Factors can be considered in the in the reconsideration process as to whether to grant a license What we're asking is but it would eliminate A competitive bid It it there but there you know what shouldn't be ignored is that there has been a competitive process There was a long competitive process and only one man was left standing at the end of that process Right, but now as you've pointed out there are changes in the market. There are changes in the legal landscape We don't know One there are other applicants. We are you know, you've made the great great, you know true But that's what and it's fair assumptions So but that's what we're suggesting before deciding not to reconsider But there are certain other assumptions that you've made that I think I would like to get more information on But you could just that in in the reconsideration process You would get that and and with respect there's context of your motion for reconsideration as opposed to a clean slate Right and there there was a comment made that you were you're asked to take our word for it But really not there was a comment period here And through that comment period we saw The other players who solicited comment and there could be another way to do that a more You know a more rigorous solicitation of interest it's the the denial now and The suggestion that there's absolutely no reconsideration could preclude development at all of regency It'll have to go back to the legislature and then there'll be you know, the law will be changed Well, that that this is this is saying it's been five years. Yeah, I don't I that you know You've stated that but I'm not sure if all of us would agree with that so I I am As I will reiterate this is not uncomplicated and I am very appreciative of all the time that's been taken on this subject matter and and your Your motion for reconsideration I do think there's more than just one avenue and I'm you know, I'm hearing that They're the same avenues and I think you're you've distinguished the two that there are more than one as well And mr. Bloom, I very much appreciate your coming in today and and highlighting your commitment to the area Brockton's very very fortunate To have that commitment from you But as I stated, I am very concerned about fairness informed decision-making And I'm not sure if I've heard the grounds today of Sufficiently changed circumstances to warrant the motion for reconsideration at this time But I turn to to you all No, I I agree. I mean I am Prepared to move on both our authority and on the substance of whether or not to move forward on on the motion itself for reconsideration I don't know how Well, I think it's intriguing to split it and ask for additional comments. I I don't really know that we will get substantive You know, I don't really I don't think we will be satisfied as to The who may be out there that could put together a proposal with with enough time I think a lot of the arguments that they make are compelling, but in my mind that the city makes mayor makes Are compelling, but they point to reopening If anything reopening the the bidding process Not this consideration this reconsideration that they that's before us Mr. Stevens, I Make that same Madam chair, I move that the commission find that it has the discretion to reconsider the commission's decision Denying mgne's january 2015 application for a gaming license in regency As is outlined in the presentation made by the commission legal staff And I further move that after review of the material submitted in the presentations made today by both commission staff And council for mgne That sufficient grounds do not exist to support a reconsideration of the commission's decision Denying the mgne's january 2015 application for a gaming license in regency and that we thus do not Move to we do not open for reconsideration second Any further discussion questions? We permitted to make one more comment Um the i'm just picking up on one thing that commissioners and you guys say That um a solicitation of interest doesn't be doesn't need to be narrow in time uh, you could You could open up a process say six months and say The next six months we will leave it open in the next six months For others To raise their hand to show us whether they have an interest have a plan for regency And take that into consideration before foreclosing Reconsideration of an existing plan that could get off the ground The only thing I should respond and I go back to my initial comments is that If this motion does prevail this in no way is precluding this company Continuing to make It's bid for this work. We understand it would just be pursuant to a process It might impractice them Pardon me might impractice You understand legally it does that's one that that is it could it could preclude any I understand I understand But it does mean it becomes a process that Would be different than the one you've envisioned Certainly today Any further discussion from my fellow commissioners? We have a motion that's been seconded before us any further questions Can I make one point? I don't honestly know how long you expect us to be hanging around here for Brock I I don't see why you can't vote that you have the authority to reconsider And then for a period of time see what interest there is To For others to Potentially bid on this and then if you have no interest then you can go back and make your decision But to vote that you are not going to Reopen this under any circumstances Uh, I don't know how I can continue to hang in here on behalf of Brock that I've spent millions of dollars With studies all that you saw them on the list I don't know what you lose if anything by simply saying that you have the right to do it You vote for that and then see what other interests there may be and then revisit our request But to deny our request I think I think you you lose me. I I can't hang around I've been doing this for more than five years. I spent millions of dollars I I very much want to do this for Brock them But I don't know what the commission Or the commonwealth loses by simply taking that intermediate step I do think You know, I was just going to suggest Would would you mind maybe splitting the vote? perhaps That the motion that you made commissioner because I think I think they make There may be a compelling reason or I think there's a compelling argument to Solicit public comment relative to anybody out there Who may be interested for however long it would take I think By necessity a closing the door now would then prompt a later decision Which I I I understand Would necessitate a lengthening of the of the process I'm not inclined to separate them at this point. I don't but if you wanted to make a competing motion Commissioner, you can make a competing motion Well, I would move that we move on the first that that we find that we have the legal authority to to have this to have this decision That we have the legal authority to have a reconsideration I have a question around Rules of order. I mean we have a motion on the floor. I seconded it There's got to be some Both to either approve or defeat that motion. So I hear that I hear commissioner Zaniga has asked for an amendment to your motion The the next rule of procedure would be a vote on his proposed amendment. Is that correct? and and to be clear it was the it's because You would like to be able to separate so that you could move separately on Whether or not there are sufficient grounds today To support Reconsideration of the 2016 application They fit your that that's what you would want to vote on separately I stand corrected. I think the the motion did say about it does speak about sufficient grounds To support the reconsideration And this is why this is a difficult. Well, I'm I'm prepared to to vote on the motion that's being Made in second So I withdraw my second motion So do we have further questions or Discussion on the motion before us Barring none all those in favor I Barring Opposed no, okay, three one Thank you for your time. We have heard you today. We have spent a great deal of time individually This is of course our opportunity to think about this together And we we have appreciated the Input that we've received from our legal advisors From you from The others who have commented So We are hearing you mr. Bloom and we will continue to meet our statutory obligations In a responsive and timely fashion Thank you very much. I think we need a break. Yes I'll say ask Thank you, and thank you for everyone's patience. We are moving on to Item number five on our agenda This is a reconvening. We just broke on our Meeting and we have ombudsman zimba And on core. Thank you. Thank you chair and commissioners Today on core boston harbour is here to present its quarterly report for the second quarter of this year Which ended on june 30th as you know during that period on core boston harbour Had its opening, which will be discussed by on core boston harbour president Bob salvio and on core senior vice president and general counsel jackie grumb Before their presentations, let me turn it over to joe delaney construction project oversight manager Who will give you a very very brief status On the 90 day commitments review that is currently underway joe Thank you As you know at the project opening there were several items that Were outlined in a memo to the commission that were given an additional 90 days to be completed On core is making very good progress in completing these items most of which have been completed at this point We're still waiting on some of the backup documentation on those So they haven't all been fully closed out What we plan on doing is we're going to meet individually with each of the commissioners before The 90 day period is up to go over exact status, you know as we're still getting items in We can't fully close out everything So we want to give an exact status and then we will talk about Any next steps that we need to do If necessary And if there are no questions regarding that i'll turn it over to paul i'm assuming that That approach means that everything is progressing to the point where you think it will be resolved at 90 days yep I could just add one thing there are one or Maybe one or two that are minor construction items that are in process So um, we're just trying to rush to get them done in time But i i think there's a distinction between um what joe is speaking about and the license conditions So the license conditions we're moving forward one of those license conditions is uh for the documentation regarding the commitment close out So we've got a commitment tracker that has thousands of items on it and I think um Some of those items we're we're trying to get before the 90 days But we may need an extension to get some of the paperwork done so that we can demonstrate that we've closed out all of those commitments Yeah, we're look we're down to I think 30 or 40 items that on those that several thousand item lists You know and a few of these things are as simple as The looming and seeding of the the connector over to the uh The gateway center, uh, the you know, it was seeded in june So a lot of weeds grew in had to be reseeded that may not be fully stabilized by that point So that may need a short extension, you know to get the uh signed off from the ever conservation commission something of that effect But you know the work is done But it's just really a lot of dotting eyes and crossing of teas at this point Excellent thank you Great Good afternoon, madam chair and commissioners Bob DiSalvio president of encore boston harbour, and i'm here with jackie crumb our senior vice president general counsel We're pleased to report on the activities Surrounding our opening I have to say from uh, you know from being in the business for quite a while And going through openings, uh, this one really ranked up there as uh, I'd say excellent in terms of execution You know, we we said we wanted flawless. I'm not sure there is such a thing But we played we came pretty close, uh, and that is really a testament To the 5000 team members that have joined us as part of the process And the real significant effort of their team leaders to make sure we get organized And I also it's also a testament to win resorts for Giving us the opportunity To bring those team members on the vast majority of them on on june 3rd For a june 23rd opening and clearly we had almost a thousand people of the 5000 about a thousand came in at least If not years in advance like some of us, but a good solid week before that We had the entire culinary team in and we worked with ever at high school for them to do their training before We even had access to the building and quite honestly Most companies would not put that kind of resource and investment into allowing team members to have a full Three weeks worth of training before we actually opened the doors To the public so we're very thankful that the company gave us the resources to be able to Pull that off and I think that was then reflected in how smooth that the opening did go um, I also want to point out that the um The process of having the casino preview days Was extremely helpful to the process. I know that it's done here in the commonwealth and in some some other Jurisdictions do it, but the way that it's done here. I think Is actually very very well thought out. We were using live money. The games were real At the same time, you know, we were able to raise some good money that jackie It'll talk about and was given to some very worthy nonprofits, but it really gave the team a chance to Get their feet wet work with customers see how it went and then constantly fine-tuning the operation So all in all, um, we think it went extremely well the big news. There were no traffic issues And I know how much time that we spent talking about that preparing for that It really was well executed the time that we spent with law enforcement and other interested parties, I think really paid off and And that story on traffic continues today There, you know as we start to approach our 90 days of being open there have literally been no issues And what we've come to find out is that in the morning we do not collide at all with commuter hour We know that from being on Broadway I can tell you with 100 certainty our customers are not coming at 7 a.m They typically come around 11 a.m We start to see the build and then the real Positive surprise of all of this is that the night business is actually coming in later than what we thought You know, it's really it's really 9 10 o'clock in the evening when we're starting to see the night business build And quite honestly that's well after commuter hour And so while all the planning was terrific the good news is there does not appear to be Really much overlap at all Between our traffic and I know that was one of your concerns. So great news there You know, how are we doing from a business perspective? I will tell you that we are in the ramp up mode as most You know new operations would be at this point in time We have really when we think about it. There's really three Um major segments that we deal with First and foremost we are working very hard to be greater boston's hometown casino And by that I mean we are introducing ourselves to literally thousands of people every week who um as I'm sure you've heard You know the idea of the commonwealth repatriating money that had previously gone out to other jurisdictions That process of repatriation is working. We have folks that are You know right living around our area that used to travel out of state and they're now Starting to enjoy their hometown casino, which is exactly what we hoped would happen On a larger scale. We're starting to get visitors from around the country And to a limited extent now we're actually starting to see some visitors from overseas I know you've heard us talk about that We did not want to rush into The larger International travel program that our company is known for until we could get really our Service levels our dealers and all the folks that work the property up to the level that is required when you're dealing with Significant amount of players that come in from overseas But they're already starting to arrive and so we're starting to see that segment But clearly we're working hard if I had to sum up Really the the I'll call it the you know the really the four business drivers The hotel is in the process of ramping up. We've introduced the hotel product. It's been very well received Um, but we're trying to get our name out there And we're doing so we're we're offering some very good introductory deals through our own website And also through the online travel agencies So you can get a very reasonable room price For what we believe is the top room product and as people are discovering it We're going to see the hotel occupancy start to ramp up the restaurant same story there great restaurants at all price points We've made some adjustments in the food and beverage product Recognizing what in particular the hometown customers are looking for which is some items at lower price point And things that for folks that are not staying in the building very along that they're Used to and comfortable with so we're constantly refining the food Refining the food and beverage offerings to make sure that it matches in particular what the local market looks for The table games business as you've heard about and you've seen when you saw the public numbers announced in july Has been extremely strong and continues to the to grow as of right now We're actually adding a few more tables on the casino floor As we speak But i will tell you the slot business has been soft And so we are continuing to look at that We're looking at everything from the product You know people are are used to a certain type of equipment that they might have seen in other locations We have a brand new slot floor And for those folks that come in and the as the manufacturers change the product Sometimes they look around and it looks different from what they're used to So there's definitely going to be an adjustment cycle for that We're even looking at we're actually going to change mix on on the floor And look at some of the games that we have now seen are more popular and do some potential conversions and swap outs, but That's really from and and as you know our company will announce and talk about numbers on a quarterly basis So as the third quarter starts to wrap up Typically in early november you will see the wind resorts go out with its investor call And we like to limit our specific discussion about numbers To the periods when we have as a public company our typical investment Call so that's where we are from a business perspective. We had some photos. We wanted to share with you Great shots from the opening. As you know, we had a wonderful day. It was a sunday This is a group of team members that joined us as part of the ribbon cutting right out in front. That's a shot of the lines That were built up all the way around the harbor walk the next This was really quite unique when we did the the opening daytime fireworks, which most people had never heard of or thought possible including myself and Gucci really pulled it off. It was really a wonderful event and and folks. I think really enjoyed it and then the next shot is Here's everyone Rushing to get into the front doors right after we open Next is a on the construction schedule No reason to really go through this in detail because we're now open. I did want to report I spoke to peter campo this morning. We now have 91 items left on the punch list And if you recall from peter's previous visits with you that list started out in the thousands And so literally we are Clicking them off one at a time and working our way down to what is really a minimal punch list as far as construction goes We're closing out suffix. There is one outstanding item that we've talked about in previous meetings And i'll address it before you even ask and that is the work on the daycare center That is actually under way in full swing I think the last meeting we had told you that we'd be done around the end of the year And I will tell you that schedule is still holding We are looking to get done in november and then turn it over to abcd who is our operator And then they're looking to get done by the end of the year So so far so good construction is moving along and then also a question that I know you ask is In the interim and abc did agree to help us Um, and so they can assist it for any current employee who might need have needs between now and then They agreed to help them try to place and then they ultimately could move over to the new station landing location So so far so good on the um on the daycare front The third demand. I'm sorry their demand for it. Yeah, um, I think there'll be more demand When we're at station landing because it would tie into the fact of where they could park And you think of the normal sequence how difficult this is for families in the morning To execute that transition and if you could literally drop your son or daughter And then drop your car and then get on a shuttle bus and go All logical. So I think now people are probably Using their existing or local until such time as they can reorganize their morning routine or evening routine We're also working with our employees so that if they do have child care needs and we can rearrange their schedules At this point we're we're being very open to doing that so that they can They can work and make sure their children are taken care of Um the I wanted to skip over to our Kind of an update as we get to the end of our construction On the design phase this particular work is virtually done. So I'll skip right to the summary In this particular work, we had a goal of 18.9 of the work and wound up at 22.7 With almost 15 million dollars worth of work going to minorities women and veteran businesses So we we felt good about exceeding that overall goal as far as the construction contracts We there is still some closeout work on here. So these numbers will change