 All right, Austin, you can go right ahead then with the streaming. Good morning again, commissioners, Karen, Lorena and all. Again, we're convening this meeting and it is being recorded and it's also being streamed. Thank you, Austin, for your work on that. I'm gonna call to order the meeting. It is August 4th, it's just 11 a.m. It's our public meeting, number 351. And I've asked Director Lilios to set the stage for this meeting to update us on guidance that's been issued by both the state and the CDC. She'll give an update on those matters as well as a recommendation. And then I've asked Executive Director Wells to give her thoughts and recommendations. Then we can hear from the licensees after they've heard from our update and then that will give us a chance to have our discussion fully informed. This is a very fluid matter and we have called this as an emergency meeting given that it is in flux. And again, we're lucky that we can meet this way in a nimble fashion. So why don't we have Director Lilios kick this off for us. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Can I talk to a roll call, Chair, before we go? Oh, thank you, Commissioner. You're so good to remind me. Again, I do need to do that for our virtual meeting. Commissioner Cameron. I am here. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. I'm here. Commissioner Zuniga. Here, good morning. And I'm else that. So thank you. Thanks for that notation, Vivian. And now Director Lilios, thank you. Thanks, Kathy. And good morning again, Commissioner. So at the end of May, a little over two months ago, you rescinded the COVID measures that you had previously ordered. And those measures, as you, I'm sure, remember, covered many pages, touched on everything from masking requirements, plexiglass, social distancing, occupancy limits, limiting beverage drinking while seated and actively gaming. And they covered back of the house measures as well. But on May 26th of this year, you rescinded those measures, consistent with public health guidance at the time and consistent with the Commonwealth's lifting of measures overall in businesses across Massachusetts. When you lifted those measures, you did so subject to four conditions, which the licensees agreed with. And one of those conditions is subject to your review and clarification today. And that condition reads, the licensees shall conduct business in accordance with all COVID-19 related orders and advisories issued by the governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Romanian Effect, as well as any applicable CDC guidelines. The horse racing and simulcasting licensees also agreed to the same condition when they rescinded their commission-approved COVID-19 reopening plans. The condition talks about orders, advisories and guidelines. Orders, whether they're orders of the governor or federal orders or orders of the commission are exactly that. Orders must be complied with. Advisories or guidelines on their own do not have the force of law behind them. But in this instance, the licensees agreed to comply with advisories and guidelines of the Commonwealth and the CDC. And that became a condition for them. So back in May, when you took this action and up until recently, the CDC and the Commonwealth's advisories and guidelines that were relevant to the commission had been for the most part in alignment. Recently, the CDC issued guidance around masking and recommended that people wear masks in public and indoor spaces in areas that have substantial or high virus transmission rates, regardless of the person's vaccination status. And as it reads, that guidance is based on transmission rates in any particular area. And I'm gonna quote the guidance just so I am very precise. The CDC guidance reads to maximize protection from the Delta variant and prevent possibly spreading it to others. Wear a mask indoors, in public, if you are in an area of substantial or high transmission. I refer to the CDC guidance at last week's public meeting on July 29th, indicating that none of the casinos were then in areas of high or substantial transmission, but that they could become so. And as a Friday afternoon or early evening, Hampton and Middlesex County were added to the substantial transmission list and MGM Springfield is in Hampton, Everett Encore is in Everett, and that is in Middlesex, and Middlesex was added to the list. And as of this morning, Norfolk has been added to the substantial list. Bristol, which is the site of the random simulcasting facility has been added to the high transmission list. And Suffolk County has been on the substantial transmission list. So as I mentioned up until recently, the CDC guidance in the Department of Public Health guidance had been largely in alignment. Friday afternoon though, the Commonwealth took its approach and it's a different approach. Rather than focusing on community transmission rates, our Department of Public Health focuses on vulnerable individuals and advises that vaccinated people wear masks indoors in public places if they or someone in their household is vulnerable to the disease. And I'll quote that, that was a paraphrase, let me quote now. So here's the quote, the Department of Public Health now advises that a fully vaccinated person should wear a mask or face covering when indoors and not in your own home. If you have a weakened immune system or if you are at increased risk for severe disease because of your age or an underlying medical condition or if someone in your household has a weakened immune system as an increased risk for severe disease or is unvaccinated. In reaching this DPH advisory, the governor has publicly noted that Massachusetts is leading the nation in vaccine administration and has one of the lowest hospital rates in the country. The governor has pointed to data that only 0.15% of the vaccinated individuals in Massachusetts have tested positive for COVID and those are the so-called breakthrough cases. The governor has also publicly acknowledged that the federal CDC guidance which is based on community transmission rates does not take into account things like a person might live in one county but work in another, people conduct business or cross-county lines for personal reasons in Massachusetts on a routine basis and that transmission rates change. As we saw on the 29th, none of the casinos were in that category. Now all of the licenses are in the substantial or high category. And I do wanna remind that we're talking about these two particular guidances but remind that people in Massachusetts, regardless of vaccination status are still required to continue wearing face coverings in certain settings like healthcare settings and in transportation settings. And that applies to one of our licensees on-court who does have transportation facilities. They continue to require and have signage for and enforce masking. In fact, I saw an on-court bus on my way to work this morning and noted masking of the driver on the bus. So the purpose of this meeting is to ask you to clarify this condition. Now that we have guidance from the CDC and guidance from the Department of Public Health that are not in strict alignment any longer. And I also wanna remind that if you do go on the, go with a masking approach, reintroduce a masking approach, I'd suggest that you also explore whether to bring back other measures that you had around eating and drinking. So Kathy, you asked for a recommendation and here's what I can say about that. You've always been mindful of public safety. I mean, that's always been paramount concern, the public safety, the safety of the casino employees, of the commission employees. And the licensees themselves back in March of 2020, they agreed to the temporary closures for months for public safety reasons. With respect to amenities, the restaurants, the bars, the nightclubs, the other amenities, the commission has always deferred to the state guidance and requirements on those and expressly adopted the state requirements in the past for the amenities. So it would be new territory if the commission were to deviate from the stated in those regards. In the end, the governor's approach, the DPH approach, they did take into account the CDC guideline. They considered the federal guidance and acknowledged the governor and his team has acknowledged that the CDC guidance is appropriate for certain parts of the country. The governor has adjusted the guidance here with a focus on vulnerable populations in