but not by a lot Another great story here on the minority business front. We had a goal of 5 percent And came in at about 5.8 percent on the for the wbe's 5.4 percent was the goal came in at 12.5 percent And the vbe's a goal of 1 percent and came in at 2.8 percent Overall, we had a goal of 11.4 and it looks like we're going to come in about 18.9 The percentages are not the story The story is the number the number is large. It's 263 million dollars worth of work That's a lot of that's a lot of money. And so we feel really good about Exceeding that overall goal is the construction phase and I saw I guess yesterday I know you guys are working on a Some sort of a forum that you're doing as it relates to this particular topic And it's good to see because I think there's been Momentum built up in a number of different fronts And we like to think that our project in some way shape or form has helped Folks have wonderful careers that will last long past our project And so I was happy to see that you've got a session upcoming on On women and diversity and in the construction trades And look forward to that and that really leads me to Our next slide which talks about the actual workforce in construction You know, we had a goal on for minority workers of 15.3 percent and we Came in at 25.7 percent on the female side 6.9 percent And came in at 7.2 percent and on the veteran workforce 3 came in at 5.3 percent and so significant number of folks were able to participate in the process As far as our permanent employment Right now we're at 49 80 49 82 in terms of the active roster We have about 220 in the process that is mainly gaming because I think as you know, we were actually Short at opening in terms of dealers and other casino staff. So we've been hiring them as Fast as we can I also like to acknowledge Both Karen and the licensing team We put in a call for help in terms of trying to get people through the funnel as fast as possible And and I got a big thank you from our casino folks because I think it was all hands on deck in the licensing bureau To continue to try to crank out the number of folks that we need So thank you for the efforts and for the entire licensing team We're getting caught up now so that as we introduce some new table games We'll hopefully have the appropriate staff because it's important for the customers. We're trying to provide games At the at the betting limits that they're looking for And so by us having enough dealers and getting the games open We can have a wider variety of lower limit games So that we can accommodate all levels of customers. It's important for us to be able to do that Um, and then on the my last slide before I turn this over to jackie is on transportation And I want to repeat we've had no traffic issues since opening It's been great. As you know, we have multiple multiple modes working At a point not too long ago. We added our fourth boat into the water shuttle service That has been extremely well received And so we're seeing that working We've got the neighborhood shuttle We have the of course the folks coming in off the tee and then we have the premium park and rides all which are Driving volumes in and out of the out of the Building so the entire traffic plan has worked the garage is smooth Customers have been able to get in and out and so really on all fronts Testament to proper planning and good execution Papa a quick question on the boats. Um, is there a time frame or schedule as to how long you hope to keep using them as Kind of the winter month. We are attempting to go year round Of course that will be weather dependent and you know, sometimes if you get those if you get a really bad ice build up Where it just shuts it down then it shuts it down. It does happen from time to time in the harbor And we'll have to see how our harbor area works right in front of us But we'll wait and see but we're going to keep running them even non days now if it's raining We put the sides down and the operator continues to run So we're going to see what we can do about trying to keep it going As much as possible all year So for those who are taking it on a cold fall day, there's it's it's warm Correct. There's heat and air conditioning and we can either on nice days We leave the sides up and then there's these The the portable pieces we put in to close it up and they can see the oh, they love it It's a changing in changing weather. Yeah, and it's for anyone who hasn't taken the ride I really suggest that it's just great to see greater boston from the harbor and from the water side What time did they run till? 11 just about 11 p.m And that we're 11 and midnight depending on where you're dropping off But that's about it. Then we shut it down and part of that's out of respect for the dock areas Where you don't want late night service, um, you know, we're into a long wharf and out in the seaport And so at some point, you know, whether the operators You know, they want you to shut down for the evening Well, can I go back to the prior slide? Um, will you in the in the upcoming, um, quarterly reports be reporting? Some of the demographics. Yes. Yes. We always plan on after the first Quarter of true operations that would be great Next update the format of this report will obviously change from a construction report to an operations report Much like pen and mgm or doing Yeah, I think I think we've seen some Some early breakdown of folks and where they lie in different positions And I think you guys have actually come up with a table that we'd like to use with our other licensees. So Everybody's kind of speaking the same language and sharing the same data and information that relates to employment So that's great. Thank you. All right. I'll turn it over to jack Uh, just very quickly before I begin an additional thank you to uh, all of your staff for the opening I know there were a lot and and you too I know there were a lot of late nights involved and uh, it was a ton of feedback that we received We've implemented it. It's an ongoing process and they've just been exceptional to work with so thank you Um on the license conditions as you know, we had uh, eight different license conditions In our in our operations certificate and please do report that most of the things have been complete We're still working as we discussed before on the close out of the commitment tracker But actually that'll become that'll transition into a new tracker on the operations side as well The other thing is the angling of the frontline cage facial shots That's in progress and I believe should be done by the end of this week We have one remaining sign to be installed and then on the casino credit department sealing off from the cashiers cage That started today and we do believe that that should be done By the 21st, which would be the 90 day mark following the opening Remind me these were uh conditions from the operation certificate after the test. Yes. Yes Uh Just wanted to report we had uh, we did this last year. Uh, and then this year, um, we did the great, uh A great place to work survey only in las vegas. We did not do it at uncle boston harborson's The majority of our staff were not on board yet But we were really pleased las vegas was certified as a great workplace And um, what really came back through the scores were that our employees were proud to To tell others where they work that they were made to feel welcome appreciated the camaraderie that the company leadership encouraged and they Where our scores were really exceptional was the opportunity to contribute to the local communities Through the company's charitable efforts So we've got a whole bunch of new company initiatives that I know has been presented to you previously But uh, we're going to to the extent that these haven't already been implemented at uncle boston harbour These will all be in place. Um by the end of the year Moving on just a little bit of the work that we've done with nonprofits Over the last few months. We we did try to slow down some of our volunteer hours Opening so we'll definitely see that go back up now that we're we're stabilizing and uh, in particular the last quarter of the year We've got some great volunteer opportunities available This was this was a unique partnership that we did with camp harbour view And it's the first time this camp has only been open to kids within the city of boston To until we partnered with them. And so this was the first year that kids from ever had almost 30 kids from ever We were able to participate in this amazing uh opportunity for underserved children We also did a partnership with boston landmarks orchestra and was also sort of multi-dimensional. We brought them into everett into The full kids only after school summer program And they brought their instruments and musicians played with the kids and taught them how to use various instruments So that was fun for them. We also sponsored a concert at the hatch shell We did the national children's day festival Uh continued our work with veterans at the new england center and home for veterans And we did our annual water chest nut removal where we lost two team members. They fell into the mystic river Fortunately, we were able to retrieve them And they have come out unscathed because the mystic river now is suitable for swimming And we did a back to school shopping spree where we essentially we invited Kids and everett to come in they got to pick out a backpack pick out their Supplies we worked with a lot of our different vendors to get people to donate various supplies and our employees to fill their backpacks getting them ready for school I love the size of the backpacks. They're all huge. Yeah On these tiny little kids. Yes. Jackie the The home at the new england center for an home for veterans. Is that in chelsea? Is that the chelsea? And then uh, we also did we we've been working with summer search and beacon academy students. And so we also did a We did a a volunteer drive for them as well to send to prepare care packages for them And finally this has been sort of a department by department Initiative departments are Have, you know, sort of an hour or two hours where the entire department will get together and they'll Decorate outpatient kits or write letters to soldiers Who are serving abroad and it's it's just been a really great way for the department to get to know each other And do some volunteer activities as part of the the whole thing And finally, um, we are a finalist in the massachusetts economic impact awards, which I believe comes up in the next Week or two. Yeah So we'll we'll report back following that hopefully um We have donated 2.3 million to uh, local charitable organizations this year Um, we have even though we only had the majority of our employees start in june We were able to log to the 2,400 employee volunteer hours year to date I think One of the coolest things we've done this year is as you know Our money from the play dates was all going to be donated on the gaming side was all going to be donated to charity And so we held an event We didn't tell the six charities that we'd selected how much money we'd made and we unveiled it at that event There were also the mayor of moldon and medford were there as well And they were floored. They had no idea that they were going to get this kind of money So that was a a great way to uh To uh move past the play dates. Yeah 111 thousand dollars And and it was funny because we asked the organizations what they thought they were going to get And they said something like well, I thought it was going to be like 10 grand Right And so they were I mean the red red life was unreal Yes, oh, uh, one other thing, um Just to clarify The board of directors of wind resorts has selected with matt maddox's approval and an executive coach for him The person has been They have entered into a contract and matt has started meeting with the executive coach and really seems to like the person So I wanted to give you that feedback as well Thank you for that update Great. Well any other questions? Thank you commissioners that concludes my report Thank you. Thank you very much So commissioners, I think that yeah, I think no, I think the question is now um Do you have the um fortitude uh To do the junk at regs because it may be that we want uh some of the folks who are on court to stay during that And then take a break and go to lunch. Yep. Are you good? Yeah, I do. I do uh, probably have a couple of questions for Um Thank you, bob And thank you for your your report. Thank you very much So So we are jumping now. We're going backwards now to for b council council troese Thank you and director wells Bands All right. Good afternoon, madam chair and commissioners Uh, so director wells director band and I and um director van der linden van der linden should be here Um momentarily we're here to talk to you about the junk at regs, which you discussed a bit at your last meeting Uh, so in your packet you have two draft regulations. You have 205 cmr 134.06 Which is the actual junk at regulation Um, there's also an accompanying memo that just sort of outlines Uh, the purpose of each section, but uh, just some of the key components Excuse me The regulations require all junk at enterprises and representatives to be licensed. They require Our licensees to maintain a monthly junk activity report That would be made available to the iv upon request And they prohibit junk at enterprises and representatives from marketing to individuals on the licensees no marketing lists for the The voluntary self exclusion list So there's also a second regulation in your packet, which is the licensing regulation. That's 134.01 So that regulation just adds the solo Junk at representative that you discussed at your last meeting to the list of persons who would be required To be licensed as a key gaming employee standard. That was the one Type of license that wasn't already accounted for in the regulations So, um, I just want to point out before we get to any questions that We do have one change that we plan to make to the regulations that you have in your packet Just based on some discussions this morning So section 5b talks about the process for how the Junk at enterprises and reps would receive the names of people To which they're not allowed to market. Oh, where's that again? It's on page two right at the bottom Of the of the two page right so So the way it's written right now the process Would be that the junk at enterprises and reps would have to provide their potential marketing lists to the licensees The licensees would go through the list and sort of eliminate anyone who Fits into these categories that we've defined as not being appropriate for marketing and return the lists to Uh, the enterprises or reps, but we intend to change that and have the process be that the licensees will simply provide their Complete no marketing lists to the junk at enterprises and reps and it would include Anyone on the vsc list, but you wouldn't be able to identify from which list people had come So it would just make the process a bit more efficient And I think there were some privacy concerns about doing it that way when we talked about the last time Have those all been resolved Um, yeah, I think that the privacy concerns uh revolved in large part around the voluntary self-exclusion list Um the statute Clearly spells out that that privacy and confidentiality is of utmost importance for For individuals who sign up for the voluntary self-exclusion list I think the the solution that it was drafted by carry and the team Really does an excellent job of protecting The privacy of those on the bsc list because it combines Individuals that would be on that list With all other persons that would not be marketed to so and so that's not a masking It's not a bar that prohibits disclosure. It's just disclosure can be made as long as privacy is maintained Cur, wait Well, especially in effectuating the purpose of signing up for both lists Right. I just heard because of the privacy concerns last time I just want to make sure that what you were proposing is the new approach We had talked about that the last time And there were concerns raised about the privacy protections that are inherent in the voluntary exclusion list So I'm just looking for affirmation that doing it this way is not violating any sort of non disclosure prohibitions on that list So the point is that you raised a good point the disclosure of the name Even though the privacy will be protected is okay under the statute Is that correct? Yeah. Well, I would like the legal to answer that definitively. I believe that you know just in terms of Protecting the identity because it's it's a More than one list that's coming together that you wouldn't be able to determine whether or not this individual is on a no marketing list Whether they're on some other list or whether they're on the voluntary exclusions Right. I'm just looking to make sure that we're not technically violating anything that says you cannot disclose this name I agree if we can work the solution. I think it's a better way to do it I actually like this modification. I had a the concern on on the other way in which If the the whole purpose of signing up for these lists is not to be marketed to or invited to And if if that acts as a barrier because realistically that the operator cannot Know for sure who is on the list and has to go back and forth as to can I talk to this person or not? May may really end up being a real a real barrier. I I I believe and maybe This is this is something that we should certainly put Make a disclosure. Let's say on anybody who's Signing prospectively That the the names are going to be shared only to the extent to effectuate the the problem, which is essentially what this is Happening. I think there was a concern that There's already some people in the list that maybe did not get a notification like that And that could have been you know, we had talked about maybe needing regs I'm just thinking back to the last time we talked about it I guess what I'm saying is I like this approach better than when you've just talked about everything it I just want to make sure and get confirmation that we're not running a fowl of any statutory prohibition on the school Yeah, I'll have to confirm that but uh, I think we could See if there are more questions we could still move forward and confirm that while we're in the process, right? I like this approach as well, and I think notwithstanding the notion that the need for confidentiality I think there's There's a by necessity to execute the program to make sure that people are not marketed to you need to share those names And it's I understand that this is The beginning of the rulemaking process so we would get input on this This particular issue Which it will be really helpful if there are concerns and it gives us an opportunity to just Cross T dot the I On the precise legal question that you raise I presume carry you that's addressed here But it's important to just check that and then Look at the look at input. It's just the beginning of the process correct director wells Did you want to add? You've got competing interests of privacy and then the interests of not marketing to people who have a gambling problem So, you know, this Solution seems to be the best way to address both those concerns With giving the most privacy to the individuals Yep, just a quick question since we're on Section number five just so i'm clear on five a Number four we talk about individuals have been placed on the exclusion list. Those are people we want on the exclusion list for certain reasons But when you get down to be I just want to make sure that those are the people who are reflected in Item number one the gaming licensee is identified as being Not appropriate to receive market Yeah, so I didn't include it in the reg because that information is publicly available But I certainly can put it in if you prefer that it be in the reg as well Yeah, it's a public list. Yeah, you can check it in our website but we could we could so Setting this section aside the way that it would be written now would be that the licensee provides a list including You know, everyone who's outlined here in one through three All in one list to the junket enterprises and reps and we could include even though the information is otherwise available We could also include people on the exclusion list if we prefer it all to be We think it's to be specific. I mean the information is public, but I still would want it to be that specific and it doesn't really become a Requirement of our licensee it becomes a requirement of the junket operator to look to that list Belts and suspenders I I was wondering if the exclusion list incorporates Junkets so it only applies to The requirements of the reg on the exclusion list He's places and owners only on the casino operators not Only on the casino operators. Well, then that would that would then point to commissioner stephens point of Bringing the exclusion list into this right. Well, so The note the the marketing restrictions for the junket enterprises and reps Already they do include that they can't market to anyone on the exclusion list This would just be talking about The list the actual list that they'd be receiving from the licensee. So the restriction is already there It's just how do we want the physical so then okay, but so the commissioner stephens point we might as well include all of them in one place The vse list Obviously the the mgc manages the voluntary self-exclusion list that list is sent out to gaming licensees twice per week Gaming licensees It's explicit that they can't share that list beyond their other other casino properties that They own so they could share it with it a You know encore can share it with their property in las vegas or Plainridge park casino can share it with other pin properties But beyond it's very explicit that that that it ends right there And so it would not allow them to share actively share that list with junkets But I think that the the solution that that is presented It's not sharing the list, but it's the junkets are sharing this and removing the name That's that's all good and they're just like the last point was talking about the exclusion list Not the voluntary self-exclusion just for just for the record, which is a public list It's only has 10 people or so however many And I see no harming just including those 10 people as well as you point out How do folks that Encore exclusively doesn't want on the property. How does any of that information get shared? People who You know have a trespassing order. I mean those aren't people you want Back on the property. How does that information potentially get shared the target operator or license? It could all be a bigger list that that then that then you know Further alleviates the need for the You know the the private issues With the junkets. Yeah It sounds good So we are looking you're looking for a vote today to begin the regulatory process Are there further questions for Kerry or Karen or Bruce or Mark? If you want to add Bruce you're kind of quiet I actually just have A couple of questions just from the industry. Perhaps I can just direct to Bob and Jackie These um Yes, please You know, I'm Bob or Jackie I think Mark's gonna switch I just I just like to understand a little bit more of the of the industry These um with these representatives typically will want to market to people outside of Boston or Massachusetts, it's typically for the outside player What is your sense? It does it even matter? Sure, typically in the industry for a place like ours It would be folks that are outside of the bounds of the local region It would be a little unusual to have a rep went right in your backyard So it could be and they're all over in major cities around The United States. It could be somewhere from Chicago or Miami or wherever and those are folks that typically Traditionally don't want or not interested in working inside a casino operation, but just no customers And so this is very common in the industry As a matter of fact, there are you know reps that rep win in on core in Las Vegas And I'm sure actually many of them have already Said we'd love to do business in Massachusetts But and so we said we would you know try to advance the both the licensing and the promulgate the regs Portion so they could get in business, but it's yes very common in the industry and usually it's outward coming into us And is it typical for a junket representative to Work with more than one operator. Yes Usually not in the same market Right, so they usually they would have a preferred place in a particular jurisdiction is the norm But sometimes multiple it depends Vegas is a little bit different a place like ours, you know, it would be pretty much exclusive to us I would believe Great, thank you Great. Thanks. Excuse me any further questions Comments, do we have a motion for counselor troese Madam chair, I move that the commission approved the small business impact statement for the amendment to 205 cm r 134.01 and the new regulation section 134.06 Licensing and registration of employees vendors junket enterprises and representatives and labor organizations as included in the packet second Others in favor Opposed for sarah catherine. Thank you Madam chair, I further move that the commission approved the version of the amendment to 205 cm r 134.01 and the new regulation 134.06 Licensing and registration of employees vendors junket enterprises and representatives and labor organizations as included in the packet And authorized staff to take all steps necessary to begin the regulation promulgation process Sorry to interrupt. We may want to just modify the motion to uh with the as amended As amended and as as amended at this hearing second All those in favor Opposed five zero Four zero Thank you spirit I I suspect he would he would have been a five zero Thank you. I think that it makes sense now to I'm looking at my my timekeeper janice. Does it make sense now for us to do a break? Could could we just in terms of the afternoon session? I'm going to suggest That when we come back both for Viewers purposes and the commission's readiness purposes that we go to item number nine Which is the responsible research gaming magic report. We have a guest who's traveled That would give her the ability to present leave and then staff what they would fill up the rest of the agenda Sounds good. I I want to extend though an invitation for rachel to stay for the rest of the meeting if you would like Thank you Thank you. I think that makes great sense. I saw that you were here. So thank you very much. Um, We will convene It's 117 to quarter of two. Is that okay? 145 150 150 Sure. Thank you everyone Thank you. Austin. Uh, we are reconvening meeting number 276 of the mass chooses gaming commission Today september 12th And we have skipped ahead on our agenda Uh to item number nine research and responsible gaming director vandalin, please Great. Good afternoon commissioners Before we dive into the agenda item Looking at the massachusetts gaming impact cohort wave three. I just wanted to mention responsible gaming education week Responsible gaming education week is september 16th to 20th The theme this year is watch your time and have a game plan educational activities are being led by our gamesense advisors at At each of the gamesense info centers at all three casinos The mgc's partnered with the mass council and compulsive gambling And each of our licensees to promote the week via their social media platforms in-house signage And have purchased items to be used in gamesense info center educational activities and prizes One of them is a very nifty little watch to commemorate watch your time And the licensees have purchased these and gamesense advisors are distributing them at each of the casinos We at the end of the week typically what we do is we come back and we share some stories about events that happened during the week And um hope we can do that at a future meeting So the the presentation today. I'm joined by dr. Rachel Volver. She's the principal investigator of of this project And she's a professor at umass amherst school of public health and health sciences I'm not going to give too much of an intro because she her powerpoint is excellent But I will say this is this is a unique project And the information that it provides Is incredibly impactful Prevalence studies take a look at a given point of time and can tell you can tell you the condition as it exists I'm not and are very valuable in their own right this particular study a cohort study tracks individuals over the course of time Why is this important because we can we can kind of see how problem gambling how at risk gambling How gambling in general progresses In an individual over the course of time. We can see how problem gambling Progresses we can see how it starts. We can see how people recover from from at risk or problem gambling We can see um, what are the risks and protective factors? Um that are associated in individuals Um to help begin to craft Very specific very targeted prevention and intervention initiatives If we know what's what are contributing factors to problem gambling we can we can address that that that puts its head and shoulders above So the gaming commission now has been Investing in the study for for several years Um and it's it's especially now and with each each wave of this study We get more and more valuable information more and more specific information That can be used by the gaming commission by the department of public health by By other state agencies and by other stakeholders generally To help them better understand this issue So, um, I hope that tees it up and i'm going to just now turn it over to dr Willeberg Thank you very much mark. Good afternoon commissioners madam chair um It's been quite a while since I have presented to The commission I was trying to think when the last time was I think it was the summary Integrative report that we presented in december last year So it's a pleasure to be back in boston and to be appearing before you So as as mark indicated, I'm going to be presenting today on the results of The cohort study, uh, this is going to be looking at Results from the first three waves of data from the cohort We actually have Additional data that we'll be Hoping to present in early 2020 Which will incorporate the next wave wave four of the study And we just came out of the field with wave five of the study A little bit earlier this summer. So, you know, it's The data is piling up and we are Finally being able to sort of push out What some of the really intriguing results are So Since it's been a while and since We have at least Two members of the commission who haven't seen Any of this material before I thought I would go back to basics I want to start by giving you some definitions and and talking through a few key terms It's a It's a very scientific very scientificy Sort of report so I think it's probably helpful to understand what some of the basic Things are that we're trying to understand. I want to give you some background on how the study came to be Give you a Sense of our current status and then move into the findings and implications and future directions So if I'm if I'm talking too fast Please slow me down I've given the front part of this talk a couple of times Both to the commission and then to the public health trust fund So, you know, just slow me down if I'm talking a little too fast So mark indicated in his introduction That there's a difference between What's called a prevalence Study and what is now what we are looking at today, which is a cohort study Um the The surveys that we're doing under the social and economic impacts of Gamleon massachusetts study Are what are called repeat cross sectional studies? So they take snapshots at given points in time But they are not the same people In in the sample. So it's not the same people in each snapshot The the value of a cohort study is when you're following the same people over A period of time, they're all exposed to The same issue of importance that that you want to understand What is affecting their behavior? So in this case We are collecting Information from the same people As they all experience the introduction of casino gambling in massachusetts And the reason that's important is because it gives you much greater power to Make causal attributions. So you can actually Because you can see how their behavior changes over time. You can look at something That precedes a change in their behavior and be much more confident that that change in their behavior Is attributable to something that is behind them in time So Mark asked me when we were getting ready. He said are you going to have your bathtubs? And I was like, oh, yes, absolutely I have to have my bathtubs um prevalence of problem gambling is something that Generally everyone's concerned about when you are talking about expansion of gambling and from From the point of view of public health and from epidemiology specifically That that prevalence rate it tells you like what the level of the water is in your bathtub What it doesn't tell you is anything about What is affecting the that level of water? So if you think about You know sort of who's in the water at any one time You want to when you're developing services for those people It's important to know if it's the same people that are in that bathtub at all times Or if there's some kind of exchange such that you know, there's people who have had gambling problems But not for very long or you know, if it's all the same people in the bathtub those are people who have chronic unremitting gambling problems and Usually are considered by treatment professionals to be much more complicated cases and much more expensive to treat so the the The water level is your prevalence rate But then your incidence rate is the number of new cases or the new people that are flowing into your bathtub And then there's ways. There's a couple of different ways that Water can leave the bathtub. So there's different plugs that you can pull one is uh, if um, if people Leave the population because they've died or if they've moved out of the jurisdiction. They're no longer part of your prevalence rate another is if And this is the second bathtub because I couldn't find a bathtub that did both of these in one picture but another way for people to leave the the The group that are That are creating your prevalence rate is if they recover from a gambling problem So that's sort of like evaporation out of your bathtub and then there's also the issue of particularly people who've had a gambling problem in the past are more vulnerable to developing a problem again, and so We're very interested in the rate of recurrence You know people who had a gambling problem at time one Didn't have a gambling problem at time two, but then have a gambling problem at time three Again, these are very important pieces of information to know in terms of crafting effective and efficient interventions Another term that I like to make sure people understand or at least try to help them understand Is the term etiology And etiology is a specific area of public health research It's concerned with the causation of a particular condition and in this case How problem gambling develops and fluctuates over time What etiology lets us do is identify the risk factors and the protective factors and these in in some cases these factors can Can be modified so you can modify people's behavior You can change things in their environment such that You you prevent the their progression from Being engaged in gambling to experience in gambling harm to then having a gambling problem So moving on into a little bit of background there were Quite a number of small-scale cohort studies of gambling and problem gambling that were conducted in the 1990s for the most part And they all had some serious limitations Because of their size they tended to have very small numbers of problem gamblers enrolled in them Which limited the robustness of the findings because they were there were just a few people that were sort of in the study for a while And they were all quite circumscribed in terms of time in other words they went from anywhere from two to five years And what that means is that You might have Good information for those people, but there's not very many of them And you have good information For those people, but it's for a very short period of time So you don't know what sort of the longer stretch of their experience might be The limitations of those early studies led to the launch of a number of much larger-scale cohort studies in four countries And this slide shows you some details about those four studies I'm not going to spend very much time on this I just wanted to give you an indication that two of the studies The two in in canada in alberta and in ontario were all headed up By rob williams who's our Co-principal investigator on the on the cohort here and the swedish australian and New zealand study were all studies that i was involved in So when rob and i Were putting our proposal together to do the cohort study here in massachusetts We pretty much had a A bird's-eye view of all the mistakes and all the challenges that these other studies had run into And we were able to build I think a much better mousetrap as a result of That experience with those with those large-scale studies earlier on so Moving on to massachusetts specifically It may surprise all of you to know that there actually have been no major cohort studies of gambling in the united states Massachusetts is the very first one Another unique feature of the cohort study in massachusetts is that The change in gambling availability While this study is underway is going to be much greater than for any of the other cohort studies that were conducted internationally because of the introduction of casinos during the time that we are interviewing people That's a that's a very significant change in the gambling landscape And it's occurring right in the middle of when we are involved with these people The as I indicated just a minute ago Because we sort of knew all the challenges That these other studies had been Had encountered we were able to address those limitations But we were also able to be much more efficient Because we were building on what had been found in these previous studies So we didn't have to ask every single question. We really were able to target in And then because the cohort was actually Built from People who had participated in our baseline general population survey for sigma We actually are very synergistic across the two studies And we've been able to use data from sigma to triangulate on what we see happening with the cohort study And we've been able to take data from magic to understand what we're seeing In the in the impact study So the massachusetts gambling impact cohort study or magic Which some people hate that name, but We actually we We liked it ourselves and then it turned out that all of our participants in the study really like it as well They they feel They've really taken Great pleasure in being a member of the cohort Every time we go out for data collection I I get many many phone calls and and phone messages From people in the cohort like where's my questionnaire and aren't you supposed to be out in the field again? So they're they're very um They're very invested in the study But the study actually has Three specific goals. So the first one is to examine incidents Uh, and again, that's the the water flowing into the bathtub Um, the population that or the proportion of the population that newly develops a condition over a specified period of time And the reason this is important to understand is because new cases and relapsing cases require a different mix of services to be effective The second goal of the cohort study is to examine Stability and transitions associated with problem gambling and I'm going to be able to talk a little bit about that Today and then the the third and largest goal is to develop a full ideological model Of problem gambling in massachusetts to identify the risk and protective factors and to enable the development of Strategies to You know to promote those protective factors and to Minimize the risks So this very busy little slide Um tells you something about our current status Uh, as I indicated wave one, uh, was actually our baseline general population survey The full sample of 9,578 We selected About half of those people for to be invited to Join the cohort. Um, we selected 100 percent of five High-risk strata and then a third of our remaining respondents were from From our low-risk one low-risk stratum Wave two is actually where we established the cohort We went out in the field in uh, 2015 And completed data collection later that year And the established cohort Was 3139 people Dr. Wilbur, uh, you mentioned that this is the first major Coverage study first goal. How do you define Major Is it in terms of size is in yeah in terms of size So is it a percentage of Because I saw for instance, australia had 15 000 and now we have three that can you just just yeah, so, um Because that's a great statistic. So we just want to be clear sure so A major cohort study would be a a sample that included several thousand people or more In the case of australia They interviewed 15 000 people for their baseline survey Similar to the almost 10 000 that we had in our baseline survey And and then they followed up with about 7 000 of those people who actually stayed in the cohort for a number of years So we had about a A third right of ours So yeah, so we had about two-thirds of the people in our We had about two-thirds of the size of the australian baseline survey in our baseline survey We had about a half of the size of the australian cohort in our cohort I would just note that There was In your remarks, there were five major studies which you were all involved in Which is this is also a major one not just because of the size But also the other elements that you described, which is the major introduction of casinos Is one that is really unique It is yeah that we are going to straddle that we straddle between because we started with the baseline Before which is the first wave Before the introduction of casinos and we're now going to see the effects of those introductions And another another piece that's unique. It's that it's the first cohort altogether small or major In the united states when it comes to gambling and that's also very important Okay, well There has not been any other cohort studies on gambling in the united states Yeah, and and one of the things that that I Wasn't planning to go on into a lot of detail, but one of the reasons that we're able to To Have a cohort of this size Um and still be able to get all of the value out of the exercise that we that we hope for is that We we Purposely oversampled For people who would be at risk for developing a problem one of the challenges of those earlier cohort studies was that They all tried in different ways to over recruit problem people who would develop a gambling problem But uh in australia for example the the difficulty or the one of the challenges that they ran into was they had to have a very large baseline general population survey The strategy that they took to over recruit for people who might develop a gambling problem Was they over recruited in geographic areas where there were a lot of gaming machines And it turned out that that was not a great strategy for getting people into the cohort who would transition So they ended up having far fewer transitions Looked so to be able to look at people changing is one of the things that gives a study of like this power And so we over recruit for people that we thought would change And in fact we have been Successful in doing that Mark did you have something No, okay, so um wave three Was fielded a year after wave two We were able to get about two-thirds of the folks who joined us in wave two to Complete the the questionnaire in wave three We then