Massachusetts based on data, including the vaccination rates here. So deferring again to the public health experts, it's my view that the Commonwealth's approach is an evidence-based approach. It's a sound approach. It tracks specific data in Massachusetts. What it would mean for the licensees is that they would need to incorporate additional messaging in their communications plans. And also they follow an additional condition that they still are required to notify not only the commission, but their local boards of health when they become aware of employee positive cases on the property and of course comply with all orders of their local boards of health. And the governor, of course, in all of his statements has talked about it's not a static situation and is continuing to track all of Massachusetts data. So those are my prepared comments. I hope they're helpful. I know you'd have the licensees here to address you as well. I'm happy to try to answer anything else that anything that you may have. Thank you, Loretta. I think what we'll do is we'll shift to Karen, Director Wells now, then our licensees. Thank you, that was really thorough. And we'll circle back. I'm sure there'll be questions and comments for you, Loretta. Director Wells? Yeah, I mean my thoughts are, first of all, just recognizing that we are in an unprecedented situation, especially with this slightly different sets of guidance from the CDC and DPH. And that puts us in a tough position because we're not public health experts. So it's not as if we can substantively evaluate the guidance. So it's just a matter of trying to do the right thing here. I don't think there's necessarily a wrong answer here. I think everyone here is certainly trying to do the right thing for our responsibilities here. Aside from what Loretta has pointed out on the data-driven metrics, I would just add that from an operations perspective, that approach of defaulting to the governor's approach and going with the Massachusetts guidance does achieve consistency across the state. I do note what Loretta said about the focus on the Massachusetts evaluation was based on Massachusetts specific metrics as opposed to national metrics. So I think that defaulting to that guidance, I agree with Loretta that I can see how that makes sense. We can also talk about messaging because there is an opportunity for the messaging of the governor's guidance, but also recognizing the CDC guidance. So that may be an option as far as letting the public know and letting the casinos let the public know. But I am curious to see what the casinos have to say and also interested in what the other commissioners, because we've not discussed this as a group. So I think that's really important. And it's sort of where we come down on this initial approach, a very difficult question. This is certainly challenging. But I think that we, looking at what Massachusetts has done, I get this is Massachusetts specific, is that helpful? Yes, and just to follow up on your comment, we haven't discussed this as a group. Our COVID team, the working group did convene two nights ago just to address moving forward. And that's how the genesis of today's meeting. So thank you. So Loretta and Karen, I would like to hear from our licensees. I cannot see who's here from Encore, but perhaps we start with Encore. Loretta, do you know who's joined us? I do see Jackie Cromana. Great. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Jackie. Nice to see you. Nice to see you too. I think much like Loretta and Karen said, this is obviously a very fluid situation, and we're continuing to follow it as well. We're conferring with our experts. We're looking at the metrics in our areas. The good news is we're still under 2%. And we've been following the governor's advisory. I think for a lot of people what we're seeing is this is still very much a personal decision. I'd say at the moment about 50% of our guests are wearing masks voluntarily. We're obviously not asking them whether they vaccinated or not. We are noticing that some of our employees who are vaccinated are wearing masks, and that's fine too. So right now we still see it as guidance issued by both the CDC, as well as the Department of Public Health. And that's what we were following. When you say 2%, Jackie, could you just elaborate please? I'm sorry, under 2%. Sorry, the infection rate in Massachusetts. Thank you. I wanted to make sure we were in here. Okay, before we ask for any follow-up questions, we'll go now to MGM's screen field. And is this our first opportunity to meet Mr. Kim? Is he today's spokesperson or is there someone else, Loretta? No, good morning. Thank you very much for having me. As you all know, I recently become the Vice President of the Hill Council for MGM's Springfield. Congratulations. Thank you very much. I have big shoes to fill with Seth's departure, but I will do my best. We've obviously MGM's Springfield, we will defer obviously to whatever guidance the MGM would impose or recommend the casinos. We are mindful of course of our business, the safety of our patrons, of our employees, of the MGM employees as well. And we've made an internal decision to have our employees mask as of Friday. So regardless of what decisions are made regarding patrons, our employees most often on Friday. Our vaccine rate is among our employees is about 50% or so. We're hoping that we can bring that up a little bit going forward. But in the meantime, we would prefer to follow the Massachusetts governor's guidance. As you know, we've recently brought, we're in the process of bringing back our employees. And we think that going back to full masking and imposing any other kinds of strict requirements would hinder to fully open the casino. So again, defer to the DC as to the final say, but our preference would be that with our employees masking that we follow Massachusetts guidance as opposed to CDC guidance. Thank you and thank you for making today's appearance on such short notice. Mr. Kim, nice to meet you and we'll have the opportunity to greet you more properly next time. And then for now that Norfolk is implicated, Loretta, I think I saw that there's North. There he is. Good morning, North. Good morning. Yeah, so Madam Chair, I would say at the outset of my comments that the safety and wellbeing of our customers is a priority for us. And we remain committed to working collaboratively with the MGC to mitigate the spread as we have from the beginning. And I think that our efforts and what we've done has been an example of our commitment to that. We have made efforts here on property to vaccinate our team members offering on-site clinics, offering incentives both to guests on the property who provide evidence of vaccination and to our team members providing incentives for both of them in monetary formats. The only thing that I think that I wanted to kind of close with as you consider this matter is that from an operational standpoint, there are really three things that I think are important to consider. And first is that any order that we would be subject to would be based on objective criteria. I think as operators, that certainly gives us an opportunity to understand what the rules of the road here are and that there's a clear objective standard for when any of those restrictions if they're placed on would roll off so that we all kind of know what the rules of the road are. And lastly, that we not be subject to more strict requirements than any other business operating in the similar position. I understand that this board does not or the commission does not control other businesses or how they operate. But I think that ultimately the enforcement of any mandate like this or regulation does fall to our team members to the floor and unfortunately, that sometimes results in arguments with guests who are unclear about what the guidance are or feel like they're being imposed a different standard when they come into a casino versus when they go to another business with a common ball. Those are things that I put forward just for you to consider as you guys consider your deliberations. I mean, obviously, as all the other licensees I echo their comments of we will certainly abide by any regulation that the commission imposes. Thank you. Thank you. So with that, we've got some good background to work with for our discussion. Commissioners, I'm not sure who would like to go first. Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of follow-up questions. I know MGM gave their stats in terms of percentage backs to employees and then they are mandated that they be massed as of Friday. I'm wondering if you have the information on percentage stats for Uncorn PPC, Jackie North, if you could provide those and what are you doing in terms of are you gonna mandate while the county's in that zone masking for your employees? So we're at just over 70% about team members have been vaccinated. We're continuing to promote vaccinations. We're offering gift cards for employees who are fully vaccinated. And when I say 70% vaccinated, that's fully vaccinated. So we do have additional employees who have started the process, but are not completely through the waiting period. We do not currently have any intention of mandating masks for our employees. I think for a lot of our employees that were very pleased to be able to take off the masks and to the extent that they're customer facing and feel that they would like to wear a mask, they're of course able to do that. Commissioner Oberyn, I wanna be responsive to your question. I believe that the first question was around the percentage of team members that are vaccinated. I'll tell you here at Plain Ridge that we have an opt-in program. So team members were asking them to share their vaccination status with us in terms of the team members who've currently confirmed to us that they have been fully vaccinated. We're probably in the 60 to 65% range. We did a brief count of that yesterday. What can swing that number one way or the other is just the percentage of team members who are actually working at any one time from the perspective of people who resign or new people who are onboarded, et cetera. So that number is directionally correct. It may not be exactly precise, but I believe that that's close. And I'm sorry, I don't recall this the second part of your question if you could please remind me. Whether you were mandating or intending to mandate masking for employees while your county was in a substantial by the CDC. So we are asking team members again who have not been fully vaccinated to wear mask and to follow that guidance when they're here. We are not mandating that, but we have asked and we are now going back through the process of contacting team members who have not provided us with evidence of vaccination to confirm that that is still exactly the case. And that there could be some team members who just haven't remembered that they vaccinated or didn't remember to tell us rather and provide us with that card. We have also extended for team members the incentive in order to be vaccinated. We had previously anticipated a close of that program. Here at the end of July, we extended that to the end of September. So we're going through the process now of making sure that our records are accurate with team members with those who have not provided evidence of vaccination to ensure that that is still the case and we are continuing to incentivize and are looking to bring back a vaccination clinic. We've already had two of the property for team members, their family members and members of the community and we'll be exploring that option again. And Commissioner O'Brien, if I could just add with respect to the team members who have not provided us with evidence of vaccination, we are requiring that they weigh masks while on property. Okay. And then could you, is there any signage in any of the three properties in terms of the governor and the DPH's guidance in terms of mask wearing? I know that there's, obviously we're here because there's a disconnect between CDC right now and DPH but what if any signage is there regarding mask recommendations as far as the mask rules? So we have updated the signage to reflect DPH's last advisory for both vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. And Commissioner O'Brien, if you can give me a moment, I'll confirm that that's also the case for PPC but I believe it is. We've had a couple of different conversations regarding side inch recently. I wanna make sure that I give you an accurate answer. So if you can give me maybe just a few examples. If we can loop back, I'll give you that answer. Certainly. And Mr. Kim. Mr. Kim, I don't know if you had that information in front of you. My colleague, Dan Miller is advising me that we do have signage ready to go and ready to roll out the signage. Okay, consistent with the mask DPH guidance I take it? Yes. Okay, all right. Thank you. Just to follow up on that, can I clarify that the messaging still includes for any unvaccinated guests that they should be wearing masks? That's correct. And Commissioner O'Brien to, I'm sorry, Madam Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, we do have signage ready and printed to go ready to go reflecting the DPH guidance here in Massachusetts. We've kind of been looking over that and making sure that we are adjusting based on the current guidance. And it's obviously been very fluid, but yes, we are, we could quickly deploy that signage. Thank you. Excellent, thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, are you all set for right now? I am, thank you. Okay, Commissioner Cameron. Yes, thank you. I guess what I'm hearing, I just wanna make sure I'm hearing it accurately is that in accordance with guidance, Encore is requiring masks for those unvaccinated employees and advising guests that if they are unvaccinated, they should wear masks. And it sounds like both PPC and MGM are requesting that their unvaccinated employees wear masks, but not mandating. Am I understanding that properly? Mr. Kim. Madam, no, that's not correct. And just Springfield will require all of our employees whether vaccinated or unvaccinated to wear masks. I'm sorry that you did say that, that's correct. All, everyone will be required to wear a mask. So it's PPC that has requested but not mandated and it's about a 60% rate, is that correct? That's correct, Commissioner Cameron. Is there a reason that you're not, which is the guidance right to mask if you're not vaccinated? Is there a reason why you're not mandated? So that's been an advice of our corporate council that for a variety of different reasons that are highly technical and have to do with employment law that we've made that call. Obviously different corporate councils interpret things differently, as evidence based here on the call. The one thing I say is that in every instance, we've been following the regulations provided by different regulatory bodies throughout the jurisdictions where we operate. And we would continue to do so should any regulation come forth from the commission today. Okay. And Commissioner Cameron, just to clarify, you were only asking about employees and not guests. Correct, I believe their signage, which we'll follow shortly. And the advice is we'd like you to wear masks if you're unvaccinated, but there's not a way. And that would be very difficult to mandate, right? With employees, not so much. So that was my distinction in asking that question. So thank you. Okay. Any other question for right now, Commissioner Cameron? No, not right now. Thank you. Commissioner Zinica. Yeah, no, I don't have questions. I could tell you my initial thoughts, which Commissioner Cameron was honing in on, if you will. And that is what I imagined prior to this meeting, perhaps what is emerging as a middle ground. I thought it was a little bit of, all or nothing relative to requiring masks, but doing so for employees perhaps is something that could go a long way towards reconciling these two different recommendations. I'm generally in favor of what Loreta and Karen say relative to following the governor's guidance because that by definition takes into account more nuanced conditions, relative local conditions. And I fully appreciate North's point relative to the operational logistics that come from enforcing something that just across the street perhaps in a different establishment is perhaps different and that could present a challenge. So that's my initial thought. I think, given the two different guidelines, I tend to favor the governor's approach for all those reasons, which by the way could change anytime as this situation has been fluid from the beginning and we may end up in a different situation depending on where they emerge based on continuing data. Thank you. So my observations right now are that, first off, I have to thank Loreta for really laying out the landscape for us and also helping me to digest the analysis. I asked her for her thoughts. She's been guiding us all along with her team and with the input of our working team. You know, the challenges over the last 16, maybe it's approaching 18 months now, right? On how to navigate what we have deemed to be our paramount concern, which is the public health of our employees, our employees who are at the casinos, more limited in number of course, and then the casino employees and then of course the public and the patrons who are visiting. And that includes the amenities. So just a great job and a really important analysis that assisted me and Karen, your thoughts also assisted me. You know, the things that I've picked up is that first off, it's guidance from both. I thought a lot about just sort of governance and government, how things get resolved in terms of across the states, where we really do have varying risks, varying rates of vaccination and varying rates of infection. And I thought back about, you know, our public health typically is decided on a local basis. That's why we even have our local boards of health that receive the information about infection rates. And then it goes up from there to give general guidance to or give specific guidance to the general public health policy that the state issues. And I put some good weight on that. I also know that just as Karen and Marietta pointed out, it's just shifting every day. And the good news is that the governor and his team has said, we're watching this minute by minute. And I think it was Commissioner Cameron who so aptly put it last, but our last public meeting is that, you know, Governor Baker and DPH have served us well. And so I'm keeping that in mind that as the public health experts, you know, we're in a really good place in Massachusetts. I'm banking on that continued expertise coming to us for guidance. And so I did give some weight to the idea of confusion in terms of if it's every local and region and county for us in Massachusetts, that might be harder than maybe a big Midwest state where the infection rate is really highest in a limited metro nucleus, but not in the big open areas or more rural or farming areas. You know, farming areas. So I've given that sort of that issue around confusion. And I'm hearing that a little bit from our licensees. What I really think is for me as a big takeaway is that I think it was Jackie who noted it is that everyone needs to be mindful about their personal risk. I think an unvaccinated person, whether they're an employee or a patron must wear their mask at this time. Is that a mandate from us? I don't think so. I think that it's consistent with how it's framed by our public health experts. The personal risk is, you know, who we are as employees of the casino or employees of MGC or patrons visiting, you have to really assess your own personal risk and the governor's guidance gives that where the CDC guidance may not and somebody might be inclined not to wear a mask or to put the mask down, but they may not understand that you do want to make that personal assessment and then also think about who you're going home to. And home may be in a low risk area as I think the governor's guidance pointed out or his remarks Karen that you said. So because we're so fluid and because I think we've defaulted to the state, I'm inclined to default to the state guidance at this time. And then just as Loretta has been doing with her whole team so remarkably well, monitor it on a, you know, it's almost like a minute. I feel like we're back in March of 2020 minute by minute basis. So those were my thoughts really local control and the fact that we've relied historically on that and then that assessment of the personalized attention where I think I'm falling, you know, inclined to go with a guidance from the state. But I think maybe we could, if there are specific questions or comments I want to be on, maybe we do a straw vote of some sort. Before you do that, I want to remind that the condition applies to the racing and simulcasting licenses as well. I know Dr. Lightbound has been in touch with them. And I think I see some of them. Oh, and my apologies, we should have asked for that. I didn't recognize, I see now Steve's name, maybe that would have been a trigger and he must have been on my other screen. Should we start with Steve for his input? Sure, I see Mr. O'Toole, at least his name and... Mr. O'Toole, I don't know if you want to put your video on, but we welcome it if you're comfortable. There you are, good to see you Steve. My apologies, that was a real miss on my part. Oh, no apology necessary. I think North pretty much gave what my comments would be as well as the other licensees. Obviously, as Commissioner Zaniga pointed out, dealing with the public can be tough sometimes and mixed messages always are problematic when we're dealing with the public. But everything that North covered in his comments, I echo and appreciate your consideration. Thank you, thank you. Do we have anyone from Rainham or Suffolk? I did see Mr. O'Toole from Suffolk and Dr. Leif, I'm gonna be able to advise who from Rainham may be on the call. Thank you, Chip, I'm not seeing you, Mr. O'Toole. My apologies, this is where I'm navigating a virtual, if we were in person, I would have seen you Chip, so good morning. No worries, Madam Chair. I really don't have much, if anything, to add to the discussion, other than we do appreciate that it's a fluid situation and we appreciate the commission's thoughtful deliberation and guidance on this. We're standing by and we'll implement whatever recommendations that the commission may have for us, but for now we're following the governor's guidance. Thank you, okay. And then from Rainham, Dr. Leibbrandt? I don't see any. Yeah, Mrs. Rodriguez is on by phone, I'm not sure, let's say she's on 508-823-4071. You can see it. Good morning. Good morning, this is Sue Rodriguez from Rainham Park. Hi, Sue. Can you hear me? Yes, good morning. Good morning, I won't extend any further comments other than Loretta's comments were very thorough and I agree with all of the other licensees, the commissioner and the chair. This is such an ever-changing situation and we're just going to have to keep our ears tuned minute by minute. Thank you. Any questions for either Mr. O'Toole? I do, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you, Gail. Good morning. Thank you. For all of the racing licensees, do you track your employees if they are vaccinated and are you mandating masks if they are not vaccinated? Commissioner Cameron, thank you. We are. Oh, do you think that we lost Chip? Was that? Is he muted? We've lost the audio for sure. Yeah. Okay. Mr. O'Toole, we can't hear you. Why don't we go on for the, did you want to hear from everyone? Commissioner Cameron? Yes, thank you. Sue, did you hear Commissioner Cameron's question? Hi, yes, I. You're not mandating. Chip, I don't know if you can hear me. I don't think he can. Well, this is just the challenge that we have occasionally. Sue, I'm going to have you go ahead and have Chip cut you off. It's not being rude. It's just a text. Okay. Alex, Alex, could you text Chip and let him know we're having trouble hearing him? Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. So we at Rainham Park, we are very fortunate that we are at about a 95% vaccination rate with our employees. Although we haven't mandated employees to turn in their vaccination card, we've asked that if they would like to, they could. And we definitely have a close relationship with our employees. So I personally know of only one employee that I can think of that is not vaccinated. And we do recommend that they wear a mask. So that hasn't been an issue. I will personally be speaking to all of the employees as I have already with some, some have expressed wishing to wear a mask even though they're vaccinated. And I encourage it. Certainly I'll wear one myself to make them feel better. But at this time, we have a extremely high vaccination rate and the individual or individuals that are not vaccinated, I will be having a conversation with them today. Okay. And Mr. Tuttle, I see you came back. Yes. Yes, we can hear you right now. You might want to start all over. Thank you, Sue. Yeah, answering commissioner Cameron's question and thank you commissioner Cameron. We are tracking, we are, we are mandating that employees who are not vaccinated wear masks and we are encouraging patrons who are not vaccinated to wear masks. So yeah, we are, we're tracking on a voluntary basis of the employees. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tuttle. And then Mr. Tuttle and then commissioner Cameron, you can do follow-ups commissioner Mr. Tuttle. Obviously I'm letting North do all my heavy lifting today. So our employees fall into the same umbrella as what goes on in the casino. So our employees are, we are tracking them and, but it's not mandatory at this point, just as North pointed out earlier. Commissioner Cameron. Yeah. So what I'm hearing overall is that the outlier really is pan-national. Everyone else is either, they are, everyone's tracking for employees I'm talking about and everyone is mandating masks. Or as Ms. Rodriguez said, there's one individual and they are complying with the mask request. So it is just PPC who is not requiring their employees to mask who are not vaccinated. So I just, I guess I would be more comfortable and I am very comfortable going with the state's advice, but that advice was made because over 70% of our people are vaccinated. That's one of the reasons, one of the factors. And when I hear that it's below that at PPC, I'm just a bit concerned that once we have this information, I guess I know I would be more comfortable. And I do want, I do understand that it's very difficult when you can go someplace up the road and a different requirement happens. And I think, but I guess I'm just a little uncomfortable with PPC not requiring their employees to mask because I do think it is a, it sends a message to the patrons and to the other employees who have really do are vaccinated and are very safety conscious. So that's my one concern with just moving forward with this information we have. Okay, Commissioner Seneca. Just so that I'm clear and maybe North, you can clarify this. So you have the voluntary basis for people to tell you whether they're vaccinated or not. And that is consistent with what others do, but you're not requiring masks of those who are not vaccinated or having told you just to be clear. That is correct. Okay, so I agree with Commissioner Cameron, perhaps that's something that can be addressed individually or rather by this licensee. So with respect to the guidance that, with respect to the condition that this meeting is addressing, should we take a straw vote as to, right now our licensees have to follow both guidance, guidelines. Again, it's not a mandate. Before we do that, Madam Chair, would you mind if I gave my thoughts in terms of- Oh, I'm sorry, I should have circled back. Yes, of course. I do want to reiterate my agreement with Commissioner Cameron and then Zunia about the outlier in terms of not mandating that vaccinated have a preference on the mask. I think it would be in compliance with the guidelines and then better practice to have them be consistent with the other licensees as well. In terms of the disconnect between DPH and CDC right now, I think there are complexities too that we all understand that haven't talked about in terms of enforcement, in terms of mandating masks beyond employees and to clientele the casinos. That I think adds a layer to this that I think we all understand, but I don't think we've actually talked about. There are other amenities mixed in. We've been following state guidelines on restaurants and bars, et cetera. I do think that there is a way to strike a balance in terms of being cautious, but mindful that Massachusetts may be in a slightly different place for the most part, but recognizing CDC's analysis that would require the licensees to have all of their employees masked. If the CDC has put their county in a substantial or high risk category and that their signage be consistent with the DPH guidance in general on masking and that there may even be signage that explains that the employees are masking because of extra caution in the CDC guidance that would allow for absolutely signage that's already up in some places and ready to go in the others in terms of DPH guidance. It would provide, I think, protection's not only to the employees but to the customers in the casinos in terms of masking at this point, given the CDC's classifications of those counties and then also another teaching opportunity in terms of why that's happening. It would then allow them in terms of North request in terms of objective criteria as well to have them know when it would be appropriate or not to go back to sort of an optional mask for vaxxed employees. If the CDC drops the county out of those categories, that's where I am falling in terms of this. Just so I'm clear, so you're saying that the mask requirement would be based on the CDC locale. So if tomorrow Norfolk is out, they can drop their masks. If they're in the next day, they wear the masks. In terms of vaccinated individuals, I think that everyone has expressed concern that people who are not vaccinated that the mandate should be that employees mask up and obviously the index. And to be clear that the guidance is not a mandate correct. And we haven't mandated it up to this point. But the CDC doesn't mandate it, right? No, but I'm saying we've talked about how to the licensees are making those internal protocol discussions in terms of their employees. That's why it would be, I think it would be recommended for all of them to take that position. And just to reiterate and Commissioner O'Brien, that would be of employees only. Correct, correct. That requirement. I am a commissioner Cameron, I guess I'm going to say that right now again, I feel as though we have not deviated from state guidance. I do think the option of wearing, that I think it was well stated by Jackie, any employee who is vaccinated may wear masks, patrons, 50% of patrons are wearing their masks. What I'm concerned about is now adding a condition that is outside the guidance of either CDC or the state and adding our own new public health guidance to our three licensees. I would hesitate to start going down that road. It may sound good, but again, I'm not in charge of the operations of the employees and what that would mean for our licensees. We can revisit it. Some are opting for that. MGM, it sounds as though they're opting for that. I think I heard clearly from Jackie that that's not right now and what they are operating under the state guidance. If I understood commissioner O'Brien, what we're talking about is unvaccinated people. We're not talking about mandating that all employees have to wear a mask. I think what we're talking about is those that we know that they're tracking and we know that the great majority of our licensees are requiring masks for those who are unvaccinated, which is the advice, right? So and what I'm hearing is that at least one of our licensees has not required vaccination status. I don't, I think many employers have not required unvaccinated status at this time. So I'm just wondering that I'm not hearing and that's also any part of the public health guidance. But I think what I heard from North is that they are tracking. They are encouraging people to tell them if they're vaccinated, so they are tracking, but the one piece they are not doing is not mandating those unvaccinated folks to wear the mask. So you are asking for affirmative proof of vaccination. Yes, Nor, thank you. So Madam Chair and commissioner, I apologize for the interruption. You know, certainly this has been a topic that we've been discussing internally. And, you know, look, if it is the advice of the commission that we ask team members who are not vaccinated or we rather require them to wear a mask in order to be in the other licensees in the state. And if that is the commission's desire, then we're happy to abide that guidance. So maybe I misunderstood and thank you commissioner Cameron for the correction. So you have affirmatively asked for a determination of vaccination status of your employees. Are you asking for a Plain Ridge Park? Yes, Nor, I think. We have asked that we have encouraged them to provide vaccination status. We have not required them to do so. Thank you. So if it is the commission's direction that they would like us at this point to require proof of vaccination in order to go unmasked at the property in order to harmonize our standards with the other licensees, then we would be willing to do so. And Kathy and commissioners and the licensees can correct me if I'm mistaken, but it's my understanding that at MGM and Encore, the vaccination status is also apparent on some badging so that the licensee can