had hiatus So wave four actually went out in 2018 But we Have been Able to maintain the size of the cohort pretty well at about 2400 We just were talking with the data collection folks about wave five they're getting ready to deliver wave five to us and they told us that that They're pretty sure that we're going to be just over 2400 For the sample size for wave five and we have in our Deliverables for fiscal year 20 going out with wave six Next next spring So I would have to say that The Massachusetts cohort study at this point With what with all of the work that we have planned through fiscal year 2020 Is already the longest lasting cohort study that has been carried out internationally Um, I also would like to just mention that I never in a million years expected that we would start a cohort study in massachusetts Prior to the opening of all of the casinos And it was the commission's vision. I think To have this cohort start Very very early in the process of introducing casino gambling to massachusetts That I think in the end Is going to serve all of us in the commonwealth Because it really is going to be A a unique in the world opportunity to understand the impacts of an introduction of this scale Of gambling Into a population Actually just wanted to add to that it's It wasn't really the wisdom of the commission although you're all very wise It was it was outlined in statutes section 71 specifically Specifically called for Right there there absolutely was it was decided that That it was a requirement in section 71 That called for the research agenda But the commission made a very wise decision to say if we really want to understand what is the What is the impact of the casino casinos on the progression of gambling and problem gambling so we can really understand etiology Let's launch it now And so that's that's uh, we launched it very early compared to to perhaps when we would have necessarily needed to So kudos to everybody Okay, um, I'm not going to spend uh very much time on this slide Because everybody hates Waiting except a very small number of people in the biostatistics department of my of my school I think I was going to tell you to cut this slide to cut this slide Yeah, we only we only use waiting to adjust the data In in calculating the incidence rate so that we can be more confident About generalizing to the adult population of massachusetts We don't use waiting for anything else In this study, but we do use waiting for all of our other population studies. So Unfortunately, we do have to acknowledge how we wait and So that other researchers can um delve into the data eventually and um and understand what we did and see If they agree with it So this slide Lays out on the left hand side. This tells you the um strata that we sampled from From the baseline general population survey So we took 100 of the people in the baseline survey who were problem gamblers 100 of the at-risk gamblers 100 of the people who spent um a hundred dollars a month 100 dollars a month or more on gambling and those who gambled weekly and then we had a small group of people military veterans who had served since Since 9-11 who had very high rates of problem gambling in the baseline general population survey And we felt that it was important to include them as a specific stratum And then all of the other participants in the baseline survey um the next column over gives you the sample size and then the The achieved cohort those are the people that we actually were able to complete interviews with in wave two And um, you can see that there's somewhat different response rates by group, but overall We recruited uh 65 of the people that we selected from our from our baseline survey Great. So is this strata all mutually exclusive or can somebody be Somebody who gambles weekly and spends let's say 1200 Yeah, so basically, um We took all the problem gamblers first And then we took all the at-risk gamblers because they were mutually exclusive groups And then anybody who gambled A hundred dollars a month or more, but wasn't an at-risk gambler or a problem gambler You start to add them up. It's a cumulative add up. Yeah. Yeah. So then by the time you get down to military service 9-11 or 2001 after those are the those are the Veterans that were in the sample, but who had not been caught in any of the in any one of the top Is that what you were? That's exactly that. Yeah, what I was asking Um, we use a multimodal strategy In uh data collection for wave one and wave two Well with wave two when we recruited the the cohort itself We used the same approach that we had used with the baseline general population survey Initially inviting people to participate online a self-administered online questionnaire And then if they ignored us we sent them a self-administered hard copy questionnaire a couple of times And then if they still ignored us if we had a telephone number for them, which we did for about 80 percent of the people We actually called them and tried to complete an interview by phone We've changed a little bit for wave three and And more recent waves We initially invite them to complete online Then if they don't complete online within a period of time We invite them to where we send them a self-administered questionnaire And then if they still haven't responded We we don't try to complete an interview by phone anymore But we do some telephone prompting to try and get people to complete one or the other of the two ways And part of the reason for that is It's less expensive because you don't have to train telephone interviewers and do telephone interviews But also it it means that All of the data for wave three and forward is self-administered So there's no there's there's much less likely likelihood of social desirability biasing the the data So I presume it's effective the prompt Yes, yeah, we we usually get We get a lot of people who um who want to complete the self-administered questionnaire And so when we send out the you know the initial letter, you know, it's the next wave of magic, you know Here's your online Your your your your code to you know to get in and complete online And that's when I get all of these phone calls from the participants saying I don't want to complete online. I I'm waiting for my questionnaire Like when is the questionnaire coming out? And so I have to have And we have quite a few conversations with folks who're like I don't have a computer and I'm I can't I can't do this online Like yes, we know we'll be sending out the you know the questionnaire comes about Four weeks after the initial letter So another very important piece of Stuff that we have to do is we have to make sure that the same people are participating in the in the study And we do a lot of work with each wave To match participants across waves And so what what this slide shows you is that across the the various waves We've got We actually had a small number of people About 44 in who who joined the cohort in wave two when we started it But had actually not been the same person At that address who had completed our interview For the baseline survey But they completed our interview for the cohort study. So we're like okay now you're in the cohort Now we're going to keep you They just For whatever reason, I mean, you know, maybe somebody had moved out of the household and and somebody said oh I'll finish this and didn't pay attention to the instructions that this had to be the person who had completed last time So we take a lot of Of Time to Basically match people across Gender age Race ethnicity And level of education Those are the four variables that we use to match participants across waves So you can see what that does is it affects the size of the group that we have available for analysis But we're in wave three. We're at about 2450 people who Have participated with us in all three of the waves And then this is this is a a nice little map that I like to sort of use to demonstrate that This is where the addresses that we that we know the cohort Participants live at There's a star on the map for each of the addresses that we mail advanced letters to And um, I like the fact that it looks pretty representative of the distribution of the population of massachusetts Including just a couple of people out there on the islands So now actually getting into some data for you. Um I have my glasses because I want to make sure I read this properly So this first uh slide here on the results Um Shows changes in gambling participation across the three waves of the study to date And I just want to clarify for you that this is what's called a pair-wise comparison So this means You're looking at the same the same people Answering the same questions at three different points in time Okay, it's and and again, it's um It's it's much more powerful in in understanding change If it's the same people answering the same question and you're comparing their behavior in wave one To their to that same person's behavior in wave two to that same person's behavior in wave three So this is unweighted data. We're not attempting to represent the general population We're looking at the 2428 people who completed all three waves And completed all of enough of the questions in all three waves for us to include them in this in this graphic um the The analysis of the results um shows that from wave two to wait I'm sorry from wave one to wave two There was a significant increase in the uh proportion of people in the cohort Who participated in daily lottery games? And a significant increase in people who uh bet on sports And those who uh wagered privately amongst themselves However, the magnitude of these changes was uh quite small In looking at wave two to wave three there were significant increases in uh daily lottery participation and in online gambling participation However, both of these changes um Were the result not of actual changes in behavior but Changes they were they were due to what we thought were very minor changes in how we asked the questions And in fact people are quite sensitive to exactly how you answer the questions So it gave us real insight into how careful we have to be In every wave of the survey or every wave of the study to Not change the questions if we want to be able to compare to previous waves So It's not that we're not going to change any questions It's just we have to be very careful when we change questions and not try to attribute any change to Um you know to their behavior when we know that we changed the wording of that question In the in the case of daily lottery We felt it was important to be as up to date as possible So we we actually added just the the names of two new Monitor games that had come online since the beginning of the study And that led to that increase in daily lottery play. It was it was that small Of a change So we just it it made us very vigilant about Looking at changes that we see across waves and making sure that we can confidently attribute Any changes that we see To you know their actual behavior or reporting of their behavior Rather than you know something that we've done to try to Be you know more reflective of what the current situation looks like The oh the casino. Oh, yes That's right. That was the most important finding So You'll see on the the sort of third set of bars that There was a significant decrease and it's a statistically significant decrease in the Proportion of Participants in the study who had gambled at an out-of-state casino in the past year So it went from about 33 32 percent in wave one it was 33 percent in wave one 32 percent in wave two and then it went down to 22 percent in wave three Wave three the data were collected After the opening of the slot parlor and so this finding Triangulates very well with information that we have from the plain plain ridge park casino cohort patron survey, excuse me Where we were able to ascertain that A very significant number of the people who were patronizing Plain Ridge Park casino in that first year Actually would have spent their money gambling at an out-of-state casino if plain ridge park had not opened So this was very nice corroborating evidence of The success in recapturing Massachusetts gambling dollars that were leaving massachusetts and going elsewhere Thank you more. This is the stuff that I like So So this this is unweighted data, but it is Basically Looking at the numbers of people in the cohort who had status At wave one and then their status at wave two and then the the table below is their status at wave two Followed by their status at wave three This is just a basically An accounting table to tell you where every every one of the three thousand one hundred and thirty nine people fell From wave one to wave two and then wave two to wave three More significant is the incidence and remission table here tables and We've presented these data both in terms of unweighted data Which is the actual cohort and then the weighted data to give you an idea of how many people In the state of massachusetts are represented by the The number of people in each of the rows so My slides are very small Oh, that's very helpful. Thank you So you can see that the The incidence rate is Is calculated by the number of people who go from no not being a problem gambler in wave one to being a problem gambler in wave two divided by the The all the people that are um that were not problem gamblers in wave one But and and and so you add the 24 93 and the 60 together. That's your denominator Um similarly with the weighted um you add The no no and the no yes together and that's your denominator for The people who are incident or going from not being a problem gambler in wave one to being a problem gambler in wave two Below that um is what's called The way you calculate the remission rate Is these are the people who were problem gamblers in wave one And looking at their status in wave two. So you've got And and this is interesting and and important to know you've got about Half of the people who were problem gamblers in wave one Transitioning to not being a problem gambler in wave two But maybe at risk Yeah, um and probably are at a little bit of heightened risk because they were problem gamblers at wave one So we know they had been problem gamblers in the past, but then they weren't at that level When we interviewed them in uh in in 2015 Um and then down below that is the same table, but for the um the cohort from wave two to wave three So you've got an incidence rate. That's um quite a bit lower And we know that there were some There were some uh recruitment differences between the the recruitment For the baseline survey we we basically told people it was a health and recreation survey because we didn't want to over recruit People who were enthusiastic gamblers if you tell people it's a gambling survey Get a lot of gamblers So by the time we recruited them into the cohort we were being much more honest or straightforward and They they knew from the baseline that it was a gambling survey Um and then they agreed to let us contact them again and when we did We told them it was a gambling study And so we think we actually over recruited gamblers and and that probably contributed To the somewhat higher incidence rate that we have from wave one to wave two From wave two to wave three the incidence Is about it's quite a bit lower But it's now reflective of um what's actually going on with this cohort And it's also very similar in terms of uh the other cohort studies that um that we've been involved with and are aware of This is about um it's certainly within the ballpark of what we've seen in other jurisdictions But again, uh the remission rate is is still Quite high that is about Almost half of the people Who were problem gamblers in wave two? Then transitioned to not being a problem gambler in wave three So moving on into the issue of stability and change Um, this is very similar to what we've seen in other jurisdictions Recreational gamblers tend to stay recreational gamblers. They're they're not very likely to Um to change they're the least likely group to change Um non gamblers about half of them remained in that category across all three waves But a little over half of them actually moved into Um a higher category so Most of them moved into being recreational gamblers But a few actually moved into being at risk for problem gamblers um Problem and pathological gamblers about a third of them remained in that category across the three waves So there's quite a bit of movement and then at-risk gamblers were the most likely to change status Across the three waves of the study to this point Then there was another uh very interesting group of people who moved in and out of risk categories across waves So for some people they experienced a decrease in risk category Um, you know certainly uh the proportion of problem gamblers the the two-thirds of problem gamblers who moved out of problem gambling Many of them moved to an at-risk category But quite a few of them also moved even further down to uh recreational gambling There were also individuals who experienced an increase in risk category. So they moved up the continuum And then there was this very interesting group of people who like went back and forth So they either went up and then came down or they You know went down and then came back up And each of these groups, you know is is interesting for a variety of reasons But in in in the current instance It's what's most interesting is the amount of movement because Typically or conventionally problem gambling has been viewed as a chronic and unremitting disorder And to see this amount of movement is really pretty surprising And and and has implications for you know the kinds of Messaging that you might want to do to people but also Has implications for the kinds of services that you might want to roll out Yes, yeah, I I think that that's that's really where the rubber It's the road is that is trying to take this data and Interpret it in a way that We can we can use it. We can begin to think about resource allocation We can think about messaging if we think about game sense Understanding that at-risk and problem gamblers are actually moving around To me gives me a lot of hope that There there are things that we can do within that environment that will hopefully Assist people to to move down that continuum to be to be recreational gamblers And if recreational gamblers in the most stable group there We it reinforces the idea that we need to provide a different type of information that hopefully maintains this group as recreational gamblers was there Maybe you'll get to this later or in the details of the report but Is there something to discern between The differences between those that decrease in risk category versus those that increase In the risk category. I know you talk about protective factors or risk factors Our next report. That's the next report. That's the next report coming in So we're currently analyzing all of these data plus wave four Yep And what we're going to do with that next report is we're going to look specifically at the risk and protective factors That is what are the variables that That you see in wave one that or see in wave one that predict Status in wave two. What are the variables that you see in wave two that predict status in wave three? And basically, you know, what are the variables that predict an increase in In severity versus what are the variables that predict a decrease in severity? So we'll have four we'll have one two three We one two two to three three we'll have three transitions for each of the members of the cohort Which will give us a lot more statistical power And then with each New wave of the of the study Will be able to add to that That power of the analysis And and then the other piece that's going to come in With wave five, but then even more with wave six is we will be post casino introduction And then we'll be able to go back and take a look at are there differences in what predicts transitions From before the casinos opened to after the casinos opened and that again will be a very unique and one of its kind Areas to explore So i'm not going to spend any time Sorry timing is for these waves. So when we Call somebody a recreational gambler or non gambler. What's the The time frame in terms of amount of time for the stability so for the for for one year So every so each one is really a year. Yes, okay All right, so let me try and get through this discussion fairly expeditiously So we did see small increases in gambling participation But the changes that we saw in wave two to from wave two to three I think I I I went through this we're actually Due to changes in how the questions were phrased It is notable That out of state gambling decreased significantly. I'm sorry out of state casino gambling. I need to be specific about that Decrease significantly and we do think it Triangulates well with other data that we have from sigma To Suggest that the slot parlor Does seem to have been successful in recapturing Massachusetts residents who had been gambling it out of state casinos The problem gambling uh incidence rate from wave one to wave two Was quite high as I indicated but is due to Is subject to some methodological limitations And the incidence rate at from wave two to three declined And remission was quite substantial. So So the the equal size of those groups Is very interesting in terms of the implications for services Okay, so the second set of bullets here I wanted to just draw your attention to one of the differences between The the The amount of transitioning that we've that we've seen in the massachusetts cohort Is much higher than Transitions that were observed in some of the other studies For for example in victoria Only four percent of the Participants in that cohort study actually Transitioned down over the course of their entire study And almost six percent transitioned up Whereas in In the massachusetts study just even in the first three waves. So the victoria study was five waves In massachusetts, we already have 13 percent of Our Participants who've transitioned down. We have 15 percent who've transitioned up And 13 percent who've moved at both wave two and wave three So that's just a Significantly higher Rate of movement and we think what it reflects is our Success in recruiting people who are at high risk for movement We think the sampling strategy that we use is actually six been successful What what about the possibility that the one in victoria at least or some of the others Were mature gaming markets that it's precisely the introduction of casinos that may be created Creating these volatility. Well, but this is all of this transitions Are before anything except the slot parlor In in massachusetts, that's right, but you're right the the results in victoria Are very much reflective of a of a very mature Gaming market with very widely distributed gaming machines in particular in many many different venues We saw a very different mix of Incident and remitting cases in sweden for example Most of the new cases in sweden in in the swedish cohort study were new cases They they hadn't had a previous history of gambling problems. So it wasn't There were far fewer people who remitted In sweden. So there's different things that are going on in different jurisdictions and different gaming markets So Again, it's not just a question of You know sort of identifying transitions, but there's a number of possible reasons for the differences Again, the maturity of the gaming market There's also a good possibility that some of the Differences may be due to how problem gambling was measured in the different studies We use the the PPGM in massachusetts In most of the other studies. They use the canadian problem gambling index It may also be due to the somewhat longer Inter-assessment period from wave one to wave two Some of you may recall that we had to wait until the referendum to to The next wave we had to wait until the referendum Was decided in 2014 before We could go ahead with data collection on the cohort So there was that was the first wave or the second wave well So that was wave two when we when we established the cohort We had to wait until after we knew there were going to be casinos in massachusetts to proceed with the study We did And then I think I'm leaning more and more towards this last one, which is The cohort in massachusetts Just has a much higher proportion of individuals who were selected to be at high risk for transitioning And that's exactly what we're seeing I'm I'm struck by that ishikasa. I'm not an academic Or scientist and I I would have thought that you would skew to make sure you're neutral in those things But you're saying that you actually recruited for that And I and I thought I understood at the beginning, but maybe I didn't so Now are you suggesting that that Does that impact you negatively on your conclusions or does it just support your theory? No, it it actually provides us with much more Information ultimately about what is what what is causing those transitions to happen And that in in the end gives you much greater power. Yeah, you had mentioned at the beginning. So that's why So that's why we knew we wanted to over Recruit people who would transition and we anticipated that they would transition towards problem gambling Um, but we we now are also seeing that there's a lot more movement back and forth Um, then we had actually and you get you get Information that will benefit you in a different way even though you can't do direct comparisons to other studies that have been done around the world Yeah, I mean we always want to look at what else, you know at at what other research Studies of a similar kind you found because you want to sort of benchmark exactly But the massachusetts study is is really unique in a lot of ways and and I really have to pay tribute to all of the people that that conducted those earlier cohort studies because You know, I I participated in in several of them and and rob williams contributed Obviously to to the other two But we were really able to strengthen The design of of what we proposed in massachusetts Based on what had been learned in those other jurisdictions richer data richer and more powerful. Yeah my recollection of the over sampling of At risk and problem gambling on on wave two Was really driven and this is what I recall but you know, you're being more nuanced is driven by the fact that the incidents Um is really small compared to the rest of the population So we if we if we simply sample according to the population And we lose people which we anticipated that that the cohort does because eventually time works against you in the cohort We risk losing the key people that we want to study To the point of not being able to ascertain much from them So I I think yours is a lot more nuanced in terms of talking about the volatility of this risk group But at least from my perspective, it was also practical in terms of The longevity of the cohort itself That we needed to keep it richer initially because we are prone to lose people gamblers at risk and non gamblers along the way Thank you. Okay. Um, let's see. What have I got here? Oh, so this is something that that Many people find surprising I think But there's good research across all of the addictive disorders alcohol illicit drugs And gambling now Which suggests that these disorders actually are much less stable Than had historically been thought There are many many alcoholics and and and drug users In the general population who You know remit for a while or who stopped using for a while And similarly there are people who you know become concerned about their gambling and decide to stop gambling for a while Or decide to cut back on their gambling for a while So The The chronic They either need my glasses or bigger slides Right, so um The the interesting thing about um The one of the interesting things about this instability is that there are people in the population who are chronic Not in the sense that they have Long-standing unremitting problems of although there are some that are like that But in the sense that they are at a higher risk At any given point in time for a relapse Okay, so once you've had a gambling problem You know you are more vulnerable for having a gambling problem in the future Similarly to if you you know overcome an alcohol problem Um, you know in circumstances in your life change You're you're more vulnerable to going back to that Pattern of behavior than someone who had never been there in the first place And then it's also important to understand that um That that there that people who are experiencing addiction tend not to have unremitting manifestations That is they go back and forth sometimes quite often And to the extent that you can Keep them from you know moving towards the more severe end of the spectrum and keep them sort of on the safe side of the spectrum You know that is a long-term contribution to their personal health, but also to their community's health There isn't you can can you um, are you for example thinking about the progression down from not From casual gamblers to risk at risk gamblers Or from right so to to increasing severity So yeah, I mean the the whole notion of effective prevention is to keep people from Moving along the continuum from sliding down to that severe end So, you know the more you can keep people on this side The better off ultimately you are I'm not going to spend too much time on the rest of this slide. It more speaks to sort of the the psychiatric or the the clinical Issues related to disordered gambling in the dsm 5 I do want to talk briefly about the limitations Any good scholar has to acknowledge that every study has its limitations We don't think that we were successful in accounting for all of the sampling biases When we developed the waiting scheme But that becomes less and less of an issue because now there's only one thing that we're using the waiting for which is the incidence rate Um individuals who were recruited into the cohort were aware by the time they were recruited into the cohort Um that it was a gambling study and so their decision to participate may have been shaped by the fact that they Like to gamble or were interested in gambling Uh the there is research to show that Um people who are asked to reflect on a regular basis about their behavior may actually um Improve their behavior just because they're reflecting on it And also some social desirability to show improvement to the researchers Although we've tried to address that by Making sure that um all of our respondents or all of our participants now Are self-administering the questionnaire. So there's no interviewer bias That's inter interfering there And then um observed changes over time are sensitive to the reliability of the measurement instrument meaning you know any any sort of Device that you use to measure Something you know comes with some sort of confidence interval around it And some instruments are more precise than others We use the most precise instrument we can but it is still an instrument and it still has measurement error So my last few slides here Are in terms of implications for prevention and treatment I indicated with my bathtub slides. I think that a stable prevalence rate over time can be due to at least to to two of One of two possibilities Either you've got ongoing unremitting problem gamblers in the same individuals Or you've got a rate of new cases that's roughly equal to the rate of Cases that are remitting and that seems to be the situation that we have in massachusetts The second one or both Well, we don't know yet about the whether the prevalence rate is stable or not But we do know that we've got a rate of new cases that's roughly equal to the rate of remitting cases Both in wave one to two and wave two to three Those two scenarios have very different implications If if problem gambling is chronic and new cases are uncommon Then you really want to devote resources to treatment to get those people to To get them some help and to get them to And particularly to get them to help in terms of remitting However, if incidents and recovery or remission are both high um, you want a greater emphasis on Prevention as well as treatment and recovery support because you've got You know these new cases who may not have who may have just developed a new vulnerability Or you've got these remitting cases that clearly have some vulnerability But if you can put some measures in place you can prevent them from relapsing in the future Can I ask a question here to the following? There has been other studies and researchers Notably the division of addiction who talks about These arc of adaptability or adaptation Um In general what could we Say would be a Reasonable time frame To either be Past or account for that adaptation if any Relative to these scenarios that you point out here Yeah, so the the adaptation hypothesis basically says that once you've exposed the population to a new creator of disease That the vulnerable sectors of the population will you know experience the disorder and then will either Recover And then and be immune or immunized or they'll Leave the population because they die or they move out Um, and then you'll be left with an immunized population Uh, which you know, which means the prevalence rate Come down I think You know that it that's a um It's an interesting sort of thing to try and interlace with what we're finding from the cohort study Because you're talking about a population level um Set of changes the the adaptation theory really speaks about the population Whereas the cohort study is really looking at individual trajectories And so those individual trajectories have to like be built up You know to be a population you you really have to build up a lot of those trajectories Which is what we're trying to do. I think once um, we have an idea in You know in 2020 The plan is to do a very large follow-up general baseline general population survey And what we'll what we'll know Once we have those data is whether the prevalence rate has changed And then what we'll be able to do is we'll be able to put the pre-post Um snapshots together with what we've learned about what's going on at the individual level To understand what's contributing to any what what contributed to the change in prevalence in the follow-up population survey And that will give us an idea of whether we've had adaptation Or whether we can expect adaptation in massachusetts after the introduction of the casinos What what is there anything you care to speculate any one of these? I mean I have a my own armchair analysis, but As to whether we might be seeing a lot of variability and then of course the recommendation is to do both not just um treatment but prevention and treatment If we are having if we are seeing um high rates of um ins and outs Yeah, we're not I or is it too early to tell for now with three waves of data It's a little it's a little too early to tell if we're seeing um You know long term remission and that would be adaptation Or if these people are going to continue to move in and out That's again, that's going to be an important piece of information for us to have In terms of the services that we might want to Yeah, I wasn't talking about adaptation anymore. I was just thinking about the high rates of in and out Leading us to then take away that we we would need a greater emphasis on both prevention as well as treatment Yeah, I think the the the piece of analysis that we're just starting now with way four is to try to understand The similarities and differences between people who move a lot versus people who don't Because that's going to tell us if there's like a uh sort of a A stratum of people who just are problem gamblers all the way along That's your chronic unremitting cases and and We know that there's probably some of them in the cohort, but we don't know how big the fraction is um And and then there's going to be like, you know a bunch of movers And then there's going to be the people who don't change and each of those strata is going to be interesting and And and informative in terms of the kinds of services that people in that stratum might best um Benefit from But you need to know the size of the strata Okay, it's end up time. Yeah, I'm mark if you can help us these are Very critical slides, but I almost feel as though We're staying tuned a little bit going forward. So I'd like for you to be able to Complete your thinking But also be aware of we've got a few more items for today's I think we've only got a couple more slides here actually To me it's it's it's really interesting we have to to recognize that recreational gamblers are an incredibly stable group um, and um It's supported by the data in this study and um, I think that that does uh support um Support the prevention efforts both inside the casino and outside of the casino The uh instability of specifically at risk and problem gamblers Is also really interesting and as rachel's pointing out the next wave will put a little bit more We'll put a lot more detail to it what it does To me For me And what I'm hoping it will do for the broader community of treatment providers Is to say uh is to to help kind of Orient them to the nature of of problem gambling In the population in specifically massachusetts That that that people do move around a lot and that's that's the more common thing than uncommon thing and um, and the the other thing that I I found really interesting in this is that um individuals who Are problem gamblers or at-risk gamblers tend not to stop gambling all together They tend to to continue to gamble Hopefully at a at a lower at a lower risk or recreational that to me has a lot of treatment implications and understanding that While your treatment goals are a personal choice That it's it's common for people to want to try if you're a problem gambler that abstinence is not always The true path towards recovery that you can you can be in recovery you can be in remission Without saying that that you need to abstain altogether. Again, it's it's a personal choice where whether or not you abstain This was an interesting finding in our voluntary self exclusion evaluation as well where Individuals at enrollment in voluntary self exclusion Were asked about what what their goal was in terms of gambling individuals that approached it Saying that they wish to gamble more moderately But continue to gamble Generally had better outcomes than individuals who who expressed a desire to abstain altogether Yeah, and that that was the the last slide that I sort of wanted to draw your attention to is um this issue of Um not People people are not likely to stop gambling even though they're experiencing harm or having problems controlling their gambling They really want to be able to continue with something that they at one point really enjoyed Um, but it's gotten it's gotten very difficult and challenging for them And so the the whole notion that um in order to uh get treatment or to Um get help for a gambling problem Many many treatment professionals will as they do with with alcohol disorders will basically say You know Abstinence should be your goal. Abstinence is the best goal And if you're not going to be absent, then I'm you know, then I can't provide treatment um And this whole notion that people can continue to gambles But at a lower level and sort of putting the other parts of their lives back together Really is Uh consistent with um with the data that we have here that people are very unlikely to transition to being non gamblers from from any other part of the continuum and so we have to figure out how to Basically get to people where they're at in terms of what they want to do with their gambling and This is very consistent with this idea that Controlled gambling or moderate gambling is not incompatible with recovery from a problem And so we can I I would love to conclude that I would also just say this study is contributing to a much larger Study and group of studies of cohorts where we're we're in Our research teams in the process of developing low-risk gambling guidelines Which really is it's at the heart of what we're trying to do through through game sense as well of providing guidance Nudging people in the direction that if they're going to gamble to do so in in a way That is No harm to the individual to the family Or it's a harm reduction. I mean we will settle for harm reduction if that's what works incrementally, right? So if you want any more information feel free to visit our website or Send me a question Send me an email You know where to find me on the road Thank you Excellent. Do we have any questions for dr. Volberg at this time? Mr. Stevens, thank you. No, thank you very much indeed. Thank you so much Rachel. All right. Thank you mark There's been a request for a short short break And we should take it so that we can finish up our Our business 10 minutes. So that puts us at 325 and we will reconvene in order if that unless there's somebody with a competing schedule That would put uh item seven item seven That will be next up Excellent Thank you. Thank you again. We are calling reconvening meeting number 276 and Again, we are going slightly out of order We are now turning to item seven on the agenda and licensee policies on switching jack And commissioner Stevens. I know that you're been looking at this with Bruce and berks Um, thank you, madam chairman. I'll hand it over to the experts, but this is An interesting issue that has popped up I certainly appreciate the the value team that has Confronted this and worked with our gaming agents And to work with our licensees to to raise their awareness of it, but Overall again, this is a report. There's no vote expected But I think this is just a reminder of how we're trying to help protect some vulnerable patrons as well as Meet some of our statutory obligations to collect outstanding obligations as we may come across them as the statue was pretty clear about but I'll hand it over to the experts Madam chair commissioners This topic is is really kind of unique to massachusetts because nobody else really collects money from the department of revenue At least that i'm aware of so we didn't have this new jersey when we were there It's a unique topic for here I brought in field manager berkane and the supervisor ballerina Because they were kind of pioneers in this for us in this state to to find some of these inconsistencies The jackmots. I'll let them explain. I will steal their thunder But just to give you a little heads up last month alone. We accounted for the department of revenue $223,000 But that that's including everybody who is checked right now necessarily people might be Not necessarily switching jackpots, but that's a dollar amount For the three casinos or for only one And is that unpaid taxes or child support or do we know the breakdown? Do we know what the brand is under an intercept, right? Do we know what the breakdown is? We could probably get that for you, but I don't have this I was just curious if you had it. Yeah, they delivered to us as intercept All right. Good afternoon as bruce said we're joined today by val trend of filova supervising gaming agent at the on-court property and the ppc property that we call boston harbour metro zone Little background about this is uh, I think val took it upon herself. So little kudos to val last february march to start reviewing The accounting paperwork eye track reports and she would uh Reference when where what time a jackpot was hit a taxable one And then she would go to the cctv review room And just watch the process And on rare occasion she was noticing that patrons who won the jackpot would get up and allow another person to sit down in their place So today we have a power point Program for you to show Some of the highlights of this we have a memorandum we want to talk about So I think in the package is the memo A lot of the memo information is shown in the power point. So i'm just going to Rese through some of the highlights of the memo for us The investigation enforcement bureau gaming