enforce the masking requirement on the unvaccinated employee population. And so the idea would be that employees who are unvaccinated wear a mask and of course vaccinated employees could opt to wear a mask. Correct. Do we require that of our employees, Karen? So I just checked my notification. So currently staff at the MGC who are fully vaccinated will no longer require to wear a mask or face covering the workplace, but employees who are not fully vaccinated must continue to wear a mask or face covering at all times, except when they're in a private office alone. But we don't require, the MGC is not requiring proof of the vaccination status in order to forego the use of the mask or a face covering. So it is the requirement, but we're not collecting the evidence of vaccination currently. So we can certainly revisit that policy that's something that's constantly being evaluated by the working group and in flux and looking at best practices for that. So I understand where Commissioner O'Brien's coming from. I think I have used the analogy that I'd love to wrap everybody up in Saran Wrap and keep everybody safe, because I think we are all always have a lot of consternation about the responsibility that we have regulating these licensees. My instinct is to not deviate from and add a new condition here to continue to do as we have done. And if we were to hear today from DPH that either all should be masking up or employees who are somehow serving, the unmask should be wearing a mask. Then I would like to be able to have a vote that doesn't require us to come in all the time on this fluid matter and give the guidance that the licensees can employ. And so my, I'm hearing perhaps the other three commissioners think otherwise, but my instinct is to avoid confusion and have the public health experts continue to be those who are guiding us and I would lean toward keeping it straightforward and say that certainly CDC guidance can be taken into consideration by our licensees, but that they must follow state public health guidance. But I welcome if there's a, we can do a straw vote. We could do a vote now, but I think I've stated they, my position, I don't think I'm probably likely to start imposing on the licensees a new condition that's outside of the guidance from the state. Commissioner Zinica, would you like to take a motion? I appreciate that perspective. That's very much where I started before this meeting. However, I guess, and this is a question perhaps for the team or Loretta, I guess where we get, what we're trying to reconcile is that it appears to me that none of the guidelines, CDC or governors, take into account the possibility or the fact that employers like the licensees do end up acquiring data of who is vaccinated and who is not. Therefore, it makes it a little easier to enforce if you will, the mask mandate for unvaccinated people. Is it a first statement that those recommendations, those guidance does not assume that employers are gonna collect data of vaccination on their own employees? You stated that perfectly accurately. It's not required proof of vaccination to be provided on core and MGM have implemented policies on their own requiring proof of vaccination. And it sounds like North is suggesting that he's also as well. Yeah, I think, and I understand very much, Chair, that deviating from one or another might have us in another emergency meeting next week or whenever, but I think that reconciling and the point about trying to either require a mask, if you don't wanna provide any proof of vaccination, then you must wear a mask. And if you provide it, then you're off the hook. This is a reasonable requirement, in my opinion, as an employer of the licensees on their own employees. That would be very difficult and an entirely different matter on the public, but I know that's not what we're talking about. And that's perhaps what has been the difficulty on all these guidelines. Yeah, I agree. And I very much appreciate North's comments that they are willing to be in line with what the other licensees are doing because hearing this information, as you can see, gives us concern. So I very much appreciate that. And just to be clear, Angkor, are you, can you just explain again, do you require them to show the vaccination status? I wanna make sure I'm right. We do require them to show their vaccination cards. They have to go to our HR window, why they card, then they get their good cards. Okay. And then for Mr. Kim, MGM is choosing to have their employees regardless of vaccination status, where they're masks. And now, right now, at least the Penn National has not required vaccination status. And do you have other regulated bodies where they employees do have to show their vaccination status in other states, North? Madam Chair, I'm not positive on the answer to that. I will tell you that I know that we operate in jurisdictions where mask mandates have come back recently. Obviously we are abiding those mandates in those jurisdictions where we operate. So it is really a jurisdiction by jurisdiction. And that includes patrons too, or just employees. In other, in both cases, right? We're gonna follow what the local guidance is. I know in Nevada, the county has imposed on employees, if I understand correctly, for casinos, correct? Yes, yes, Madam Chair, that is correct. Yeah. Okay. So in order to give guidance to our employees on what we've recognized as a difference in between the guidance and to be as helpful, can we have perhaps some guidance from Todd as to a motion that will be most stable for motion language, I should say, most stable for our licensees, taking into consideration what appears to be a consensus on employee status. I think there are, if I understood the conversation correctly, there are two pieces to this. The first is, I believe you are interested in amending the existing order that requires compliance with both the Massachusetts guidelines and the CDC guidelines. And I believe the consensus was to amend that requirement by removing compliance with the CDC guidelines and just leave in place compliance with the Massachusetts guidelines, if I have that correctly. I was actually thinking we were just giving them clarification on this disconnect. I was not actually inclined to strike the CDC reference myself. Okay. So then I think we need to take a consensus, take a straw vote on where we are. You know, I think where Todd was going might also be a workable consensus outcome that might address both. If you get to the second part, it is perhaps adding a condition relative to employees that are vaccinated and relative to the data that they collect, which could then, you know, could stay forever, regardless of, you know, well, hopefully not forever, regardless of that. No kidding, right? It's not forever. Strike the forever of the record, please. Yeah, exactly. So, but just to clarify, maybe I jumped the gun. Eileen, I think we've had a condition that was kind of put in to our last decision that we, what was maybe not predicted that maybe sometimes federal agency guidance may not always be aligned with state guidance and perhaps even state mandate. So are you saying that you would like to continue to have some kind of a nexus or what I thought I heard at least from Commissioner Cameron and I thought I heard from Commissioner Zundogan and I think I've been clear that I would default to state. Are you not, could we segregate that for to begin with? That I thought we were doing a very fact specific analysis because I don't know what's coming in the future in terms of a disconnect between CDC and DPH that based on the facts on the ground in Massachusetts now, I'm comfortable instructing the licensees consistent with the order that the DPH mandate is applicable in this circumstance. I don't necessarily feel comfortable at this stage saying that CDC guidance should be stripped from the requirements just flat out. So that's where I'm standing in terms of, may it mean that we have to come back and have this type of conversation again potentially? Yeah, that's because we don't know what's going on with this virus. And so I feel more comfortable leaving the order as is and simply giving guidance when and if necessary. And because there's a disconnect it's necessary now and I thought that what we would do with this meeting is provide the necessary guidance. And I think there's consensus that DPH guidance is acceptable to this commission at this time based on the facts on the