agent division has been focusing its attention On the surveillance of uh switching the practice involving the slot machine players switching seats After a jackpot of 1200 or more with a friend accomplice or other player This act is illegal and hinders the enforcement Of chapter 23 k and our regulation 205 cm or 133 Because it would allow a player Who may be on the self exclusion list Or a player who may owe monies to department of revenue To improperly collect winnings Recently as I said mga mgc gaming agents have reviewed surveillance footage at plain ridge mgm and on core And we uh can go over that In the power point The impact on vsc's individuals place themselves on the Massachusetts gaming commission voluntary self exclusion Exclusion list to do so in an effort to mitigate the negative impact gaming may have on that individual Pursuant to 23 k During any period of voluntary exclusion the person shall not collect any winnings recover any losses Resulting from gaming activity at a gaming establishment Additionally our regulation the voluntary self exclusion reg of 133 A gaming licensee shall not pay any win winnings derive from gaming to an individual who's prohibited from gaming In a gaming establishment by placing their name on that list A vsc agreement could be circumvented if a vsc patron simply switch seats with another person To accept the winnings the impact on the massachusetts department of revenue To expand the gaming act of 2011 specifically spelled out An mgl 23 k the need for jackpot winners in excess of $1,200 to be reviewed and ascertain whether the winner owes any pass child support money or Ascertain whether the winner may owe pet Pass due tax liability to the commonwealth So now we'll get into some of the slides All right slot machine jackpot process What we ask the casinos to do with all the internal controls is Based on what the internal controls say for that section is to give us what they How they want to do it we call it out in the field the submission For instance, what level do you want to have a shift manager involved with the slot machine jackpot perhaps A $50,000 one What surveillance is responsibility? When the security officer helped witness the payment for example But last but not least is the 138 56 absolutely states that you must pay the winning patron the money Additionally a slot machines are programmed as we know to lock out at $1,200 so a person Trying to circumvent the system But by switching if Anything was hit for $1,400 A voucher or Tito would not be printed out the machine locks out which means there's going to be interaction with casino staff Meaning that you're going to probably have to be checked through the Department of revenue system and surveillance would probably be in looking at that jackpot also And lastly as I discussed a little bit the 23 k section 51 Is the department of revenue requirement that a person who may oh Past child support or may oh past tax liabilities is checked in the system before they pay out the jackpot Gaming agent review led by val and all the other gaming agents We've been reviewing jackpot switches from march of 2019 Through august of 2019 During this time, we've looked at over 2,200 individual videos of jackpot payments at all three casinos The gaming agents have found 14 Incidences of successfully switching seats And after we began to alert the casinos and talk about this process The casino surveillance departments have halted another 29 Attempted switches With respect to the 14 were we able to do anything? pardon With respect to the 14 incidents Were we able to to correct them? I mean yes, uh once we notified a compliance office about this They worked towards finding those patrons If the other patron we can track these surveillance, perhaps they have a player's card. They were playing somewhere else we uh would put something in that the Players file the next time they come in they would be talked about Asked to uh, you know make make good with the arrangement But a person who receives it unjustly It would be interviewed next time they came in if uh a note is in their file Can um maybe we I was going to get to this one might as well get to this now. Um, is it ever Cost to marry you can do people who are friends or married come together and they Know that they're going to be switching seats because that's what they like to do. They'll pull their money and they Take turns is there ever a situation if you will where a switch could be Uh justified let's say Well, we we look at that. Um Sometimes you're wondering where the the money is coming from if there's a husband or wife situation Perhaps the husband's pushing the button and then the wife pushes the button. I mean good sense could mean that They're a family, so um They're trying their luck together if you will A little bit Yeah, I I think we use common sense when it comes to something like that and we review their play for a little bit And you know use our head if it's something that it looks like one of the individuals is definitely avoiding Uh the jackpot all together We would look into that A comical example could be if i'm sitting here playing the machine and you're going by Whoever spun the reels won won the jackpot What if someone just came down the aisle and reached over his shoulder and pushed that button? It's my money. He didn't win it. He pushed the button So we have to work with what makes logical sense Uh statistics we have some statistics from each of the casinos As you can see at plain ridge park. We had 1200 Up to almost 1200 reviews by iub As you can see in the center column Seven of the eight Uh jackpot switches were noticed at the beginning after we alerted the surveillance department Most of them have been prevented by the surveillance department And so they've done a very nice job out there The next slide mgm A lesser sample size of uh 800 plus We have five situations where we notice the switch And there's two situations where mgm surveillance department has prevented And on for obviously just being open almost 200 reviews And right now we have one situation where we've noticed that last week you found them I think maybe right after the end of uh, August we've had a second Okay, so um with that that we've observed Pardon that the iub is observed Yes, ibsi two rather than one. Yeah, right at the beginning of september we'll make it two now And with that So in in these in these three charts, um, you start with the the higher number Is the reviews conducted by the iub? Um Is that the universe of jackpots over 1200 dollars for that period? Yeah, these are taxables. They don't take long to review No, my question is is that is there any other jackpots that were that happened? But were not reviewed by the iub for whatever reason Well oftentimes, I think when we talk about jackpots, I think I often think of it as a taxable jackpot of 12 That's exactly what i'm talking about. So anything above 1200 Dollars, this is this is the this is the universe of what can happen at any given time Especially that With ppc they were saying telling us the length of time it took kind of kept track of how long it took us And it didn't take us that long. They're totally on forward channel Mm-hmm and speaking about the Submission process Some casinos have a like an iphone on the slotted tenants wrist and they'll see where the jackpot is So once they get over there on their way, they could notify Surveillance hey section d machine number 50 I have a $2,000 jackpot. They could start their process there. I have any this slotted tenant Perhaps hasn't even gotten there yet So by the time you go there introduce yourself verify it get information go over to the jackpot kiosk and run the information through The dor system and start to get the cash It should be more than enough time for that for surveillance to call down and say hey It's not the lady in the red dress. It's the gentleman in the blue sweater Mm-hmm. Did you I'm sorry. I know that the lottery has this sometimes with people doing ticket switching for the same reason to get around dor child support They'll sometimes grab vulnerable people and say I'll give you 10 percent those people don't realize they're going to take a dor hit Now they have dor issues that sort of thing There's an obligation in lottery my understanding when you pick it when you go in for certain winnings to avert that is your ticket You're claiming it only for yourself that sort of thing Do we have anything in our regs or in the casino rules that are the same thing on unbigger jackpots and hits Well, uh, the only rule we have in our submissions are the winning person has to be paid That jackpot. Do they sign anything? I know in lotter. You should actually sign the ticket to say it's your work It's in our regs that apply to the casinos. I think you're talking about a perhaps um Alerting the public that you have to be the person But also the consequences so you're not what you're not supposed to Right, so I guess the question is have we looked at all in terms of this in terms of the lottery And how they deal with making sure people don't do the switching Because they've been looking at this for years in terms of maybe Statutory changes too to make it a criminal act to knowingly switch or anything like that I uh, I don't know. I assume you have to sign your The wdg And submissions are a fluid document if uh after this review if we get together with the casinos and if it was a prevalent problem Seeing the statistics were under well under one percent. I think But uh, we don't want it, you know, you don't want any of this to happen If uh, we started to review this with compliance, we could ask them to update their submission to be more In compliant with our concern I think the difference with the lottery is you don't know I buy the ticket I take the ticket out of view of anybody to scratch and bring it back whereas You know a locked up machine. We're actually Catching somebody I think right in the lottery a lot There's a tacit agreement between the person claiming and the person who's going to have it right And so there's a fault of urban going up to the lottery saying yes This is my money my ticket when in reality they have a side agreement They're only keeping a thousand and they're giving nine to someone else for the specific purpose of defrauding And we had the tiebreaker of having a surveillance system Right Can you bring us through these slides? Yes, uh val's gonna walk us through some examples of actual switches Thank you. Uh, good afternoon commissioners. Um, yeah, it's all right Okay, just nice and close. Oh, okay. Sorry So in this slide over here, we can see that, um A man and a and a female are playing on the Are sitting next to each other It's clear that the female is the one playing on that slot machine and Over here after After the The females With the jackpot it's clear that uh, they switched spots. So now the male is sitting on that machine and Right here you can see that the The slot attendant is is there to retrieve all the information from the patron And so they they take their id and You shoot the w2 form On yeah over here the slot in is giving the w2 form to the male patron who signs The the form and the slot and then gives them the cash money So is the the the male was observing the female before the jackpot here, right? They it's fair to say that they're at least perhaps together in that situation Yes Or did what she switched and he provided his information. Yeah, could did we find out? Were we able to correct this because we are supposed to balance and Since this is happening Like weeks after it happened They didn't We didn't have any information on the woman So we don't know if if she had a player's card Who she is at all we just had the information of the male patron patron So i'm not sure if uncle or is able to Do anything about so for instance if she had had an obligation to pay child support We don't We weren't able to recover that for dor So that would be an example. They may be together Commissioner, but they would could have separate interests That's why it's really important that we have the casino check these Before they pay the jackpot and you would catch it every time It's a 10 minute process to do that It probably takes 15 to pay the jackpot by the time you jack everything and you mean check The surveillance very the same person that that was sitting at the machine when the jackpot But it's also possible and i'm just speaking theoretically here that they were related that they were married Our boyfriend girlfriend or you know Meaning that it would be of no consequence Perhaps well, you know, does he know? From a previous marriage. Yeah, she might have a child back taxes in his name or you know, there can be a lot of scenarios with that So yeah, because even though you're married you could have separate interests for instance With respect to a former marriage to have child support obligations that run through one of you So this is if you if you notice this first slide up in the left hand corner, you'll see 10 19 as the time And if you'll go to the fourth slide when they're paying patron You'll see that it says 10 39 I think that's more than ample time that a casino could be Checking Yeah, so eight minutes enough time to check it All right 20 20 20 minutes 10 10 19 to 10 39. Is that right 10 29 is when the plot attendant comes over 29 right And then 10 39 is when he comes back with this W2 Oh there it says 10 30. Yeah, got it. Yeah, plenty of time sure and I was thinking eight minutes was plenty So 20 Okay Thank you. Now number two Okay, this example is from a ppc where this It's clearly that this female is playing on the slot machine When the jackpot hits She gets up go to the nearest eight gear you machine and Right here. We see that when the slot attendant comes in another female Who was sitting next to first one is presenting the The information needed for the slot attendant to Complete the transaction And right here we can see that the sort of tendon is uh paying the female in a in a with a dark hair the The jackpot and I think In the situation we um I think We knew I think both females had players cards And um, I'm not sure if uh, if ppc was able to retrieve the money but So if I understand correctly to commissioners and egos Point that while they could be married the rule though Is it by statute by regulation that we must that pay the winning patron? It's the regulation The regulation, right? So the regulation requires even if it's a married couple or a couple shared interests sisters Brothers whatever they must pay the winning that that's what the regulation says And I think the regulation is very much on on point. It makes total sense I'm I'm really you know, and I should this is not just a hypothetical I am actually related to somebody who likes to play with his brother in las vegas And they actually play together And they change sweet seeds, you know try your luck now and they pull their money They say, you know your turn now and they all cheer for each other and then they change And they also do this in that situation not here because they've never done that in Massachusetts um Otherwise, I would really have to tell them You know the problem is these other jurisdictions don't have to check against a dor thing, right? But in that situation, what should somebody like that say then they should both present their information Both present their information. Is that what would well, you know, I I would The first thing I would ask is why didn't you want it in your name? And you know, I I would run it in the dor Uh system just to make sure That that individual didn't know back stuff and I don't care if it gets paid in his name, but You know, I would make sure that he didn't know taxes or you know, child support Yeah, no, there's another there's another principle here anybody doing that knowing that everybody's on their surveillance in a casino So and really how many jackpots has this happened on never But no, but this is not they do pull their money that is part of the fund Yes, and they they take turns Okay, and because it's not I don't think in Las Vegas that would ever happen to you because They are not double checking you against the system or Right anything like that. So I think you're clear You know, I'm concerned about what Do we do I say I think I think we would check the dor system to make sure that that individual doesn't know anything You know in back taxes or child support The one who won who actually won okay, not the other one Yeah, I think that would be pretty simple Okay, I mean they're both technically violating the regs. So what's the consequence to violating the reg? Yeah, well, is there any I mean did they get excluded for some period of time or Yeah, that I think would be left up a casino I it depends how much you know, how big of a deal you want to make out of that Well, the whatever the reg is on the casino. We regulate the casino. We are asking that they check Go back to the tape to pay the winning. No, I'm aware I'm just saying that once you've determined someone's violated the reg You're telling you're saying it's a reg the winner has to collect And the purpose of it is to make sure dor gets child support in the area taxes So once that's been determined, they violate the reg Do we have any other reg that talks about the consequences or mandates that they do? You know that's something we can even look at the regs and see if we want to strengthen that a little bit and make sure we require them to You know check the jackpots and and do this correctly I could see some advantages to doing that. Right, especially if you have a recidivist who keeps doing it. Yep absolutely We have an example three female plane at the machine triggers the jackpot patron Locates other players on the casino floor to claim the jackpot It's a little more egregious. Yeah, right somebody's sitting there. Slotted tenant retrieves the information from the male patron who's attempting to claim the jackpot The male patron then gives the cash collected from the jackpot to the original female who activated the jackpot He just Now, uh, remember some of these are in our review. These are days and weeks later. We're finding this from our initial review No, but did you see this game any money off for his cut? Yeah, yeah, I don't I'm just wondering if it's in the footage Oh, yeah once again the uh, yeah, yeah, palming once again the video is much more clear than still shots, right? Right But this is from your summary. This person was on the vnc On this last example Yeah, it looks like it from your summary Okay, right, right, which of course That so this is an important exercise, right, right? Not only for the dlr conference, but for responsible gaming So we're trying to Prevent this we have alerted the casinos. They are working well with us. You got to remember the MGM on core casino has table games revving all day long big properties so it is a task And uh, the a very good good faith effort is being produced right now And um, so we we will continue to work with them with with those findings I just I strongly think the more important message is We're trying, you know, we're working with our licensees not to allow people to kind of one skirt the regulation skirt You know when a bsc signs up. Hey, don't let me on the property And following those regs as well as You know, you know making every effort to catch somebody who owes her friends a do or some money correct I think it's a positive thing that the Commonwealth does versus other jurisdictions that need to see the dollar amount that's retrieved And and as we've seen the amount of time For the slot attendant to walk over when the They get the alert to check the w2 information and come back and the payment is more than enough time for surveillance to Yes Double check I suppose that they could they could also They could also Be trained the slot attendants to say When they arrive Something to the effect we're going to roll back the tape just to make sure that you were the one That they at which point at which point they At which point they may need no need to roll the tape back is part of my point They could I I don't know if that would happen all the time. It would be nice if it did but I just don't know my The reason of my questions is that I can I can imagine the argument from the operators saying this takes away resources For us We need a higher threshold because we are otherwise observing the high state games for example Because we have all these other surveillance Is that is that a fair argument from this side? You know, I've been in this industry a long time and and my specialty has always been surveillance I would find that a real hard argument to swallow Fair enough Well, I think it's great work on vows part to identify Well, I you know, it just doesn't take that long to do that and you know, they have People in the room that are reviewing things all the time and It just But I like that she was vigilant and she saw something that was unusual and And and we appreciate that It would be worthwhile I think just checking on the lottery because there was some chatter a while back about even proposing misdemeanor Consequences for people that did this. Okay. Um, I don't know if they ever did anything about it I think it's a bigger issue for the lottery because to your point. It's far easier to switch a ticket And then imagine it's harder to track. It is harder to track But for consistencies purposes and then just a conversation about whether there should be consequences particularly if people continue to violate I'd be interested to know what their Great, that's worth. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We are now moving on to item Number eight Investigations and Enforcement Bureau director wells, please. Thank you Good afternoon, madam chair members of the commission. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. You know, you've had a long day I will try to uh expedite matters here Uh, so I have two matters on for your consideration. Um The first matter is entitled modification of massachusetts supplemental form So as you know, uh throughout the history of the gaming commission, we've used the multi jurisdictional personal history disclosure form to get information on not only qualifiers but also for key executive employees And when the commission, uh started even before I was a member of the team here, they Created the massachusetts supplemental form to add some questions to that multi jurisdictional form that massachusetts regulators would be interested in So what we've done is taken a look at the form particularly in light of the events of last year and the issue with wind resorts And We are proposing that we add some questions to the form with relative to settlement agreements and sexual harassment And also we have sort of a catchall question These these are questions. We have investigators generally currently asked in the course of Interviews, but these kinds of questions can be a little awkward in interviews and it makes sense to have a Regulated format where the questions are asked the same way and they're put forth in a in that kind of format So we're suggesting that we put them in the form you can see The first two questions 17 and 18 I have to do with settlements. We Took this language tweaked it a little bit, but generally this language is what? The nevada gaming control board has modified their supplement to add those and you know after the The wind matter came to light. So that's where we got those And then there's the other questions that have been presented before you So in briefing the commissioners individually, you know, in particular, we did speak with commissioners zuniga He had asked that we could Potentially specifically discuss whether we need question 19 which asks have you ever participated in any type of sexual harassment sexual Misconduct or unlawful discrimination? And whether we need that question in light of the fact that we have also included question 20 Which says have any allegations of sexual harassment sexual misconduct or unlawful discrimination made concerning your behavior? Including by employees and or subordinates So We could do it either way The thinking behind putting question 19 is there is it's a broader capture of information from the actual applicant him or herself That more information is generally Better and more more leads if there's any information which might be relevant to suitability But i'll leave it, you know to the commission's discussion and deliberation and whether or not you would like that included on the form And if there's any other questions on the form that you think Should not be included or would like modified i'll leave that to your comments and discretion Here let me let me just Expound to that. I'm thinking specifically of Question 19 that appears to me quite broad Especially as it relates to You know situations that were that are Sometimes blurry And that people come in And leave with a different understanding I think it's better to use these examples since it's public, but let's just assume that Somebody like assistant sari or mr. Al Franken was responding to these To this form Prior to those allegations that were public or after those allegations were public I suspect That they would have a hard time answering these question now My more fundamental question is what are we trying to get? To in these question in question 19 the objective of the question I would suggest is to try to be able to capture instances of sexual Harassment misconduct or unlawful discrimination, which have not been reported and therefore the the company's unaware of Yeah, but it's the it's the person feeling this out, right? So they'd have to self disclose. So if somebody Went on a date that turned out to be not a great date And they don't know how that person the other person is going to Look at that situation now looking back Is the reason to to put this here To get them on the record so that should something later Surface to be able to come back and take away their license for example It would seem to be so that the language is somewhat of a term of art Those phrases sexual harassment sexual misconduct unlawful discrimination It seems like the distinction between 19 and 20 is 20 specifically related to allegations and by context in the workplace 19 would seem to capture allegations of the same Ill but not necessarily in the workplace And I'm wondering I get why you want it and I'm just I like the idea of it And I'm what I'm struggling with is how to capture the information in a way that addresses His concern about ambiguity So there are other ways to ask the question broader than 20 Or maybe a caveat within 20 That addresses commissioners any of these concerns about sort of You know vagaries of life, right? I mean you could I mean, I think that what 19 is trying to capture is a situation you may have An individual male or female that's even in the workplace right engaged in activity Which would fall under and I would suggest you're correct that that term of art Like it's a legal term sexual harassment and misconduct and unlawful discrimination So that sort of that legal term rather than right that day, right the um, but didn't rise to the level of Well, nobody reported. I think that's that's the issue. It's this is an issue of self disclosure Where there may be a situation where someone Absolutely knows they did something wrong and this is their opportunity to disclose it I in in addressing and rick is Pardon me commissioner Zuniga's concern That um, you know, what if someone doesn't doesn't know what our expectation is in these forms is to be truthful and we have that That language, you know is in the is in the application forms throughout and I think that You know in a case-by-case analysis if you generally didn't believe that what you did was sexual harassment Then when you put down no then that's a truthful answer So that would be how you'd address it, but I'll leave it I think sequentially too if you it seems sequentially 20 should be 19 and 19 should be 20 um Okay, I mean, I don't know in my head if I'm if I'm reading through it. I would think That might frame it a little bit better and then the question is really does that and 21 Give you what you need. Yeah, I mean, I think Commissioner Zuniga's question when we had the discussion was if you have question 20 in there Which covers allegations which have been made against an individual in the workplace? Do you need question 19 as well? and I'll leave that sort of it's that that's a It would suggest as a commission's discretion How deep do you want us to dive into these kinds of allegations because if you want it Workplace reported, you know internal controls analysis that kind of thing That's what you're looking at then having question 20 should be sufficient But if you really want the Investigator is doing a deeper dive into, you know other acts of misconduct and generally broader analysis into Integrity honesty and good character then this may be something that you'd want to add So we have included that for your consideration and we just need some direction how you would like us to proceed It's number 20 just limited to employment. Well Because I I yeah, I guess you could put in there Well, we've got including by employees and subordinates, so it definitely includes that Yes, but it's no I guess to your point that may not be limited to that Could it be at college When I was when I was at college, yes, absolutely. Yes yes well The one that seems broad to me is 19 only because there is Perhaps a small but significant Significantly important number of potential scenarios in which the person might legitimately not know Whether, you know, there's there's there's not a I don't know option If the idea is to put in No, so that then when we later find out whether somebody was Accused we could come back That's that's one thing or but Which I I don't feel good about how about phrasing it. Are you aware of? Any other conduct In which you've participated in that would rise to love, you know, like is there a way to say it that sort of captures that aware? And so if they say like I didn't know she said that about, you know, five years later She comes and says You know what he did to me was inappropriate. I think it was sexual harassment. Well at the time he fills out the form or she If it's phrased that are you aware of it goes to the knowledge the state of mind It would that be falsehood if there's proof that they did they were aware this person made the allegation contemporaneously Yeah, I mean I perhaps also What do we do with somebody who says yes And uh describes a situation that is Just like the scenario of pain which is the one that um, you know The blurry one a blurry one in which well I I don't know. I mean there was that there was that bad date over there or whatever What are we supposed? What are we gonna do with that? What's what's was interesting? the the attorney from ruben and runman was very helpful to us and giving us some sort of Sort of expertise on these types of investigations and What she indicated to us is that Generally we're doing some kind of investigation into sexual harassment and this and sexual misconduct is that When you do an investigation like that it You are looking for patterns because generally if someone's engaging in this type of behavior It's not a one-off If it's real, you know that sort of intentional Those those acts so she was telling us which we found very helpful is that If if you're doing a legitimate investigation to that you're going to look into Other whether they're not there are other instances or is it just the classic he said she said Which you may not be able to do anything with if that's the only evidence you have But delving a little deeper and seeing if there's a pattern and as we all know now from a certain other investigation that Can come to light that once you start digging a little bit more and asking some more questions and Checking into other areas you might find more So that would be the relevance of getting that information is because it may lead you to a pattern of behavior Which may lead to a finding or a recommendation of unsuitability I mean if you I feel like a board smithing it But if you say are you aware of any incidents in which you participated in any type of sexual harassment sexual misconduct Or unlawful discrimination that did not result in a formal allegation If it still goes to the knowledge of somebody comes five years after the fact and says back in you know 2015 so and so did x the person's not falsely filling out the form Not so sure that gets to the pattern of conduct though that you're hoping to that Well, it's the it's the red flag. I mean what you're looking for An answer one way or the other on this form is not going to necessarily be determinative But it is going to say to an investigator. Oh, okay Let me let me look into this and let me see if there's an area of a further area of inquiry Let let's you know go to the hr department in your prior job and see you know Were there any allegations in the prior job not just look at where you are here It depends, you know the nature of suitability investigations is that you can never know everything about an individual ever And if you think you can you're kidding yourself But if you can create a system which will identify flags or areas where you need to make further inquiry So you can do a reasonable risk analysis and figure out where the areas Of risk are for that particular individual that helps you direct the investigation in timely manner So that would be okay. This might be an area We need to look into a little more further check with you know Higher co-workers maybe do another some other Introducing people they've worked with I agree with everything you're saying and I think we get to that with the three other questions Yeah, so that you know ultimately I'll need it's ultimately when there was either an investigation an allegation a charge I just think that the broadness Even with your clarifications commissioner about you know in the workplace or to your knowledge I I think the broad nature of it comes from Did you participate in any And by definition some of these The way how some of these allegations later turn out now have there been allegations? That's that's a clear cut But or a charge no question about that Could you establish? Track record by doing further inquiry after that That's that's a clear charge In terms of you know, what you could do to to to get to the nature of maybe one allegation or 10 allegations, etc but To me 19 is just Almost too broad for somebody to say well, I I really don't know It is conceivable that a lot of people might think of a scenario in which Okay, there is not an allegation I don't think I Participated in what's the definition here But there was never any charge or complaint or allegation I cannot know for sure that there will never be and that's the conundrum To me, this is just unnecessarily broad we can get to the other What we were what we're after With the other three I'm just trying to think of a hypothetical that might sort of Identify what then if you don't have this what you potentially are missing. So say you have a situation where you know John Smith who is a qualifier or a key executive Head engaged say in college or or later, you know in workplace With a bunch of other individuals Sent, you know harassing messages to another employee And no no knew he did it and later became, you know, more aware of what he should or shouldn't be doing And so knows that that he did the wrong thing, but there were never any charges If we don't ask this question Then we may never get that information and that may be something that that individual would have self-disclosed So that I'm just trying to think of a hypothetical that would so are we looking for confessions here Well, the nature of You know Regulatory suitability investigations isn't self-disclosure. We do expect self-disclosure. So the question is are you asking The right questions that are going to elicit the information And I guess the question for the commission is is that the kind of information you would like us to follow up on? Or is that something, you know, you'd be okay if we just never knew that Sorry In the interest of full disclosure and your obligation to be forthcoming in your application Is there any other information which Might reflect adversely in an evaluation of your honesty integrity or good character Otherwise impact a determination or suitability for gaming license or slash qualification Including any other misconduct not already disclosed above It goes a little bit more pointed than what you have in 21, but then would eliminate 19 In terms of Did you say any conduct or any miss including any other misconduct not already disclosed above? I I mean just to pick up on that and get Karen a moment to think about that I first of all jumping the question 21 I'm kind of like the fact that we're now including this I mean, I think a lot of us if we've been in public service getting the question thrown at thrown at us. So I'm Glad we've included that operationally because we're really talking about Key gaming executives and casino qualifiers. So this is a small Cod rate of people How often because again, this is a mass supplemental form may have differences from other forums where they've already completed Forms in other states. How much outreach typically does An executive call a viewer your team and say hey, I'm going through this Help me understand what you mean by question 21 or 15, you know, how much help me understand this question in this mass supplemental form So if it's the attorney they may say hey, I'm helping Ed fill out the form you have this new question. Give me an idea of what it means You could get to kind of a whole broad array of you know Well, we'd like you to consider these things sexual harassment Sexual misconduct those are the kind of things that we're looking for under this question so it doesn't pigeonhole you even to Some defined questions where there may be some vagueness, but it does I think at the end of the day give the applicant a chance to say All right, I'm going to you know point of self disclosure. I will tell you about XYZ incident now that I know you're looking for those types of incidents where I think 19 is a little bit vague and then I would have a question for you of should we be segmenting out from 19 unlawful discrimination because that seems to be more of a question or less of a value judgment around my answer and more I discriminated Was lawful or unlawful I don't know I'm trying to understand why you tied unlawful discrimination into sexual harassment and sexual misconduct Well, because it's misconduct and and it's usually you know, it's just something you know It's it's another area by the way where I think there's also some blurry line somebody could be joking about somebody's heritage, let's say and someone else might think it's inappropriate and and discriminatory discriminatory so Just take me In general to the process And I'd like your suggestion commissioner about you know, maybe really the catchall is really 21 That may be a solve that everyone's comfortable with is is it possible that somebody In the interest of full disclosure puts in what a situation that and and so now you're going to Interview that person We generally do an interview of all the qualifiers and the key executives So that would be standard and standard protocol would also be to go through the application with that person and and ask them about Can he gets to the operational question how they help? Assuming that it's like he said she said or you know Are you going to interview the other person for example? I mean, I can't you that'd be very factually specific. It depends on what the allegation was Potentially a good investigation would investigate both the accuser and the accused, correct? But this is not an allegation. This is just a full disclosure. Remember If there's an allegation sure That that's covered and now and that that would be up to the party whether they would want to participate So if this is someone, you know from 20 years ago that doesn't want to speak to us It would be up to the that's up to that person and we would not Pressure that person into that and then it is what it is or draw any conclusions from them liking Correct and generally, you know Disclose, you know, that's what we find in these investigations It even will get to the criminal if you disclose things that's you're demonstrating Forthrightness and truthfulness. So if you're explaining, hey, there was this situation here and here's what happened That's an indicia of reliability in that you're coming forward and talking about it. You're not trying to hide anything So that actually works in the favor of the applicant Well, I like your suggestion about 21 In terms of adding are we are we talking about you know, if we eliminated 19 Because it's it's in my opinion. It's uncomfortably they they Are we um, are we talking about workplace? Only Or are we talking about any kind of well? No, it's connected to anything that would Be relevant to your suitability. So it's already captioned to be relevant to suitability. So it's giving a further example about Being a little more explicit in the catch on number 20. It's not confined to employment Correct, right You know, ultimately it sounds like where we are is um We could do the do the questions as is or or it seems like we could eliminate 19 Or the third option is what uh, commissioner o'brien said eliminate Eliminate 19 and add at the end of the question of the word qualification Including any other misconduct not disclosed above Which seems to be sort of in between the the two other options So we'll just look to see whichever the commission goes with we can then move forward with the forms as you desire Yeah, to be clear. I was fine with the the form as it was But I understand there's some concern about being vague disclosures for this level is high heightened The self-awareness that is required would also be needed to be heightened We can capture it in the way that you We thought so I'm fine with that recommended change Generally, we Uh, my understanding is in the past the commission has approved these forms So it probably makes sense just to do a quick vote on that make sure that we're clear that that's what the commission wants And then we'll go forward and I'll move on to the next one Is there further questions or discussion for director wells? So it looks like on a consensus emerged on on eliminating 19 and I'm I'm in the same I didn't have quite the level of concerns on 19. I was more in line with the chair But I see where you're coming from. I feel like Eliminating 19 and adding the phrase to what's currently 21. What would become 20? Sufficiently gets To the purpose of 19 and it might capture some other things Right, that's even being So I I do think you are seeking a vote On on this forum. So do we have a motion certainly madam chair I move that the commission approve the modifications To the massachusetts supplemental form as described by the commission staff today and as included in the commission packet As further amended however to strike proposed question 19 And add to the end of question 21 the phrase Including any other misconduct not disclosed above second And any further questions? All right Do all those in favor? All right Opposed for zero. Thank you director wells. Thank you very much. That's very helpful. And then the next area for the commission's consideration is in the Forms that we submit particularly to the service of level employees and the gaming employees There was some concerned by the commission about the Just sort of clarifying the sort of the instructions in the form So people that are filling out the form know what they are required to submit. So there's no ambiguity there So we've added for your packet some modifications Just to make it easier for people to understand that we really need truthful and full disclosure And that's what we're working with and that's what