ground. That's where I'm standing. Perhaps then in lieu of stripping out the part of the existing orders that references the CDC we just add in a clarification which pertains solely to, as I understand it the masking requirements for employees of the gaming establishments. I'm not comfortable with that. Can I jump in on that for a moment? Because MGM and Encore have adopted their, their proof of vaccination programs as matters of their own policy, right? That those have not been mandated by the commission. That's right. It's my reading of North's comments that he is offering to do the same without a mandate from the commission. So I just wanted to make sure that that is clear. I would welcome that. Thank you Loretta, it's really helpful clarification rather than a gaming commission somehow mandating based on a public health metric uncomfortable. It is asking North as an employer to go against their advice under legal but of course the legal analysis would be whether the regulator mandated it and maybe that's where we're going with the Eileen. However, I would be more comfortable with North coming back to us and saying, we can't do it without a mandate. But I'm also concerned about this condition of both. I think that as I outlined earlier in what commissioner Cameron some eloquently said last, you know, our last meeting, we've been, we have adhered to the state metrics, the public health metrics. We have been really not going to look fortunate when the rest of the country really had to stay closed. We opened earlier because of our public health metrics dictated by our state officials. I would prefer, and I think it's probably better governance if we give something that is, you know, that says it's based on what we've been doing and adhere to state and then say, of course, just like we today couldn't so nimbly reconvene if something came up that we would come in and say, you know, we're really in a difficult place. And the working group did on a dime meet the other night from eight to well into the late into the evening to discuss this. I think I heard from Loretta and Karen that that would be their recommendation. I want to go back to that to make sure I heard it correctly, but for guidance that's stable and that allows some degree of certainty for our licensees, that would be my recommendation and not add in the guidance because it almost becomes impossible to implement. Commissioner. I think the difference is we did hear that, but then we also heard from the licensees and we heard exactly what each of them were doing. And they were different and it gave me pause because of the lower vaccination rate among the employees. And now we have an offer to go ahead and align those from the licensees. And I think that's on the employee matter. So I'm in agreement. I think I hear that the three licensees are going to operate. And if you decide that that's a mandate, that's fine, Commissioner Cameron. I guess I'm wondering about the very first part of our analysis, the whether we segregate state and CDC guidance as a default. Right now, the way that condition is structured is it says that they have to comply with state advisory or course state mandate advisories as well as in the words are as well as CDC guidance. So I'm wondering how do you feel about that? And then on the mandate, I agree with you. I'm hearing that as well, Commissioner. Yeah, I mean, I am going to, I'll be honest as I usually do, however we can craft this that meets what our concerns are and what the licensees have offered to do, I think I'm going to be fine with. So how we get there, I think we need to just figure that piece out. Right, because just to be clear, the employee asking the employees to show their vaccination status and mask up, that's not necessarily consistent with CDC guidance, right? I understand that, but it is something that gave me pause because it's in between. Well, and it is, I think our guidance from the governor's office was based on a number which I'm now hearing from PPC is not, they don't have a number that high. And so I think the steps that the other casinos are taking to keep Massachusetts residents safe was important to me in this discussion. And as we say, North has graciously come back and said they are willing to do that. So that's where we are. I think there's a clear consensus about the preference for the governor's guideline. And I agree with perhaps the approach that Commissioner O'Brien was stipulating that we may not need to just completely erase the CDC guideline and in this case offer this clarification by virtue of this discussion. And if we need to, at a future time, we might have to do it again. I guess in my mind that also achieves the outcome that we all seem to be coalescing well. What do you move to do then? I actually think I might have a wording amendment that would address it. If you go to our order, number one is really what we're struggling with. And it currently reads, licensee shall conduct business in accordance with all COVID-19 related orders and advisories issued by the governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that remain in effect, as well as any applicable CDC guidelines. If that were to read as well as conduct business consistent with CDC guidelines, that is more advisory than the shall conduct in accordance with phrase. And that would mean that the governor's orders are the controlling factor. But if they're doing anything inconsistent with it, we have to come back, which is pretty much why we're here now. They're not in violation necessarily order, but it's cause for discussion by this commission to see if we would need to do anything. I'm struggling with that, Commissioner O'Brien, because I think if I understand the CDC guidance that's right now existing, that would require the three licensees to ask that all patients be wearing masks. They could have a signage that says the CDC would recommend at this time, and then they'd be consistent with it. I think that accomplishes the goal and reconciles the fact that there's two different guidelines. And then that would mean like for, OK, go ahead, Karen. I just have a question. Make sure I understand, because what I'm hearing is there seems to be an agreement that CDC guidance should apply to the employees that the employees are unvaccinated should be wearing masks. What I hear is that all three licensees either have done that or are willing to do that and assert that today. What I'm wondering, I'm just looking for solutions for managing this down the road. It may be that maybe the commission votes that should they want to change their policy, because it would be their policy that the commission get, say, 14 or X number of days notice. So if the commission wants to address that, they could come back. So it's still their policy. But we would have an opportunity if they want to change that to have some discussion on that. And then so that's one piece. And then what I hear, I don't want to make sure I understand, is that specifically, I lean you're not suggesting that the casinos be required to mandate masks for patrons. OK, so that's consistent with the governor's guidance. So it sounds like it's just sort of, and you're looking for some kind of acknowledgement of CDC guidelines, but still having the default be the governor's guidelines in Massachusetts. Am I understanding that correctly? If we're going to have it be the default, I want to understand if it's a default versus more restrictive or the default. Because for instance, if CDC changes its suggestion tonight to mandate mask wearing indoors for all vaccinated and unvaccinated people, then what I'm hearing, and I don't even know how I feel about this, except that it is all very confusing for folks who have to run big businesses. Are we saying that the federal agency guidance or mandate would then have to be complied with, even though it would be more restrictive than what we are thinking today? And that is where right now the language is troubling. And I don't know if I really heard the nuance enough to know. I think that Todd, you used the word preempt. And I think that's what we need to think about, is the default, the state guidance, or the default, the federal guidance. And maybe because the substance is hard for us, that's where it makes for a fluid conversation. I'm just trying to think how we give good guidance to our licensees. Is it based on state versus federal agency, or is it based on restrictive policy? I have a comment. And I