we expect So for example, you know charge in the definition of charge we want to Including We want to include the language including juvenile charges because what happens with juvenile charges There's the applicants required to disclose them. However, no juvenile charges are mandatory disqualifiers so Even though you have to disclose that you don't it's not going to be a mandatory Disqualifier even if it is a larceny charge that if you had been an adult would have disqualified you It does not disqualify you as a juvenile um And then we have, uh, you know that language under conviction to make that clear to the applicant Um dispositions also include delinquent and not delinquent which are dispositions for juvenile offenders The fact that you have to submit uh in the form The charges or offenses, uh, even if you weren't convicted or found delinquent or Even if you weren't placed in handcuffs, you don't have to actually be arrested to be charged with crime Um, we wanted to emphasize in the form also That applicants are not required to disclose records of criminal appearances criminal dispositions and or Any acts of delinquency that have been sealed so that information is Not required on the form and also to make uh applicants aware That the gaming commission will make inquiries to establish whether you have had any involvement with law enforcement agencies And that failure to disclose such involvement will be taken into into account in assessing your character honesty and integrity Just to make sure people are aware That that that is an issue and also There was a suggestion just to make the um the space for the uh applicant to fill out Any offenses put more more space in the form just in case there were several charges Or maybe several charges relating to the same incident that they would list all of those charges So those are the the types of changes made to the form There there was a suggestion In when we were doing the briefings that we might want to add something not to this part of the form but also to the front of the form that uh commissioner o'brien and uh commissioner Stebbins we talked about Which is that we may want to put some language that applicants may want to check with the employing casino hr department for advice On how to prepare out prepare to fill out the application form So we can add that as well that the commissioners think that's a good idea Just because the casinos themselves can help with this, you know as the regulatory authority It's not our role to to work with the employee to fill out the form They're submitting to us but the casinos can do that and the casinos may have some advice getting all your paperwork together Maybe you you know go to your icory and run your quarry before you fill out the form Just to make sure you have everything correctly and you have things so We've talked to the casinos about doing that with their um with their hr departments to work with their employees on that Because nobody's looking for anybody uh to uh make a mistake on the form We'd like everybody to fill it out honestly and completely It's easier for us because we can run through these much more efficiently and it's better for the applicant So communicating to these folks that are filling out the forms that honesty and completeness is Extremely important in this process Uh can't be emphasized enough so uh putting that in the um in the sort of the that front page on lms I think would be a good idea of the commission's in support of that I No, I I I like that idea and that suggestion. Um, you know something else I think we should do If we approve, you know the changes to the form Uh with respect to a lot of our workforce stakeholders that are out there you know Beating the bushes trying to get people interested in in pursuing Uh A casino career and you know, we had one of these meetings out in springfield Let's get them in the room and kind of again walk through this process help them understand Um, I think some of this language is You know might be you know might be viewed as Intimidating I know that's not what we're trying to get through but I think having a conversation Uh With those cbo's to kind of help walk them through the process again the same thing You know some of the instructions that a uh one of our licensees might use might be Great information for that cbo to carry to an individual like go do this Again, if you know, we find ourselves not able to to make those suggestions ourselves again it's more people out there aware of our process aware of what we're looking for and Helping the individual because again some of the cases they get to us are just people Yeah You've raised this before people just not completing the form and Some of the omissions are clearly like how could you have missed that? Right, um, but again trying to get people to be truthful and honest on the form You know, I think making extra room is is fine. Even though if you're filling out that much room Um You may not be a good candidate But again, I think taking it to the next step is bringing those groups in and and also Here are regional employment board workforce people who are out there talking to them about the licensees jobs as well I think everybody being on the same page or having the overall awareness of what the form is looking for I think would be a great next step Well, I would go a step further to offer Not just the casinos, but the licensing department Well, they've been they've been very helpful And you know, I will point out and bill curtis mentioned to me the other day, you know Mary polgarin is a spanish-speaking Employee and she has a great rapport with a lot of the folks that may call in with questions If you know that it sometimes speaking in your first language is a lot more comfortable So he had said, you know, let's get the word out if they have questions about filling out the form They could call and we could put them in touch with Mary just to make people feel a little less intimidated And well, that was my point that could we also offer in the form well to call to if necessary if you feel There's the like, you know, he's not only that anecdote that you use or that We've all we've also heard from vendors who call licensing and they are very appreciative of the ability to be able to To talk to bill or whomever else, right? Why couldn't we offer in the form if you have any questions on these, you know, if you don't know how to answer these questions I'm gonna think if there may be something like that on LMS on the home page I'll have to check if we may already have something like that Because i'm thinking how do they how do they already know how to call because people do call When I went through the briefing I feel as though it's there, but we can clarify I did ask about whether there were interpreted Services available, right and not not in every language Right But let me check because that might already be there But that's a good thing for LMS to have on there if you have any questions about filling out the form Here is a resource for you Because they they've been great. We get great Feedback no licensing we great feedback from those who do but maybe we observe only the proactive people the people who You know who think oh, I don't I really don't know how to answer these. I better call somebody right I think a you know just noting that you could seek help in the form You could and should in many instances Talk to the casinos just like you're saying commissioner talk to others The obvious place in my mind is the licensing department. Yeah, I'll add that Into that same group introducing them the merit was a resource. Yeah And also I gotta tell you with the wave of applicant I mean it was crazy with the thousands coming in But you know when things settle down a little bit It's actually a lot more manageable to have a little more interaction And I would offer that it's probably even more efficient to have somebody Fill out, you know fill it out for right the first time around That's what we want. We want people to fill it out truthfully and completely on the front end And that's part of what licensing does is make sure that and then Then things move so much more efficiently on the back end. So we are 100 in favor of that I just want to thank um director wells and and iv for being responsive. I think that this Is derived from a decision that we made on an appeal We we noticed that the form could use some improvement just for clarity and you're very responsive An obvious change is that there's more rule So that it prompts Individuals to to be able to clearly write in their responses There's a lot more simplicity and clarity. So I think that the The form is very responsive And I think that we can be nimble and continue to improve it as we learn more and more how challenges Arise for any applicant Other other questions or Comments or suggested edits for this So this that what's in the packet is the um is the actual form it's itself So it asked, you know for a vote on on that the uh the language on the licensing team and the contact number and also the applicants Checking with the casino hr department. I can just work with bill on that I don't I don't necessarily need a vote for that, but it'd probably be helpful to have a vote on the the form for the packet But But we'll include that language in the form eventually. Well, well The form instruction. It's it's sort of the instructions in lms versus the form. I may be maybe splitting hairs there as long as people Reasonably can see it up front. Exactly. Exactly. So we'll have we can even run through like a test on lms And make sure somebody can see it because most Not almost all these applicants are doing it on the licensing management system So that's where we really want to make sure people are identified. I understand. Yeah Any further questions for director wells? I have a motion Madam chair I move that the commission approve the modifications to the criminal history section and the license and application forms as described by commission staff today And as included in the commission packet Any further questions discussion Commissioner Stebbins all set Do you have any are you noticing something that you want to bring up? Um Just for clarification. Thank you, madam chair. Just for clarification Karen Ceiling of records only pertains to those things Somebody might have done as a youth under 18 An adult You could bold not required to disclose. This is this language is exactly from the regulation. So what it says You're not required to disclose records of criminal appearances. That's adult Criminal dispositions adult And or any information concerning acts of delinquency that have been sealed. So there's a broader scope for delinquency In the regs. So this is exactly tracking the reg and we've got an issue on the sealed records Which we're going to bring before you again, but right now This is exactly how the languages is in the in the regulation which you promulgated years ago Okay, right. Would it make sense to make that's a sequence? So that no one It has to be anything of delinquency that's sealed Like i'm not really following well the way I read it I'm putting we put it in there because this is exactly what the reg says So I wouldn't want to deviate from the reg or sort of modify that because this is exactly what the regulation says so What we're going to be bringing forward before the commission is we're going to ask for some clarification on exactly what you want this to mean So we'll have but this is exactly what it says. So how we implement it. We want to make sure you're comfortable with But um, this is exactly how it reads. So that's why make sure We don't deviate So we have a motion before us that's been seconded I believe what I'm hearing from director wells was stay tuned. There will be clarity sought for that Particular class and we may in keeping exactly To reflect the regulation Do we have further questions or discussion? All those in favor Opposed For zero. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you It is 440 and we have one more matter on our agenda Other than our commissioner updates and anything else that would be brought to our attention commissioners And mr. Grossman in the back of the room. Are we all going to proceed at this juncture? Felon I think we can do a very short overview and then my recommendation would be I don't know what the agenda looks like for springfield We whether we then have the substantive when commissioner Cameron is back in springfield so that we can kick it off briefly but given the time I think I think we do very very brief overview and then I'll just continue this on this item I didn't want to get too far in the discussion without her. So, right exactly I think that's a great idea Do you do you want to can I start with that overview? We have a mr. Grossman come up front too. Thank you She would like that mr. Grossman We'll take everyone's lead on how you want to proceed You want a brief overview? That's not my forte, but I can try to one A brief brief. We will knock you off your cadence We need to come up with a renewal scheme for Is your telephone voice So, well the synopsis is that The casino licenses run for five and 15 years respectively ppcs license expires on june 24th Of next year. We do need a mechanism by which to Consider the renewal of that license the law In a number of areas requires a commission to come up with the renewal scheme There is not a lot of meat on the bones in the statutes when it comes to prescribing Exactly what the commission needs to look at Other than the fact that you have to have a renewal fee And one other minor detail about impacted live entertainment venues Otherwise the statutes don't get into a lot of detail about what the renewal process should look like We did look at a number of other jurisdictions to get a sense as to how Other jurisdictions handle renewal processes There is no one model that Is used in any place, but there are a few themes that tend to emerge Most jurisdictions will look at things like the suitability of the entities and the individuals involved As well as the financial stability of the operation Including the parent they all seem generally speaking to be less Thoreau than the initial what we call rfa one licensing process And of course we can get into it a later time some of the particulars which we lay out in the memo That you have before you as to how other jurisdictions handle that There were a few threshold Questions that we thought would be helpful for the commission to consider As we set out to come up with a process which I would submit would be best done by way of regulation Just to clarify for all the players involved What the process would be of course the two category one Licenses won't come up for renewal for about 14 or 15 years at this point So could be modified in the intervening years, which may or may not include any of us. So The right Well, it may include a different panel just by virtue of the statue. I'm not yes So the first one of the first questions to look at is a licensing fee whether you think There has to be a licensing fee for category two. It has to be at least a hundred thousand dollars And it will of course include The cost of any investigation that goes into The renewal process the question though not that it needs to be decided definitively here today or even at your next meeting Is whether you want to Assess any additional fee on top of that Um, some states assess millions of dollars others assess very little Um, the as we note in the memo the commission took the long view The first time it looked at the assessment of a licensing fee and assessed the statutory minimum with the Philosophy that it would prefer that any additional available funds be put into the Establishments themselves. So that's something to think about something to consider Looking at the other jurisdictions there may or may not be helpful Because there's no one way of doing it Let's see the um The term of the licenses is another interesting question And this might be a longer conversation, but just to put it on your radar The statutes, uh, and there are essentially two sections talk about the clearly the initial terms Of the licenses in the case of category one is 15 years and the category two is clearly five years The question is whether you have any inclination to Adjust those for the renewal periods and if so we can certainly consider Whether that would be allowable under the statute or not And of course, there are a variety of reasons you may or may not want to to do that The third question is really the big ticket item Which is what types of issues are you interested in exploring as part of the renewal process? We've talked a little bit about the suitability of the individuals and the entities the financial stability of the Entity and the parents is of course, uh important Uh, there are other things to consider like compliance with, uh, license conditions Throughout the period of the licensure Uh, the compliance with hosts and surrounding community agreements with the iLev agreements all that kind of stuff And all those things are fair game Uh, for review certainly, uh compliance with the capital expenditure plan, whether it's, uh, doing what we'd hoped it would do Whether that needs any adjustment These are all things to think about as part of a renewal process Of course, all these things are also things you can just do on a daily basis as we oversee the casinos To ensure their compliance on a regular basis And finally and I don't necessarily Think this is the case, but if there are any issues with the statute that require legislative Updating then, uh, the door is left open in the statute to Send those over to the legislature for consideration. There was nothing that jumped out In need of adjustment, but the statute does open that door for us so Those are the main issues that we wanted to Bring up And by we I mean commissioner o'brien commissioner zoonica and I have discussed these issues on a number of occasions But wanted to of course, uh, bring this to the full attention Of the commission time is of somewhat of the essence in that, you know, we need to have a process in place for the re Licensing the potential relicensing of playing with park casino coming up next year Thank you. That's a that's a great synopsis. I um, I would just, um Add a couple of things that, um, since the packet, uh, there's more information in a nice, um Chart that that you dug up, uh, that that you only alluded to but we could provide In terms of context for for what other states do I would, um, perhaps put them in a couple of different buckets. There's a few states That have unlimited license licenses that I would say it's good for us to know but really doesn't really apply in terms of, um, you know, the similarity to us, um, given the competitive nature and the Limited number of licenses that our statute, um, has so there's other states that may provide more, um, Similarities into how we might go about doing this It's probably fair to say that everybody Has some kind of process just like you articulated that we would also mirror to some Have or parallel to some degree The bigger question is those threshold issues that you that you mentioned The term in my mind is is is a big one the licensing fee I do believe, uh, and this is part of what we really should discuss at a later time with more, uh, a discussion about this That there is a presumption of relicensing That the notion not only in other states that we looked at but certainly in our in our case here, um That it would be really quite disruptive or overly unnecessarily ambitious to think that we could just simply rebid these License we would really have to account for what would be the asset that we currently License on their pen that we do not own There are cases in, uh, Canada for example where the government does own the asset and they bid the operator and it's fairly straightforward to just Change operators because that's not the scheme that we have here and for many other reasons that I guess We could also get into At least my read is this presumption of Relicensing now we don't have to give it away for free and that's the point of The threshold questions that you will articulate and and that's how we embark on the discussion Do you want to add to that? No, and just that we had asked Attorney Grossman to do that to see if there was anything on point That would be particularly helpful in terms of guiding us. There's really nothing that speaks directly to what we need I do think it's helpful to see so we can eliminate what we don't want and go forward with it I think there was a comment made about Maryland maybe being close to Similar to us, but of course they're not an apostrophe to renew anyone anyway And so they're not even in theory. They would be helpful. It might be the other way around that they'd be looking at us later Um, and so the questions that are in the memo I think are sort of the primary questions that we think we need to decide on before we then set up the regs For exactly how this is going to work Imagine continuing this agenda item potentially on the 26th. Absolutely. Yes. Yep Todd, thank you for the overview that was excellent And I do think we will put it um on the agenda for continued Discussion so that we can give More helpful guidance at this at this point and really spend some time chewing on the Issues that you've outlined, but it gives us a chance Well You'll update commissioner cameron. It gives commissioner stephens and me a chance to really think about other questions we might have so We'll Push it out for now to september 26 Right But that's okay. Great sounds good All right now Do we have any commissioner updates? Are you sure motion the adjourn? Well, I did want to go over item number 11 Those matters reserved for any that the chair thinks had not reasonably anticipated the time of posting I'll set A motion to adjourn second and all those in favor. Hi Those opposed Of course zero. Thank you. Thanks everyone for your attendance and your vigilance. Thank you