know your question is relative to two different guidelines, but you mentioned the word mandate there. It's the word commanding. Somebody do correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the only one in a position to do mandates is the governor or the federal government. I'm not necessarily the CDC. That's right. It would come from somebody in a position of government power to implement that recommendation, but when it comes from the government. Thank you, Commissioner Zunay, for very helpful, because that's exactly what's troubling about our condition as written right now. Right now, federal agencies' guidance is we're taking that into consideration versus a state mandate or federal mandate. But I think that's where the language that Commissioner Ryan offered in terms of that, the redrafting that condition, I think, might accomplish. Could you say it again, Commissioner? If you, the ending phrase that says, as well as any applicable CDC guidelines, if it's said and consistent with CDC guidelines, then you still have a recommendation that in the light of the governors and the DPH's recommendation, they're not disregarding it, but they're complying with what's required in Massachusetts. And we're asking them, I assume, to put that signage up, if it's, I know it's up in one place already, but to put the DPH's recommendation guidance up. If they also put in a reference to, you know, CDC recommends everyone, you know, mask up at this time, they'd be complying with everything. But in terms of striking out the language, right now it's read to mandate compliance with both state and federal. So that phrase, if it becomes consistent with and makes it an advisory part of it, as opposed to a mandated part of it, then what we are saying is we are going with the DPH threshold minimum requirements, but we are not completely ignoring CDC. Well, first off, just to remind everyone, it's very clear DPH did take into consideration the federal agency's guidance. Todd, I'm having troubles really hearing a distinction in Commissioner O'Brien's motion. I don't see what the differences using consistent are as well as because I think right now, if we send them back with that, I hear you today, it works, Commissioner O'Brien, you know, and I think I even viewed like, let's just put up all the guidance. You know, everybody should be wearing a mask. If you're not vaccinated, you know, we suggest masks in light of this, but I think our problem right now is that that corrects today's situation. And I think we're trying to give a little bit of a longer range tool. And so if, in fact, if we could just go back to my example, if tonight the CDC says we, our guidance is that all must wear masks right now indoors. How am I going to get implemented? And the governor's guidance stays the same. So what happens then if you're thinking about? In that scenario, in that scenario, my guess, and this is again where I would like others to correct me if I'm wrong, is that the CDC could not enforce some mandate. They could, you know, because it would be up to the governor to take that recommendation and enforcement and enforce it and implement it at the state level. So how do our licensees, our regulated licensees view our guidance, our order, our condition? I think at that moment, what you have is they are complying with the governor's order and they would probably expect to hear that we're marking up a hearing to discuss the issue. And I don't see a way around it. I do. Without dropping CDC completely, which I'm not comfortable doing, but if the rest of the commission is, that's obviously. Loretta, can you help us out here because we're struggling in terms of a practical solution? Well, it seems Eileen that the direction you're going in is to, as a condition, to require that the licensees comply with all state-related orders. And so you're looking for some language for the motion and you suggested as well as conduct business consistent with CDC guidelines. I'm concerned that that looks like shall comply with CDC guidelines. So I'm trying to come up with another language and another language could be an in consideration of any of the CDC guidelines because it draws a distinction between a mandate, which is the shall conduct and it does not drop CDC entirely. I appreciate that one. And I think that's consistent with what I think we see the governor and DPH doing. They're starting to take into consideration. And I think that's their statement, right, Karen? I think that makes good sense. And helpful and not, I'm sure, not inconsistent with our licensees practices without going back and asking all of you, but I know that you're taking in every bit of information from all kinds of experts, including CDC. It's just what are they mandated, just to give some good, strong guidance on the front end. Go ahead, Karen. So what I hear you saying is that you keep the language requiring, following the governor's guidelines, but asking the licensees to recognize CDC guidance for their policies. In consideration, taking- So when they're doing their own things, just the request or the order is that take that into consideration when you're doing what you're doing with CNOS. So the CDC is still relevant, but the DPH and governor's guidelines control. Does that sound right? Right. Yeah, okay. That makes great sense. And thank you. It sometimes takes, it takes a team, it takes us if we were sitting around the table, we'd come up with the words, this is really helpful. Commissioner Cameron, what do you think about that? No, I think the language is good. And again, I get back to appreciating North's offer. And I think the other simulcast licensees made the same offer. Yeah, and I think though, Commissioner Cameron, just to be clear, do you need another piece or are we all set that they'll just make that offer? Do you want to vote? Commissioner Cameron, I want to make sure that we get both parts of our discussion today. Well, if all five licensees are willing to comply and we have consistency with their policies and then this new language covers all of that, then I am fine with that. Okay, commissioners. I think it sounds like a consensus. Excellent. All right, then I just want to make sure that we have the language in front of us, Todd. Yep. Do you want me to make a motion and then Todd, if I've misstated anything, feel free to correct me. Sure. Madam Chair, I move, what's the, I'm sorry, what is the date of the order? That I- The order was, I believe it's May 26th, 2000. May 26th, 21. Okay. Madam Chair, I move that the commission amend so much of its order from May 26th, 2021, relating to COVID restrictions for the licensees in section one that the phrase as well as any applicable CDC guidelines is stricken and in lieu we place in and in consideration of any applicable CDC guidelines. Second. Todd, does that work for you? I think that does work for everyone's benefit and maybe I'm the only one, but just to be clear, the commission would consider posting signage related to the CDC recommendation that everyone be masked in the high concentration areas to be in conformance with the CDC guidelines, right? Sure. That's satisfactory. Absolutely. With that clarification, I think the proposed language is the sound. Any further questions? Okay, let's do a vote. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. And I vote yes. Vivian, four zero and Vivian, thank you for taking the minutes on today's meeting. A good challenge and we know you'll do a great job. Thank you, everyone. Are there any further questions or further business for the commissioners? Anything that you would like to bring up while we're here to the license, to all five licensees, thank you so much. I'm sorry, commissioner Zuniga, were you gonna speak? I was just gonna say just that, just thank you to everybody, the licensees, Loretta Karen, thank you for all of this. Yes, and to the team, not everyone spoke from the team on this matter, but they did convene as part of that working group. So folks were thinking about this. Let's just hope that all the trends go in the right direction and our continued vigilance works, this is a longer haul than we expected. So and to my fellow commissioners, thank you and thank you for allowing me to ask many questions today so I could get some clarity, appreciate it. All right, I need a motion to adjourn and again to the licensees, thank you. Move to adjourn. Second. All right, commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Aye.